Concerning
Abjuration, Invincible
Ignorance, Children
&
the Use of Reason
+ + + + +
How
Repudiation
of the
Errors
of One’s Former Religion of
Falsehoods
Is Related to Invincible Ignorance &
the Age
of When a Child Begins to Reason Logically,
and Why the
Church Doesn’t Require Those Who
Are Under 14 to Abjure Heresy or Schism
COMPOSED
& EDITED JUNE 2009.
+ + + + +
“For
there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be made
manifest among you.” (1 Corinthians 11:19 DRC)
“See
that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their
angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. For the son
of man is come to save that which was lost. What think you? If a man have an
hundred sheep, and one of them should go astray: doth he not leave the
ninety-nine in the mountains, and go to seek that which is gone astray?”
(Matthew 18:10-12 DRC)
“He
that hideth his sins, shall not prosper: but he that
shall confess, and forsake them, shall obtain mercy. Blessed is the man that is
always fearful: but he that is hardened in mind, shall
fall into evil.” (Proverbs 28:13-14 DRC)
“And that servant who knew the will
of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall
be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did things worthy of
stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. And unto whomsoever much is given,
of him much shall be required: and to whom they have committed much, of him
they will demand the more.” (Luke 12:47-48 DRC)
“And
if all the multitude of Israel shall be ignorant, and through ignorance shall
do that which is against the commandment of the Lord, and afterwards shall
understand their sin, they shall offer for their sin a calf, and shall bring it
to the door of the tabernacle… If any one sin through ignorance, and do
one of those things which by the law of the Lord are forbidden, and being
guilty of sin, understand his iniquity, he shall offer of the flocks a ram
without blemish to the priest, according to the measure and estimation of the
sin: and the priest shall pray for him, because he did it ignorantly: and it
shall be forgiven him, because by mistake he trespassed against the
Lord.” (Leviticus 4:13-14, 5:17-19 DRC)
“If I
had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no
excuse for their sin… If I had not done among them the works that no
other man hath done, they would not have sin…” (John 15:22, 24a
DRC)
“And
they brought to him young children, that he might touch them. And the disciples
rebuked them that brought them. Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased,
and saith to them: ‘Suffer the little children to come unto me, and
forbid them not; for of such is the
“Brethren,
do not become children in sense: but in malice be children, and in sense be
perfect.” (1 Corinthians 14:20 DRC)
+ + + + +
Intended by the
Author of This Book
for the Greater
Glory of the Adorable Triune Catholic God,
for the Worship of
the Sacred Heart of King Jesus Christ of
for the Praise of
the Immaculate Heart of Queen Mary, the Blessed Ever-
Virgin Mother of
God,
unto the Protection
& Propagation of the Holy Roman Catholic Church &
Her Most
Precious Heavenly Dogmas,
and
under the Euphonious
Patronage of St. Cecilia, the Eloquent Patronage
of St. Catherine of
Ven. Mariana de
Jesus Torres, Virgins &
Martyrs.
“Domine, non est
exaltatum cor meum, neque elati
sunt oculi mei. Neque ambulavi
in magnis, neque in mirabilibus super me. Si non humiliter sentiebam, sed exaltavi animam
meam; sicut ablactatus est
super matre sua, ita retributio in anima mea. Speret
St. Francis Xavier, Patron of Catholic
Missioners, Ss. Catherine of Alexandria & Francis of Sales, Patrons of
Catholic Philosophers & Apologists, respectively, and St. Peter of Verona,
the Glorious Martyr, may you be pleased to guide this arrow to its target,
either unto eternal life or eternal death! “Now thanks be
to God, who always maketh us to triumph in Christ
Jesus, and manifesteth the odour of his knowledge by
us in every place. For we are the good odour of Christ unto
God, in them that are saved, and in them that perish. To the one indeed
the odour of death unto death: but to the others the odour of life unto
life.” (2 Corinthians 2:14-16b DRC)
St.
Francis of Assisi, Humble Seraph of the Incarnate God, and St. Dominic the
Preacher, Dogged Cherub of the Triune Deity, pray for your children that they may
not fail the test but suffer the malice of the wicked gladly and so gain the
Crown of Life!
+ + + + +
A NOTE TO THE
READER:
In the present entry on this website for people calling themselves
Catholic, in the First Things First section, I happened to mention that
baptized children (who are certainly members of the Catholic Church due to their
baptism when under the ‘age of reason’, which is around 7 years old
and when most persons begin to be able to distinguish between right & wrong
and truth & falsehood) raised in false religion do not have to abjure
(denounce) the heresy in which they have been raised until the age of 14 in
order to enter the Church of Rome. This is because, said I, they do not have
the “full use of reason” prior to 14 and have not had enough time
to adequately discover the errors of their heresy or the Saving Truth of the Catholic
Faith. Thus, how can they abjure what they do not wholly understand that they
profess in opposition to God’s One & Only Religion of Catholicism?
A gentleman who visited The Epistemologic Works read this and
thought I might have a good point. He emailed a cohort of his, which cohort replied
with a rebuttal --- carbon copied to me --- criticizing my position as
not-quite-a-heresy yet close to it. This then caused me to review things very carefully.
