OK, I believe in God. I am a practicing Roman Catholic.
I’ve seen many comments, criticisms and conclusory statements here and elsewhere about Catholic doctrine on Salvation which my investigation shows may not only be wrong but, seriously wrong. I assert that as a Catholic Christian it is my call to pray and hope that all are reconciled with God (more on that later). Yes, Virginia, that means even my non-believing brothers and sisters. And, my non-believing brothers and sisters don’t have to do anything other than what they are already doing; being good, loving human animals and taking care of each other.
Father John Dietzen, in a St. Louis Review feature “Dear Father,” answered a relevant question in his April 17, 2009 column:
“Q: What does the Catholic Church teach about whether Jews, Muslims and others who don’t believe in Christ can be saved and go to heaven? Several friends claim only those who accept Christ and are baptized receive salvation.
A: Many Christians believe as your friends do. This is not, however, Catholic teaching, which is summarized concisely in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The catechism insists, as we would expect, on the essential place Jesus and Baptism have in God’s saving plan. It adds, however, a crucial sentence: ‘Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would either refuse to enter it or to remain in it.’ (No. 846, quoting the Second Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, 14).
If you read those words carefully, you can see that the restriction of salvation would not apply to billions of people on earth now and in the past, including most, if not all, people of the Hebrew tradition.
Pope John Paul II reflects upon this Catholic attitude in his moving and hopeful book, “Crossing the Threshold of Hope.” God wants to save all mankind in Jesus Christ, he writes. We don’t know how God does all this, but we know Christ came into the world for all people and ‘has His own ways of reaching them.’ (pp. 80-83) In other words, God has committed Himself to work through Baptism and the other sacraments, but he is not bound or limited by them.
The Church is silent about this mystery, says the Holy Father, and this ‘silence’ is the only appropriate position for Christian faith. Even for Judas, the words of Jesus (Mt. 26:24) do not allow for certain to eternal damnation (p.186). We just don’t know enough about the mystery of God’s saving plan to make such a judgment.
Furthermore, we pray constantly in our liturgy that all people will be saved. As just one of the many instances, Eucharistic Prayer 2 asks, after the consecration, that our deceased brothers and sisters, and ‘all the departed’ all those who have died, will come into the light of God’s presence. It is possible, therefore, and something we hope for and desire.
Perhaps you know of Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, one of the major Catholic theologians of the 20th Century, a friend and close confidant of Pope John Paul II. He wrote much about the possibility of universal redemption, including the book, “Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved,” in which he maintains it is our Christian call to pray and hope that all are reconciled with God. He was named a cardinal but died before he could receive the red hat.
Father von Balthasar reports that before the book’s final text came on the market, he received massive amounts of mail denouncing his ideas as heretical. From my experience dealing with the subject several times through the years, I can empathize with his experience.
Some Catholics point to certain private revelations, such as the apparitions at Fatima, to ‘prove’ that many people are in hell. That must be right, they claim, because the Church has approved many such revelations.
When the Church sanctions private revelations, it is simply saying that there is nothing heretical in them, and Catholics may believe these revelations and act on them if they wish. This does not, however, anoint the content of the revelations as Catholic teaching or doctrine.
Father Dietzen is a priest of the Peoria, Ill. Diocese who writes a question-answer column distributed by Catholic News Service.”
© 2009 reprinted with the express permission of Father Dietzen and CNS.
It makes sense that God, who I believe to be whole and complete, has a plan for salvation for all. If God is whole and complete, God needs nothing. God’s lack of need allows space for infinite giving, for infinite love, for salvation for all. As one who has chosen the Catholic Christian faith, I see my call to support God’s plan and pray and hope for the salvation of all. I do not and cannot know how salvation for all will look like, or how it may be achieved but, that’s what faith is. Some may see such as a conceit, or arrogant but, in the most humble and awesome of ways, I see and choose love.
Love does not compel any particular political affiliation, nor compel the passage, defeat or repeal of some particular legislation or the reversal of some case decision by some court. Such matters are for those which are of this world.
Love does admit of compassion and mercy. Love sees society as interdependent, a one which seeks to act for the good of all and protects the most vulnerable. Love makes us our sisters’ and brothers’ keepers and, by the grace of God, allows salvation for all. I believe this is a more accurate reading of the Catholic Church’s doctrine on Salvation than some I have seen posted here before. Thanks also to Fr. Dietzen for his permission to use his work.
First, a little background. Tim Hogan and I both attended Catholic school at Mercy high school in University City, Missouri. We attended many of the same courses and had many of the same companions, but we ended up as Catholic Tim and Skeptic Erich. Here's another thing that was different about us as we attended high school in the early 70s: I was politically obtuse. Tim was a 15, 16 and 17 year old who was constantly raising a ruckus about the terrible war in Vietnam and the abuses being perpetrated by the American government. Even though we became Catholic Tim and Skeptic Erich, we eventually (as I started coming out of my shell more) discovered that we had quite a bit in common (as witnessed by the fact that we both write for this site, and we both ended up working as attorneys).
