Joe Heschmeyer and EENS

I understand that Joe is working under severe time constraints, and I am glad that he was willing even to approach a subject as difficult as EENS. But the question is much larger than the status of our separated brethren.

A Feeneyite could agree with quite a lot of Joe's moral analysis. Joe says that someone innocently separated from Rome is not morally equivalent to someone who knowingly rejects the Church; he explicitly distinguishes accidental or material separation from intentional schism. A Feeneyite need not deny any of that.

The disagreement would begin when Joe moves from:

“This person is not culpable for being outside the Church”

toward:

“Therefore this person can nevertheless possess the union with the Church necessary for salvation.”

Those aren't necessarily the same proposition.

From a strict Feeneyite perspective, ignorance removes guilt; it does not supply what is objectively absent. An analogy would be original sin: an infant is personally innocent, yet still bears original sin. That innocence does not itself remove original sin nor confer sanctifying grace. Something positive must happen to the soul: it must receive sanctifying grace and be incorporated into the Church--the Mystical Body of Christ.

Likewise, I would say the Protestant's problem isn't merely:

“Did he culpably refuse to become Catholic?”

There is also the positive question:

“What are the objective supernatural consequences of not being fully incorporated into the Catholic Church, even when that separation is inculpable?”

A Protestant might be completely innocent of formal heresy and nevertheless live in an objectively impoverished supernatural situation.

 Depending on the Protestant body, he may have valid Baptism, but ordinarily lacks Confession, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Extreme Unction, and authoritative Catholic moral and doctrinal formation. His ignorance might excuse some particular errors, but it doesn't magically give him the sacramental graces he lacks.

Suppose someone is invincibly ignorant that contraception is gravely wrong. Even granting diminished or absent culpability for contraception itself, the person is still living according to an erroneous moral system. This can create circumstances leading to other sins for which ignorance may not excuse him, such as abortion or sex outside of marriage.

These errors can also compound over generations. Today's Protestant beliefs and moral practices might be unrecognizable even to the founders of their own churches.

So there is potentially a cascading problem:

Separation from the Church:

1. Loss of ordinary means of grace and authoritative teaching
2. Moral/doctrinal error
3. Greater exposure to temptation and additional sins
4. Increased danger of dying without sanctifying grace

EENS is larger than merely saying, “Ignorance excuses someone who does not knowingly refuse to become Catholic.”

Joe does recognize that not everyone outside the Church is invincibly ignorant. Some may knowingly refuse conversion, while others may be culpably ignorant because they have neglected their duty to seek the truth. But this still keeps the discussion centered on the sin of refusing to enter the Church.

The stricter Feeneyite objection goes deeper. Even if we grant that a particular Protestant is completely invincibly ignorant and therefore innocent of the sins of heresy and schism, he still lives in an objectively defective spiritual condition. His ignorance may excuse his separation; it does not give him the supernatural advantages that his separation deprives him of.

He lacks the fullness of Catholic doctrine and moral guidance and, in most Protestant communities, lacks the ordinary sacramental means Christ established for preserving and recovering sanctifying grace.

Thus, the substantive question is not merely, “Is this Protestant culpable for remaining outside the Catholic Church?” 

It is also, “What does remaining outside the fullness of the Church objectively do to his spiritual life and his prospects of persevering in sanctifying grace?”

Invincible ignorance may excuse the fault; it does not remedy the defect.