Whereupon I concluded that the position is not only not heresy but, in
actuality, the best explanation there is
for how baptized children are connected to the One True Church and where,
roughly, they lose this connection as a result of failing to recognize the
truth necessary to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Confused about so-called ‘invincible ignorance’, my
dear reader? Wonder what role, if any, it plays in the salvation of a soul? Rather
hazy on the age of discretion (i.e., ‘reason’) vs. the age of
abjuration (repudiation of one’s heresy)?
Then this article is for you.
Everything below is exactly as I sent it to the recipients
originally, with the exception of a few typos corrected and a couple of sentences
expanded slightly to better communicate what I was trying get across. Otherwise,
only a date of transmission and chapter headings
have been added. May anything that is true or praiseworthy in this work
be attributed to the efforts of the Holy Triune God through the Immaculate Hands
of the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary. And may anything
which is false or blameworthy be laid firmly in accusation at my own wayward
feet.
+ + + 1. The Use of Reason + + +
1 August 2009
My Dear Souls,
Thank you to Mr. X for his remarks regarding the abjuration of
children. This is Paul Doughton, the webmaster of The
Epistemologic Works, writing to each of you who perused those remarks. I have
attached his email in case you no longer have it and have forgotten it. Please
be so kind as to review the following logic & observations in response,
which, while necessarily addressed toward Mr. X, I intend for everyone to
examine:
First, disciplinary law in the Church certainly can be unwise.
Therefore, not requiring converts under fourteen years
of age to publicly abjure may be foolish. However, I have not found anything
yet in the writings of the early Church Fathers --- and this amounts to
thousands of pages so far --- that states that they, or the leaders of the
Church during the first few centuries after Christ, required a convert below
the age of fourteen to publicly abjure. Hence, the disciplinary law of recent
times may, after all, go back in practice to the ancient Church. If you know of
something in their writings contrary to the present discipline for the
conversion of children, then please tell me, carefully identifying the exact
writer, composition & location within that writer’s text which you
cite.
Which leads to the second point. For as you as
much as acknowledged by inference, the Catholic Church has not yet seen fit to
infallibly define either the precise age at which the use of reason is to be
presumed operational for the man of at least adequate ability, or the precise
age at which a child convert is to be required to publicly abjure prior to
entrance into Christ’s Catholic Body. Ergo, neither the presumption of
age seven as the age of the use of reason is ironclad, nor is the assumption
surely correct of age fourteen as the age when public abjuration is required. They
are not, because no one except the Church speaking solemnly through Her popes
is guaranteed infallibility, and because --- as far as I am aware --- the early
Church fathers have not stated unanimously that age seven is to be considered,
with certainty, as the age of reason for the man of at least adequate ability,
and they have not stated unanimously that age fourteen is when, with certainty,
a young heretic should publicly abjure prior to entrance within the Catholic
Church. Therefore, either one, or both, of these positions could be mistaken.
But if you know of evidence that the Church fathers unanimously (or, leastwise,
nearly unanimously) taught these positions, then
please inform me, carefully identifying your sources.
Leading to the third point. For, whilst I
have prefaced this letter with the above paragraphs, I do, in fact, actually
accept the position --- common amongst Roman Catholics for at least the last
millennium --- that the use of reason is the age of seven. However, my words
have confused the issue since, in employing the phrase “the full use of
reason”, I have conflated three different issues
under the appearance of a single topic. This is partly because I was very busy
and did not take the time to sufficiently explain what I was saying in The Epistemologic
Works article in the First Things First section, aimed at those who consider
themselves Catholic, when it comes to the abjuration of children; and partly
because I had not yet taken the time to think everything through in regards to
the abjuration of children before writing the article last year. I have long
planned to replace it with a small book entitled Visible that is only
half finished at the present moment. Meanwhile, I felt it necessary to have
something in place that would acquaint readers with what they need to know in
order to be truly Catholic, as well as to understand the present crisis and the
things that divide those who claim to be real Roman Catholics. It was this
necessity, along with my lack of time, which leads to our exchange.
Nevertheless, I am at fault for the deficient words in my article and I beg
your pardon.
Which then segues to the entirely sensible question --- so what are
these three conflated issues that I conveyed insufficiently by the phrase
“the full use of reason” and did not properly explain by the
surrounding text of my article? They are as follows:
One, the ability to reason is a gradually increasing faculty in
most human beings and not a suddenly attained asset in full at any particular point
in time.
Two, a baptized child who is taking part in the practice of heresy
must have adequate ability to reason in order to be able to identify the
religious lies of his heresy.
And, three, a baptized child who is taking part in the practice of
heresy must have sufficient time, even with an adequate ability to reason, in
order to be able to recognize the religious lies of his heresy.
As to the first two issues, consider. Does a man attain to all of
his mental capacities all at once, instantaneously? No, he does not. And can a
child at the age of seven equal in capacity the mental ability of a man of much
older age… say, for the sake of example, thirty years old? No, he cannot.
As a result, the ‘age of reason’ cannot mean --- nor
can any intelligent Catholic from the past have honestly intended it to mean
--- that a seven-year old child is fully rational. The child is adequately
rational in that, provided he is at least of average intelligence, he can most
likely begin to discern between right & wrong or truth & falsehood. He
is thus beginning to be responsible, in God’s Sight, for his sins.
