Caminus said:It also seems heretical to deny this particular truth of moral theology, for it asserts that God punishes acts which are not morally free.
What about a baby who dies without baptism?
I still don't believe that someone can be saved in invincible ignorance but I accept that the general trend of recent theology has been to approve of it. However, the general trend of recent theology also seemed to slot pretty neatly into Vatican II. There is no way that it's heretical to deny that someone who is invincibly ignorant can be saved. At worst it's rash; at best it's simply correct.
I used to knock Pius IX for being ambiguous but now I don't think there is any better way to say it. Who can say how far God's mercy extends? As I currently see it, the problem with the invincible ignorance theory is not in the way it was taught by your Sotos and your Suarezes, ye olde tender-hearted indigenous-peoples-loving Jesuits; the problem is when you see these American clergy who think that someone qualifies for "invincible ignorance" because their family prejudiced them against the Catholic religion. That is what seems heretical to me. What is the whole purpose of the Holy Ghost if it isn't to free us from those prejudices? What is the point of my conversion if I could have stayed ignorant and then blamed it on the Tee Vee?
It's impossible not to notice that, the more the world apostasizes, the more people can claim some variant of the ever-expanding "invincible ignorance." This goes on and on. As the deceit becomes thicker, Catholics make more excuses for others who are quite comfortable with their heads in the sand. It's just ludicrous. Why would the devil do all this work to deceive people then, what is the point, if you can just be completely wrong and be saved?