The first (I shall get to the second in another post) is the subject of invincible ignorance, a topic which was very important after the discovery of the natives of the New World in the 15th century. The Church had discussed such ignorance in the earliest days and the Doctors of the Church were very clear that the pagans having heard the Gospel were responsible for rejecting it.
In addition, such ignorance would have been informed by natural law, which all humans share by the fact that they are human. Now, the question has been incorrectly addressed in Catholic colleges, seminaries and universities in the last forty years.
Let me start this rehash of this subject which I have had on this blog before by stating that Aquinas, and especially the Thomist, Francisco de Vitoria, to whom I shall return in a minute, are clear on the responbilities of those who have heard the Gospel.
The Doctors of the Church dealt with the problem of the non-salvation of the pagans over and over. The consensus was that pagans were not saved by their good works, and that it was very hard to remain free of mortal sin, even if one was in ignorance, and, therefore, most pagans who rejected Christ were not saved.
This idea, that most humans fall easily into mortal sin without the graces of baptism and the sacraments, is easily seen today. Without grace, one cannot save one's self by one's own efforts, which is the heresy of Pelagius.
To reject information is an act of the will or a reaction of the appetities, emotions involving the capitol sins of pride, sloth, and so on.
That most men and women today in America, Canada, and Europe are not in invincible ignorance must be stated clearly. Even if one did not have access to television, radio, the Internet, the culture of Europe, which was created by the Church, that is, Western Culture, constantly reminds one of the Catholic Faith.
One cannot ignore classical music, great churches, art, and so on in the West. All of these things point to God and to Christ, still.
The great philosophers and theologians agreed that even in a person was in invincible ignorance, they would most likely be damned because of Original Sin and mortal sins.
Vitoria, who was very fair to the natives of the New World and wrote extensively on how Europeans could not exploit them, still wrote this that even if a prophet came and foretold the conquest of the Indians by the Spanish with signs and miracles to back him up, this would not make them blameless, "any more than Nebuchadenazzer or Jeroboam".
The key is reason. The Faith is reasonable and therefore, all humans, who have reason, can come to the conclusion that Christianity is the way to truth and God.
Here is a summary of Vitoria on some of these points regarding the natives of the New World. Thanks to ET for this.
1. The Emperor is not the lord of the whole world.
2. Even if the Emperor were the lord of the world, that
would not entitle
him to seize the provinces of the Indian aborigines and to
erect new lords
and put down the former lords or to levy taxes.
3. The Pope is not civil or temporal lord of the whole
world, in the proper
sense of civil lordship and power.
4. Even if the Supreme Pontiff had secular power over the
world, he could
not give that power to secular princes.
5. The Pope has temporal power, but only so far as it
subserves things
spiritual.
6. The Pope has no temporal power over the Indian aborigines
or over other
unbelievers.
7. A refusal by these aborigines to recognize any dominion
of the Pope is
no reason for making war on them and for seizing their
goods.
8. Whether these aborigines were guilty of the sin of
unbelief, in that
they did not believe in Christ, before they heard anything
of Christianity.
9. What is required in order that ignorance may be imputed
to a person as,
and be, sin, that is, vincible ignorance. And what about
invincible
ignorance?
10. Whether the aborigines are bound to hearken to the first
messengers of
Christianity so as to commit mortal sin in not believing
Christ's Gospel
merely on its simple announcement to them.
11. If the faith were simply announced and proposed to them
and they will
not straightway receive it, this is no ground for the
Spaniards to make war
on them or to proceed against them under the law of war.
12. How the aborigines, if they refuse when asked and
counselled to hear
peaceably preachers of religion, can not be excused from
mortal sin.
13. When the aborigines would be bound to receive
Christianity under penalty
of mortal sin.
14. In the author's view it is not sufficiently dear whether
Christianity
has been so proposed and announced to these aborigines that
they are bound
to believe it under the penalty of fresh sin.
15. Even when Christianity has been proposed to them with
never so much
sufficiency of proof and they will not accept it, this does
not render it
lawful to make war on them and despoil them of their
possessions.
16. Christian princes can not, even on the authority of the
Pope, restrain
these aborigines from sins against the law of nature or
punish them
therefor.