The Holy See itself alludes to this fact in passing where, as you
quoted in your letter on 16 May 2009, paragraph two, it says, “…the
age of discretion for Confession is the time when one can distinguish between
right and wrong, that is, when one arrives at a certain use of
reason…” [Decree of the Sacred Congregation under
the papal authority of Pius the Tenth, Quam
singulari, Paragraph 14. Dated 8 August 1910 & promulgated 15 August 1910.
Emphasis added.]
Because that’s what the use of reason is at the age of reason
--- “a certain use of reason” and not the full
use of reason which most adults later attain, or to which some
fortunate souls (or unfortunate, as the case might be) attain in much greater
capacity than their fellow human beings.
Indeed, the Holy See a little later in this decree goes further and
makes the distinction even more explicit where it states in reference to
a child’s reception of the Blessed Sacrament:
“From all this it is clear that the age of discretion for
receiving Holy Communion is that at which the child knows the difference
between the Eucharistic Bread and ordinary, material bread, and can therefore
approach the altar with proper devotion. Perfect knowledge of the things of
faith, therefore, is not required, for an elementary knowledge suffices ---
some knowledge (aliqua cognitio);
similarly full use of reason is not required, for a certain
beginning of the use of reason, that is, some use of reason (aliqualis usus rationis) suffices.” [Quam singulari,
Paragraph 19. Emphasis added.]
And need we remark how the Holy See’s
very plain distinction between “full use of reason” and “a
certain beginning of the use of reason” thus proves the point in
spades?
+ + + 2. Degrees of Guilt + + +
Consequently, there is a direct correlation between the degree of
knowledge or the degree of comprehension, and the degree to which someone is
guilty for his sin. As Jesus said to St. Peter, the 1st Pope of His
Catholic Body, “And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and
prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with
many stripes. But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes,
shall be beaten with few stripes.” (Luke 12:47-48a DRC,
emphasis added) Note that Jesus does not say that the one who is ignorant of
his Lord’s Will shall escape punishment altogether; rather, that the one
in ignorance will merely suffer a “few stripes.” This is in
opposition to the man who is fully knowledgeable & comprehending, who will
be beaten with “many stripes.”
Punishment either way. It’s
simply the degree that differs.
Likewise children who have attained to the age of
reason. A child of at least average intelligence begins the age of reason
around age seven, beginning to be able to discern between right & wrong,
truth & falsehood. Notwithstanding, he has not reached, at this early age,
a full capacity for mental reasoning and is hence not as
responsible, in the Sight of God, as is the typical man who is thirty years
old. The latter is far more responsible in God’s Sight for
the evil that he has done.
Now, my dear souls, perhaps you are parents or perhaps you are not.
Perhaps you are quite young, relatively speaking, or perhaps you are advanced in
years. I do not know. I do know that I am 45 years old as I write and that I
have six boys, ranging in age from 1 to 12. And I can tell you, both from
memories of my own childhood and by observation of my young children, that a
seven-year old child does not normally have the capacity to fully comprehend
the lies of religious heresy. He can be taught simple things at the hands of
his elders, which is why I very bluntly teach my youngest boys that heretical
churches will lead them to Hell and that they should not associate religiously
with heretics, or even socialize with them for hours on end for no good reason.
Such situations are occasions for sin. We must avoid them where we can.
All the same, can I expect my seven-year old boy (I really do have
a seven-year old child as I write these words, so the example is not
hypothetical) to wholly comprehend all of the ins-and-outs of Protestant
heresy, and even if I took the time to explain it to him exhaustively in
intricate detail for ten weeks straight?
Of course not. He is not capable of it yet. I
only require of him what is reasonably possible to require of him, nothing
more. As he matures, he will grow in ability, and I will train him accordingly,
guarding him against the deceits of Protestant heresy.
The same principle applies to children in general, and it is why
the Church has not required public abjurations from a child under fourteen. A
child younger than this must still --- if I am not mistaken, and as you have
asserted --- make a Profession of Faith when converting from heresy, although
not when below the age of seven. I.e., when below seven-years old, the Church
does not require even a Profession of Faith from him at conversion. The
Sacrament of Baptism is all that matters at this point. Above seven, he has
attained to the use of reason and must reasonably profess that which he is
converting to in a public fashion. He may not grasp everything completely in
the Profession of Faith to the nth degree --- what child does at seven
years of age, for instance? --- but, properly instructed according to the
ability of his young age, he can understand enough to take it on faith that the
Roman Catholic Church knows what She is talking about, that She --- and She
alone --- is God’s Pillar & Ground of the Truth in our world,
upholding what it is a man must profess in order to have Hope of Salvation. In
brief, he understands what he must in order to save his soul, given his very
young age & resultant mental limitations.
But all the ins-and-outs of heresy? Can a child
below the age of fourteen adequately understand these things, holding full
responsibility for them, as well as intelligently & truly abjuring all of
the religious lies that his former religion taught?