Tim, I applaud your willingness to come forth with your viewpoint that those of us who aren't Catholic nonetheless have a chance at salvation. I have to wonder, though, whether the Pope would agree with your position, especially if we put the television cameras on him and forced him to give a clear answer to this question: "Assume that a person raised in the Catholic faith rejects the church, stops taking the sacraments and decides that he doesn't believe in any of the basic principles of Catholicism as stated by the Apostles' Creed. Does that skeptical person have as good a chance to go to heaven as a Catholic who remains a practicing Catholic (dutifully participating in the sacraments his entire life) assuming both people are equally goodhearted? I would assume that the Pope would say that the practicing Catholic has a far greater chance of going to heaven.
If I understand Father Deitzen's article, he seems to be suggesting that a person who is not part of the Church as a result of negligence still has a chance at salvation, whereas a person who intentionally turns away from the church after fully understanding the teachings of the Catholic Church has no chance at salvation. It is your understanding of the article?
I know quite a few people who consider themselves to be Catholic. Many of them are smart and goodhearted people who are distraught over what has happened to their church. They are distressed that vast numbers of priests have raped children and that the Catholic hierarchy cares much more about covering up the crimes than doing something about the problem. They see their church hierarchy attacking thoughtful politicians because of their views on abortion, gay rights or birth control. I don't often push this question on them, but I privately wonder how much longer many of my Catholic friends will stay with the church. They tell me that they love the ceremonies and they love the sense of community, but that's about where the love affair ends. Most of them don't know much about official church doctrine and don't really care. Almost every Catholic I talk to thinks that priests should be allowed to marry and don't care about the church's explanation for celibacy. Most of them are surprised when I explain the doctrine of this transubstantiation to them. Most of them don't understand this fundamental miracle of Catholicism: that the host actually is (supposedly) the body of Jesus Christ. These are a lot of smart people I'm talking about, but they don't have much patience for the niceties of Catholic doctrine. Here's another thing that I've noticed about my Catholic acquaintances: I think that most of them would entirely agree with you that goodhearted non-Catholic people have about the same chance of going to heaven as a goodhearted practicing Catholic.
I think that most of the Catholics I know (and I know that my sample is highly skewed) want the same things that I want and that you want. We all want less human suffering and want to start making smart choices for the benefits of our children and their children.
I also know a couple of Catholics who are adamant that you can't go to heaven unless you are a practicing Catholic, and that's just the way it is because Jesus said so. In short, I know several Catholics who would consider you to be a heretic for your views that you have expressed here.
One more thing, I must confess that upon reading your article, my prevailing thought is that "I don't need to be saved. None of these stories about heaven have any factual basis. I often had the same reaction when people talk about the problems with the Catholic Church. I'm tended to think that none of this matters because Jesus wasn't God, the host is not his body, the Virgin did not have a baby, etc. On the other hand, you are earnest attempt to engage with us on this issue of Catholic views on salvation reminds me that regardless of what I think about the Catholic Church doctrines, the Catholic Church is still a huge organization that constitutes a complex social reality.
Again, thank you for sharing your ideas about the Catholic Church. I know it's important to you. I just wish that they could put you in charge of the Church so you could clean house. Maybe they would make you Pope so you can get up in front of the cameras and clearly tell the world that goodhearted non-Catholics have an equal opportunity to get to heaven. Maybe by then, you'll also be ready to announce from that pulpit that none of us are certain that there is any heaven and that, in the meantime, we all have a hell of a lot of work to do to relieve human suffering here on earth.
Interesting post. I have been largley unfaimlar with the Roman Catholic viewpoint on this matter, as I am more familar with the Arminianist and Calvinist viewpoints. This is actually one of the matter that put me on my way out the door from faith, the teaching of hell, and so forth.
If you look back in church history, there were basically two schools of thought. The first is the traditional view that only a select few would be saved, and this was actually a minority viewpoint. The other, supported by most, was the idea of universal salvation, or that through one way or another all would be saved. There was no concept of Hell and eternal torture, these were largely the products of the Roman Catholic transition from a Greek to a Latin bible.
While there are many quotes to support the viewpoints of Arminianism and Calvinism, one that supports universal salvation is 1 Tim. 4:9-10 '[9]This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance [10](and for this we labor and strive), that we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.'
It lends itself to say that not only those who believe will be saved, but all men. In any case, I don't believe in any of this, but I still have a large body of knowledge on it that I like engaging in discussions on.
Tim
Thanks for your heartfelt post.
