WRONG!

The Errors of Peter Abelard #10: “That they have not sinned who being ignorant have crucified Christ, and that whatever is done through ignorance must not be considered sin.” - Condemned

Ignorance is not a get-out-of-jail card or a license to sin, it's an extenuating circuмstance.

That's why I would re-confess my sins to a trad priest.

But if someone doesn't know it's displeasing to God, bad, and harmful, that individual does not commit a sin by participating in the NO.  In order to commit sin, you have to WILL something that is evil, and if you don't know that it's evil, you're not willing the evil.

Of course you have to know that what you're doing is evil or bad in order to commit a sin.

Both of you guys need to stop posting now, since you're putting out bad information that could be harmful to people.

Of course you have to know that what you're doing is evil or bad in order to commit a sin.

Both of you guys need to stop posting now, since you're putting out bad information that could be harmful to people.

BOTTOM LINE:  You cannot commit a grave sin without knowing it to be a grave sin and willing it anyway.  Nobody commits a grave sin without knowing it.

I answer that, Ignorance, by its very nature, renders the act which it causes involuntary. Now it has already been stated (Articles 1 and 2) that ignorance is said to cause the act which the contrary knowledge would have prevented; so that this act, if knowledge were to hand, would be contrary to the will, which is the meaning of the word involuntary. If, however, the knowledge, which is removed by ignorance, would not have prevented the act, on account of the inclination of the will thereto, the lack of this knowledge does not make that man unwilling, but not willing, as stated in Ethic. iii, 1: and such like ignorance which is not the cause of the sinful act, as already stated, since it does not make the act to be involuntary, does not excuse from sin. The same applies to any ignorance that does not cause, but follows or accompanies the sinful act.

On the other hand, ignorance which is the cause of the act, since it makes it to be involuntary, of its very nature excuses from sin, because voluntariness is essential to sin. But it may fail to excuse altogether from sin, and this for two reasons. First, on the part of the thing itself which is not known. For ignorance excuses from sin, in so far as something is not known to be a sin. Now it may happen that a person ignores some circuмstance of a sin, the knowledge of which circuмstance would prevent him from sinning, whether it belong to the substance of the sin, or not; and nevertheless his knowledge is sufficient for him to be aware that the act is sinful; for instance, if a man strike someone, knowing that it is a man (which suffices for it to be sinful) and yet be ignorant of the fact that it is his father, (which is a circuмstance constituting another species of sin); or, suppose that he is unaware that this man will defend himself and strike him back, and that if he had known this, he would not have struck him (which does not affect the sinfulness of the act). Wherefore, though this man sins through ignorance, yet he is not altogether excused, because, not withstanding, he has knowledge of the sin. Secondly, this may happen on the part of the ignorance itself, because, to wit, this ignorance is voluntary, either directly, as when a man wishes of set purpose to be ignorant of certain things that he may sin the more freely; or indirectly, as when a man, through stress of work or other occupations, neglects to acquire the knowledge which would restrain him from sin. For such like negligence renders the ignorance itself voluntary and sinful, provided it be about matters one is bound and able to know. Consequently this ignorance does not altogether excuse from sin. If, however, the ignorance be such as to be entirely involuntary, either through being invincible, or through being of matters one is not bound to know, then such like ignorance excuses from sin altogether.