That is not very likely. When I was a child of seven, I did not
comprehend the heresy in which I was raised. I had bits & pieces, maybe, that I parroted dutifully before my elders. But I had
no real comprehension of what I was saying, or to what I was adhering. Nor did I when I was ten. My intelligence was greater at this point,
and I could understand more, but I did not really grasp, in the fullest sense
of the word, the lies that my heretical religion proclaimed. I was still a
child and not fully capable yet of what the mind of a full-grown man can do. In
a word, had I converted as, say, a twelve-year old, and been required to
publicly abjure all the lies of my former Protestant heresy, I would not have
fully --- and hence intelligently or adequately --- understood what I was
abjuring.
And need I point out that this simple, straightforward fact renders
the act of public abjuration pointless and thus unnecessary for a
child below a particular age?
+ + + 3. A Matter of Time + + +
And this does not even begin to take account of my third conflated
point as mentioned above. Namely, that a baptized child who is taking part in
the practice of heresy must have sufficient time, even with an adequate ability
to reason, in order to be able to recognize the religious lies of his
heresy.
Think about it. Do you really suppose, my dear souls, that a child
arrives at the age of seven with the use of reason and suddenly, all at once
and in an instant, knows everything necessary to know in order to be able to recognize
that he is ensconced in the practice of a false & heretical religion? Even
full-grown adults with a far greater mental capacity must usually have at least
a few months, if not years, to eventually & wholly realize the damnable
error which they are in, extricating themselves from the Devil’s trap.
And does anyone expect a child of seven, who arrives at the use of
reason, to suddenly realize what it takes a full-grown adult with a much
greater mental capacity at least a few months, if not years, to recognize? To
wit, that they are deceived by heresy?
My dear souls, this is neither rational nor just.
For whether or not you want to acknowledge that it may really take
several years for a baptized child who is of good will to adequately recognize
as heresy the false religion in which he is raised, you cannot possibly expect
a normal child of seven to recognize in an instant, or even in several seconds,
his heresy as heresy the very day of his attainment to the use of reason. It is
a process of time, something that must proceed in a certain kind of fashion,
and cannot occur instantaneously.
Ergo, it is my opinion that God provides some time beyond the age
of reason --- meaning, the age of seven and a few years beyond --- for a
baptized child raised in the practice of heresy to discover the errors of his
false religion and the truths of the Catholic Faith. And it is
my opinion for a very simple reason… because no man can suddenly
know all of the facts he needs to know, nor does a child have all of the mental
capacity he might require to adequately recognize his errors. Moreover, a young
child does not normally have the amount of liberty, resources & access that
a grown man possesses so as to investigate things thoroughly & properly. It
takes time. This is the way God has made things, wherein events occur through a
sequential process of moments & deeds, and this is the way it makes sense
to me that He would deal with baptized children raised in a false religion. I
cannot prove it infallibly since the Roman Catholic Church has not ruled on
this particular point infallibly, as far as I know. Yet She
has not ruled to the contrary, either, as far as I can tell, and what I say
makes logical sense based on what we do infallibly know.
For instance, as a father of six children I would not require them
to know instantaneously what they ought to know, and especially if they had
only just became capable of knowing it. I would not punish them severely for
not doing that which they could not possibly have known to accomplish, given
that they had not sufficient time or opportunity yet to do so. I would give
them enough time to discover it & comprehend it. Therefore, why should
their Father in Heaven --- for remember, we’re talking about baptized
souls who are, at least up to the age of reason, surely in the Catholic Body of
Jesus and hence children of the Triune Catholic God --- not do
similarly with them? As Christ also said, “Or what man is there among
you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he reach him a stone? Or if he
shall ask him a fish, will he reach him a serpent? If you then being evil, know
how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father who is
in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?” (Matthew 7:9-11 DRC)
And whereas it is true that baptized children raised in heresy are
probably not asking God for the time they need to discover the True Religion,
in this way escaping the Fire of Hell should they die in this state of youthful
ignorance, I don’t always have to be asked by my sons in order to give
them something good & necessary. Indeed, I often perceive their need ---
and regardless of whether they yet know that they need it --- giving them what
they must have so that they may later achieve in a reasonable amount of time
that which is right & urgent to accomplish.
But if I, who am evil, know how to give what is good & necessary
to my sons (good & necessary here meaning the time required for a
good-willed child, who is unavoidably ignorant due to his youth, to discover
what he needs to know in order to obey my will), then how much more will their
Father in Heaven give the time required to His sons when it comes to those
baptized children who could not, because of their heretical upbringing, know
already the Religion that He commands, and who cannot possibly, because of
their youthful ignorance, discover the Religion He commands without a minimally
sufficient time to do so?
+ + + 4. What Invincible Ignorance Can
& Cannot Do + + +
Which leads us to drive home a final point. For I have
often remarked in the past few years, to anyone who will listen, that the only
truly ‘invincibly ignorant’ people are those who are either
children (what in centuries past were called babes, infants or sucklings), mentally disabled from earliest youth (what in
former times were called idiots or retards, with no pejorative sense
necessarily intended), or insane from earliest childhood (what used to be known
as madmen). Because how could any of these categories of people perceive that
which they haven’t the mind to perceive? How can they, no matter how many
graces they receive, know that which it is impossible for them to know, not
first having the capacity of mind for them to be able to do so?