I too was raised Roman Catholic, and attended Catholic school (which were state funded public schools in Scotland).
There were many points along my path to rejection of religion, some of them related to the hypocrisy of officers of the church, many related to the sophistry of doctrine required to equate the God of the Old and New Testaments, and many simply due to my growing understanding of our biological underpinnings and our similarity to our close cousins (bonobo, chimpanzee, orang utan, and other great apes) none of whom were ever considered capable of "God's grace".
Regardless of the gradual dissolution of my belief in 'faith' and 'religion', I don't expect everyone to take the same path as me. My mother is still full of life and faith and love in this, her 91st, year, despite failing health. Her faith has been her anchor in a very challenging life, and I would not deny her that solace nor that belief.
Unlike Erich, I do not hold the members of the congregation to the same standards as the office bearers. I agree with him that the actions of some priests have greatly sullied the reputation of the Church, and the behavior of the hierarchy has been egregious in it's disavowal of any wrongdoing. But I do know that, as in many organizations, church-members would prefer to engage within the church rather than airing their dirty laundry in public. So while I understand the lack of noise from within, I cannot wholly excuse it.
Lastly: I am very happy to hear your particular interpretation of the doctrine on salvation. That does seem much more like the action of a loving god. But I'm afraid it jibes with the doctrine that I was taught, and that is, I believe, the current official teaching of the church – the only sure way to God is through faith and Christ and Baptism and confession.
Purgatory is reserved for those who, while otherwise good, failed to gain grace before death – including unbaptised children. Those who actively deny the faith (such as myself, or Jews, or Buddhists, or …) or who are apostates (such as Protestants, who claim the catholic faith is a sham) are committing a greater sin. They can still gain heaven, but only through their acceptance of, and confession to, God before their death.
None of this is necessarily at odds with your post. Salvation is still possible. We cannot know the mind of God (if such a concept even makes sense). It does reflect my understanding, which is admittedly a few decades out-of-date, but on the timescale of the church I don't suppose that is large enough to be significant.
Tony: I suspect you're correct that "innovation" is not a word that comes to mind when discussing the Catholic Church official teachings, though in the past 10 years they have apologized to Galileo and abolished limbo.
But the current Pontiff appears much more old-school. Tradition will probably mean these latest changes will remain, but will be 're-interpreted' at some point based on the current, more 'ideologically pure' stance.
The human leaders of every religion be it from Christianity to Naturalism are subject to errors, both in fundamental perspectives and interpersonal realtionships.
I have chosen to remain with the Judeo-Christian heritage because these faiths know (as far as I'm concerned) what to do when the leaders make mistakes. Correct the mistake to what ever extent is possible, chaulk it up to biased/sin constrained human nature and then try and not repeat the same mistake again.
This does require holding the leaders more responsible, but it shouldn't make it impossible for them to ask for help when they realize they are about to make, or keep on making the same mistakes over and over again.
Salvation while here on earth is nothing more than that. Salvation in the eternal sense is something set in the heart of man that can only be appropriated by faith in the existence of the spirit that will live on after the body is dead.
This is the rationale from which I approach life. The spirit of man comes from God and returns to God, it is His call and perogative for judgement and justice.
OK, schmarty-pants Vieth! Yes, it takes centuries (sometimes) for the Church to get it right.
The Church's handling of the sex abuse crisis has been absolutley dispicable. But, those which did inexcusable things were frail humans and, as such, subject to sin. I do not excuse them in anyway but, they are not the Church. I pray for the victims daily, and for the reconciliation of the Church to those innocents for the crimes committed against them. In the meantime, I participate more in my child's development, assist where I may (after taking classes, getting a background check, and other training required by all parent assitants), and remain a demand for reconciliation by the Church with its victims.
The Church doesn't treat women as well as it should. I'll write more about the New Inquisition going on right now, later. But, for my Church leaders I have just these questions: If all the men died except Hitler, would he have to be Pope? If all the men died, would the Church be gone? As I see it now, Hitler would HAVE to be Pope, and the Church would HAVE to be gone. Silly pompous male celibates! So the sole means to Salvation is through the good offices of only human animals with male genitalia? As I have written above, I think not.
My experience with the Church has been nearly always positive. I believe that where the Church is off, that Catholic Christians have a duty to pray for the Church and its leaders, and take action to set it aright. There are strict limits to that ability if one wishes to remain Catholic, or you have to take the "Theological Fifth." It usually takes a VERY long time. Again, a separate post.
Tim
Your response affirms my faith in humanity — if all religious persons were like you there would be little or no religious strife.
Tim, I swear I posted a response here last night, but apparently cyberspace (or my after-10pm-sieve-brain) ate it up.
I just wanted to say thank you. Your take on religion is lovely and sane, and as Tony said, if everyone who practiced organized religion had your level of compassion and common sense, the world would, indeed, be free of religious strife.