As a result, these types of persons are the only types who, in the
most literal sense of the word, are truly invincibly ignorant.
All other types of persons are merely vincibly
in their ignorance to some degree or another, having at least some capacity
of mind so that they may eventually conquer their ignorance and know
that which they need to, or ought to, know.
Thus, however much the word has been misused in recent centuries
--- particularly in modern times during the Great Apostasy, leading to the
Salvation Heresy --- the term is certainly applicable to babes, idiots &
madmen, provided the latter two categories are understood as having been such
from earliest youth. Viz., those who are invincibly
ignorant.
Nonetheless, ignorance alone cannot save, can it? That is to say,
ignorance all by itself that is invincible is not a positive something,
which in & of itself can propel a soul into the
Rather, ignorance is a qualification, which, when inculpable ---
and that’s the whole point of talking about an ignorance that is invincible,
that it is inculpably so --- causes God to see the soul as not responsible for
sins committed by he who is totally & inescapably unaware of their
wickedness, thereby excusing this soul of any concomitant guilt.
Which is why unbaptized babies cannot go to Heaven
just because they die before the age of reason. They may have
no actual transgressions upon their souls --- particularly actual
transgressions of a deadly nature --- but they do have the stain of original
sin, which is mortal. These kinds of souls (souls in the state of invincible
ignorance) require the Sacrament of Baptism, the Church professing on their
behalf that Faith which they must hold along with their baptism of water,
in order to have hope of entering the Gates of Heaven. Once
sacramental baptism is administered, their original sin is remitted, they are
joined to the Catholic Body of Jesus Christ, and they receive the gift of the
Holy Ghost. They are made new creatures & adoptive sons of the Almighty
Triune Catholic God.
The point is, my dear souls, my opinion cannot be equated with the
modernist lie of ‘salvation’ outside the visible Church by means of
an ‘implicit faith’ or ‘hidden desire’ for water
baptism. It cannot, because we are not talking about those who are unbaptized.
We are talking about baptized souls and thus those who are both truly
& visibly joined to the Body of Jesus Christ and members of His
Catholic Church. Truly, because water baptism truly
enters a man into Jesus’ Catholic Body. And visibly,
because, whilst it is neither always possible nor always necessary for every Catholic
to know the visible identity & existence of every other Catholic on this
earth at any given time, it is at least potentially possible & often
necessary for some Catholics to know the manifestly visible identity &
existence of another Catholic on this earth at a given time, provided they
have a genuine need to know and investigate adequately the
evidence which is specific to a particular person in order to correctly
determine whether he is, or is not, a member of Jesus’ Ecclesial Body.
Which, when talking about children, means finding out if they
have been validly baptized.
Consequently, given that a particular child of very young age is
indeed validly baptized despite being raised in religious heresy, then the
relevant question for a Catholic to ask about this child is not “Is
he a member of the Roman Catholic Church?”, but, rather, “When
does this child cease to be a member of the Roman Catholic
Church?”
In other words, when is the baptized child who is raised in heresy excommunicated
for failing to profess the Catholic Faith and for espousing heresy instead?
As of the composing of your letter on May 16th, you
would say --- and please correct me if I am wrong about this --- that the child
is automatically excommunicated as soon as he attains to the use of reason,
which is, more or less, the age of seven for most people. Whereas I would say
--- and grounded in the exact same principle, yet applied more logically &
justly according to God’s Commandments --- that the child is
automatically excommunicated only after he has attained to the use of
reason and when he has had the minimum amount of time necessary for him
to be able recognize the lies of his false religion & discover the truth of
the Roman Catholic Faith.
It is the exact same principle involved in either position because,
as you will have to acknowledge given that you take the time to think it
through logically, the only reason Catholics have said that the souls of dead
baptized babies go to Heaven is that these precious souls are in the state of invincible
ignorance. That is to say, they cannot possibly, in their extreme youth
and resultant lack of mental capacity, know God’s Command to profess the
Catholic Faith whole & entire --- not to mention being unable to do so
right away even if they could, in their limited powers of mind, know the
Command to profess the Dogmas of Catholicism --- and hence are excused, in
God’s Sight, for not doing so. Likewise, my position.
I note that baptized children raised in heresy cannot possibly, in their extreme
youth and resultant lack of mental capacity, either suddenly know God’s
Command to profess the Catholic Religion whole & entire or suddenly know
the Catholic Faith whole & entire at the moment of their attaining to the
age of reason. It takes a certain minimal amount of time for them to be able to
do so. Ergo, they are still invincibly ignorant and hence are
excused, in God’s Sight, until they have had that minimum amount of time
to accomplish what He commands about professing the Catholic Religion in its
totality.
+ + + 5. The Dogma of Salvation Is Upheld + + +
Nor should you be sidetracked by the fact that a baptized child
raised in heresy of, say, eight years old, could espouse heresy. E.g.,
let’s suppose he goes along with his elders, hearing them trash the
Catholic Church, and quips, “The Bible all by itself is what I
believe.” This alone would not necessarily send such a child to Hell,
since, when you think about it, we could also imagine a baptized child raised
in heresy of, say, six years old, doing & saying the same thing. And yet you
would tell me that the six-year old child is likely in Heaven if he dies at
that age, and all because he dies baptized before the age of reason, which is
seven. But what is the cause for thinking it so? Invincible
ignorance. He can’t possibly, in his extreme youth, as of yet adequately
recognize the lies of his false religion or as of yet adequately find the truth of
the Roman Catholic Religion. Hence, he is excused in God’s Sight for what
is otherwise a very grievous & objective sin of heresy.
Nevertheless, what about the eight-year old boy? Even if he has
attained to the use of reason, does he yet have sufficient mental capacity to
adequately comprehend the heresy of ‘scripture alone’ --- and has
he yet had sufficient liberty, time, tools & resources to recognize the
other lies of his false religion or to find the truth of the Catholic Faith? Do
not children of such young ages, whether six or eight --- and in lieu of being
able to think for themselves in a fully independent way as of yet --- often
merely parrot what they hear their elders & teachers say?
Of course they do. Any observant adult knows that this is so, any intelligent parent sees it in practice every single
day. How, then, can the six-year old be readily excused (and even though six-year-olds
will frequently have at least some ability to reason, distinguishing between
truth & falsehood or right & wrong) while the eight-year old could not
possibly fall under the same principle to at least some extent, given his
limited capacity & time?
Mind you, this is not an argument for indefinite extension of
membership of the Catholic Church based on fuzzy boundaries. No one knows with
great certainty without careful examination when, precisely, an individual
child attains to the use of reason. Moreover, even with careful examination,
probably only God knows the exact hour or date that a child attains to this
ability, beginning to distinguish between right & wrong or truth &
falsehood. Hence why Catholics have simply said that the age
of seven, more or less, is a good rule of thumb to go by. One particular
child of really exceptional ability may attain to reason much earlier. Another
particular child of very limited ability may attain to reason much later. The boundary overall for everyone is thus hazy.
No, I am not arguing for indefinite extension of the boundary. I am
applying logic based on what we can know with some certainty. And just because
this leaves the boundary hazy is no justification for rejecting my argument;
the common boundary as accepted by Catholics for at least the last millennium
concerning the age of reason is also hazy. From a purely human perspective,
fuzziness of boundaries is unavoidable in many cases due to unknown or hidden
factors & numerous variables. Notwithstanding, this doesn’t mean a
boundary doesn’t exist. It merely means that we must content ourselves
with knowing, most of the time, a general rule of thumb when things are
unknown, hidden or numerous. Much like the miles of coastline that a country has
--- wherein it practically impossible to get the precise number or for experts
of cartography to agree on such a number --- so, too, the exact age at which
various baptized children raised in heresy may be automatically excommunicated
is, for us, usually uncertain.
All the same, God knows the precise moment for each baptized child
raised in heresy. We can simply surmise carefully based on what we know
infallibly & what we deduce logically. As regards baptized children raised
in heresy overall, this will leave us, because of our lack of particular
knowledge, with a degree of haziness. But the haziness is not without limits.
Sooner or later, each child will become automatically excommunicated for
failing to recognize the lies of his false religion and for failing to find the
truth of the Roman Catholic Faith. And sensible, logical rules of thumb can
establish, with a good degree of certainty in our minds, the upper & lower
boundaries for when automatic excommunication of such children takes place. Let
it be stated clearly, then:
There is no denial of the Salvation Dogma here, whether
explicitly or implicitly. Outside of the One, Holy, Roman,
Period.
+ + + 6. Missing the Commandments + + +
The only difference, then, my dear souls, between your position
& my position is this:
You posit (and whether you realize it or not) an obstruction of
faculty alone for the baptized child raised in
heresy who has not yet attained to the age of reason. While, in contrast, I
posit not only an obstruction of faculty for the baptized child raised in
heresy who has not yet attained to the age of reason, but, as well, an obstruction
of resource for the baptized child raised in heresy who has already
attained to the age of reason. The first asserts the necessity of minimal
use of mind alone, in a vacuum all by itself, in order to be able to know,
comprehend & profess the Roman Catholic Faith. The second asserts the necessity
of time & other pertinent resources in conjunction with an adequate ability
of mind in order to be able to know, comprehend
& profess the Roman Catholic Faith.
Now, having said all this, I could be wrong. I am not infallible.
And, if the Catholic Church has, without me yet knowing, stated infallibly
contrary to my position what the precise moment of excommunication for these
baptized children raised in heresy is --- or has set different upper or lower
limits than what I have thought, or will state infallibly either of these
things in the future, contrary to what I now think --- then I will have to back
down. Whether or not I could understand it, I would have to submit to the
infallible judgment of
That explained, I make a few last
observations.
For you quote from The Catechism of the Council of Trent in
paragraph three of your email on 16 May 2009:
“…no one who has arrived at the use of reason can be
justified, unless he is resolved to keep all of God’s
Commandments.” [Published by TAN Books &
Publishers, Inc., in 1982 in
You then seem to argue, if only by implication, that baptized children
who are above the age of the use of reason but raised
in heresy couldn’t possibly be justified or within the Catholic Church
since --- so you appear to infer --- they cannot be resolved to keep all of
God’s Commandments. Whereas, apart from the fact (which you acknowledge)
that this catechism is not infallible, you make an unwarranted assumption
in doing so.
To wit, my dear souls, how do you know that a baptized child
raised in heresy does not resolve to keep all of God’s Commandments?
We cannot be certain of such a thing without careful & individual
examination of these children. That is to say, there may indeed be individuals
amongst these children who are resolved to obey all of God’s
Commandments.
The problem for them, therefore, is not that they are not
resolved to obey the Commands of God but that they are not yet aware of
what all of His Commandments are!
Yet if invincibly so --- not having had the time or
resources yet to figure everything out --- then how is it this child stands
condemned in God’s Sight, being responsible for, and thus wholly guilty
of, his objective sin? We review Christ’s words once again.
“And that servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared
not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many
stripes. But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall
be beaten with few stripes.” (Luke 12:47-48a DRC, emphasis
added)
The baptized child is definitely a part of Christ’s Catholic
Body and thus definitely the Lord’s “servant”. The dispute is
over when he becomes automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Body
of Christ, not over whether he was ever a member of this Body in the first
place. Invincible ignorance prevents excommunication from occurring at an
age under seven years old, as you would presumably acknowledge. Yet if the same
child at, say, age eight, has not yet had enough time & resources to
discover the Commands of the Triune Catholic God, then is not his ignorance
still invincible? Most assuredly so. Ergo, he
shall be beaten “with few stripes.”
In fact, it is at least one fair interpretation of this scriptural
passage to say that Jesus is distinguishing between mortality of sin
(“many stripes”) and veniality of sin (“few stripes”).
If so, then it is very easy to see how a child who is above the age of reason
but still invincibly ignorant could espouse heresy, parroting his elders, while
not being held guilty by God of a mortal sin of heresy. Because,
in such a case, the guilt of his objective sin of heresy would be only venial
or less, and not mortal. And if this is not the case, then how
can a child of, say, age six, espouse the very same heresy, parroting his
elders, and, should he die at that moment, not suffer damnation forever because
he committed a mortal sin of heresy?
If the lack of ability of mind makes such an objective sin venial
or less, then the same lack also makes such an objective sin venial or less
when a person has not yet had enough time, with the ability of mind, to even
possibly discover what he needs to know in order to recognize the lies of his
false religion & find the truth of the Catholic Faith.
+ + + 7. Conversion + + +
However, you may protest that Catholics have called baptized
children raised in heresy who are above the age of seven ‘converts’
when they end participation in a false religion, and also required them to make
a Profession of Faith. Does this not, you as much as say, make them certainly
outside the Church? To what are they ‘converting’ if they were
inside Her Sanctuary to begin with?
The answer is twofold.
One, just because they may not be old enough, or had enough time,
to comprehend adequately the lies of their heresy, does not mean that they are
incapable of knowing anything at all. Which is why the Catholic Church requires
instruction in the True Faith of those of Her members
who are very young. But which is also why She does not
expect such young members to be instructed like adults, to the degree of
breadth & complexity that older members are. Hence, She
only requires them to profess what they can grasp. Consequently, the
training She gives a young child is not the
same as the training that an adult receives, or someone who is converting to
the Church as an adult. So, while She may not expect a young child to
adequately understand the heresy in which he was raised --- and thus not have
to publicly & formally abjure it --- She does expect the young child
of age seven or more, in most circumstances, to understand the True Faith
enough, taught to him in a very simple fashion that he can grasp, so that he
can take it on as his own and profess it simply. He can no longer do this with
the heretical religion that he was raised in; he now does this for the True
Religion in which he is presently taught. This is what conversion means for
him, due to his limited mind & resources.
And, two, the use of the term ‘convert’, or variations
thereof, in regards to young children is somewhat similar to the term
‘catechumen’ in regards to the newly baptized. Because, as you may
know, ancient Catholics called those converting as adults to the One True Faith
‘catechumens’ even after they had just been baptized. This
has been a source of confusion concerning the Sacrament of Baptism since those
who uphold the so-called ‘baptism of desire’ position will often
cite martyrologies and ‘catechumens’ who
are reported to have been martyred, thereby ‘proving’ --- so these
people think --- the position that a person can die unbaptized while still
going to Heaven.
While, in contrast, the correct understanding (with the proviso in
mind that such martyrologies are not infallible, of
course) is that these ‘catechumens’ were either baptized already in
preparation for possible martyrdom (baptized early due to the emergency
situation of a bloody persecution) or else baptized in regular fashion at the
time of Easter but still called ‘catechumens’ because catechism in
ancient times went on for a very long time, even for a brief while following
their official ceremony of baptism (wherein certain mysteries not explained
before --- such as the Holy Eucharist --- were now thoroughly explicated in
light of the marvelous graces they had just received in the Sacrament of
Baptism).
The gist of what I’m saying?
‘Convert’ does not have to mean one & only one very
restricted thing. The conversion of a full-grown adult is very different from
the conversion of a very young child. Just as the term ‘catechumen’
could mean both someone not yet joined to the Catholic Church (what they
were before they were baptized in water) as well as someone already a
member of Her Sacred Body (what they were after they were baptized in water),
so, too, can the term ‘convert’ mean both someone who has
the mind & resources to have fully comprehended & repudiated his heresy
(thereby entering him into the Body that he as a validly baptized youth left
later on due to his culpably espousing heresy & failing to find
Catholicism) as well as he who doesn’t yet have the mind &
resources to do so (thereby confirming him in the Body that he may already be a
member of due to his inculpably espousing heresy before & not having had
enough time or resources prior till then to find Catholicism).
The exact connotation of the terms depends on the context in which
they are used. One cannot know for certain what the precise meaning of the term
is until one has understood first, correctly, what the circumstances are
in which they are employed and, second, who, exactly, they are
describing.
End of sentence.
+ + + 8. More Just, As Well As More
Logical + + +
But, my dear souls, this is enough for now. You may have other protests
against my position. I have written as much as I can for the time being whilst
still reasonably expecting you to peruse it all, cogitating carefully.
In summation, no, I have not confused “a disciplinary
teaching of the Church with a dogma.” [X’s
Email to Various Persons on 16 May 2009, Paragraph 5] Notwithstanding, I have
used a phrase (“full use of reason” --- which, in & of itself,
is totally logical & legitimate, as the Holy See’s
use of the exact same phrase, as translated into English, in Paragraph
19 of Quam singulari
demonstrates), in my article for those who consider themselves Catholic in the
First Things First section of The Epistemologic Works website, in a setting
that can lead the reader to conflate several things into one. This is
confusing. It is my fault, and I again beg your pardon. I will change this in
the article as soon as I can. Better yet, as soon I may in the next few months,
Heaven willing, I will post the new small book, Visible, in its stead.
Meanwhile, I stick with what I have, correcting that which potentially misleads
as soon as possible.
Nonetheless, you are correct that “God is God, and we are
not.” [X’s Email to
Various Persons on 16 May 2009, Paragraph 8] Ergo, if either previous infallible
statements of the Catholic Church or future infallible statements of the
Catholic Church make it clear that I am in error, then
I will repudiate what I have posited & embrace the Pillar & Ground of
the Truth, professing Her dogma in the matter. It is entirely possible that
God, despite my opinion, considers baptized children raised in heresy to fall
outside the Church the instant they attain to the use of reason. And, of
course, in such a situation He is entirely capable of preserving such children,
who have fallen out of the Church but who are of good will, for later
profession of the True Faith & abjuration of their heresy.
The question is thus not can He do such a thing, but does
He do such a thing?
We already know that God chooses to prevent dead baptized children
from falling into the Pit of Hell should they die before reaching the age of
reason, in spite of not professing the Catholic Faith whole & entire. This
is because of their invincible ignorance. Yet if God does this
for inculpably ignorant children prior to the age of reason, then, given that
such children are still inculpably ignorant for a short while after
attaining to the age of reason --- having “a certain beginning of the use
of reason” as the Holy See states in Paragraph 19 of Quam
singulari --- why wouldn’t God choose to
apply the exact same principle to a child after the use of reason but who, for
a lack of mind & time, is still invincibly ignorant? This is
why I said, in the middle of this letter, that my position is a more logical
application of the principle according to God’s Commandments.
But if this is so, then --- provided that such a child is of
good will and would, if only given the chance later on, enter back into the
Church should the attainment of the age of reason have thrown him out of the
Church due to being raised in heresy --- why would God choose to have such
a child excommunicated in the first place, thereby depriving him of
great graces, when invincible ignorance is what detains him, by a
lack of mind & time, from recognizing the lies of his heresy & the
truth of the Catholic Faith as of yet? Such action not only doesn’t
make good sense, but is in direct contradiction to the principle of
inculpability when it comes to those who are, truly, invincibly
ignorant! Which is why I also said, in the middle of this
letter, that my position is a more just application of the principle
according to God’s Commandments.
My dear souls, should you want to dispute me after reading all of
this carefully & thoroughly, then it looks to me
like only a clear infallible statement from the Catholic Church could give us
absolute certainty in this particular matter, one way or another. Until then, I
rely on what I can know infallibly from the Roman Catholic Church and apply
straightforward logic & justice based on God’s Commandments. I trust
that you have, with a good will, followed this logic and comprehended it
adequately.
Precious souls, if you are truly Catholic then I pray that the
Triune God of the Catholic Church & Creator of All That Exists Out Of
Nothing will grant you, through the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary & Her
Immaculate Hands, all the graces you need in order to be good Catholics and to
uphold & defend the Roman Catholic Faith --- with your very blood, if
necessary. And, if you are not truly Catholic, then I pray that the same will
grant you the graces necessary to enlighten your minds to the Exclusively
Saving Truth of the Roman Catholic Religion, causing you to repudiate all
worldly errors & enter Her Sanctuary, clinging to Her Dogmas until, and
especially at, your deaths upon this earth.
Yours very sincerely with the Charity of Christ & His Mother,
-Paul Doughton
+
+ +
Pilate’s
query met:
Note:
if you have come
to this webpage directly from a search
engine or other
website, then, when done viewing this webpage
--- and assuming
you wish to view more of this website’s pages ---
please type the
website’s address (as given above right before this
note) into the
address bar at the top of your browser and hit the
‘enter’ button on the keyboard of your computer.
Please go here about use of the writings
on this website.
© 2009 by
Paul Doughton.
All rights
reserved.