Excerpt from a letter by Mary Anne Glendon, former Ambassador to the Holy See, who has turned down a prestigious award from Notre Dame after learning that she would need to share the stage with Barack Obama:
Erich: Although I disagree with her stance (and that of her church) on abortion, at least Ms Glendon is being internally consistent!
I suppose that (and my renunciation of catholicism) would disqualify me for an Honorary Degreee, too! Which must be why I've never been honored!
I respectfully disagree with the good Ambassador, and assert she needs to review the USCCB guidebook on informing her political conscience, and make specific her objections to Mr. Obama in regards to his alleged "…defiance of our moral principles…" The Ambassador fails and refuses to reference any of these in her letter but, rather relies upon pompous plinths of platitudes in her "dying swan" dance.
My posts have reviewed Catholic teachings on the sanctity of life and traditional Catholic values as they applied to candidate Obama versus the GOP and John McCain. It was not Mr. Obama who was found to be in open defiance of fundamental teachings of the Church regarding the sanctity of life. It was not Mr. Obama who was found to be in open defiance of the traditional Catholic values regarding war, the death penalty for children, the death penalty for the retarded and mentally ill, torture, access to quality health care, taxes and the economy, the condition of women in society, immigration reform, education and the environment.
(See my September and November, 2008 posts on DI about "Why Catholics should vote for Obama" and "Why Catholic McCain voters are going to hell!")
It's the common practice of the far right to snark and run without giving forth any substance to support their actions. As an example, look at what the US House GOP did, put forth a budget with NO numbers! I believe the good Ambassador has snarked and run but, alas and alack–no substance. I rejoice in her absence from Notre Dame, intellectual dishonesty really pisses me off! Good luck and God bless to the ND Class of 2009!
I would much prefer to see someone do exactly what she did – as in take action in her own right – than impose her decision upon others. She acted on her beliefs. She did not insist that someone else "fix" it, as in – "you better not give him an award, or I'm not coming!" That is, perhaps, in essence, what she was saying, but she framed it in such a way that requested nothing of anyone but herself. She chose not to receive her award, and explained herself thusly. I disagree with her position, but she is in line with her Catholicism, and I respect her for what she did.
Tony, someday, surely, someone will honor you. Not sure who, but someone!
Knock: My favorite question for advocates of unending torture is, "If God could save everyone, would He?"
Seek: Those compelled by {or simply insist upon} their own revelation are closer to reality.
Ask: Salvation is neglected because those selling it only offer the store brand, and those wanting to buy will accept nothing for free.
Mindy, of course it's internally consistent to act in accordance with your beliefs. But, one has a concomitant duty to be informed of the facts such that one's activity may be consistent with one's beliefs.
I assert that there is an extremely conservative element in the Catholic Church which seeks to re-affirm values and traditions not wholly consistent with Church doctrine and traditions. These Catholic "neo-cons" are revisionist and likely to adopt other tactics which served Karl Rove and his ilk well at forming governing majorities for the GOP.
I believe these Catholic neo-cons are trying to subvert Vatican II and also pander to the rich conservative supporters which have made up for the fall-off in the numbers of contributors to the various yearly Catholic Appeals with greater volume.
The Catholic neo-cons don't care about facts, they just spout platitudes and rely upon appeals to false authority to have their way; that's why Ambassador Glendon failed and refused to make any specifics available to support her claims, and why her letter said she would continue to fail and refuse to make specifics available (there aren't any!).
If we look at the recent efforts by the neocons relating to the Freedom, of Choice Act (FOCA). For weeks there were sermons at Mass against FOCA, there were postcards in the pews for parishioners to sign opposing FOCA, and many editorials and stories in the "St. Louis Review," reviling FOCA and President Obama for a 2007 statement that he would sign the bill. Guess what? There was, and there is likely still, no FOCA introduced into this Congress! No bill at all!
Talk about shark control on the upper Mississippi! Yeah, we stopped something which didn't exist! But, didn't that hysteria do wonders for recruitment of volunteers against Obama, creating antipathy towards Democrats, making money for the Church's coffers, and mailing lists for future campaigns (of disinformation!). It's all straight out of Karl Rove!
So, Ambassador Blendon, just the facts ma'am!
I suppose I am fortunate to not have been raised with any strong religious traditions — Christian or otherwise — and so I feel no sense of loss or turmoil in believing that the Bible is a work entirely of human authorship. When I read Genesis, I observe that the deity described in that chapter is neither all-knowing, all-powerful nor all-loving, and I deduce that: (a) the deity described in Genesis cannot possibly exist; (b) the "fall from grace" that forms the foundation of all Judeo-Christian doctrine could not possibly have happened. Accordingly, I conclude that the need for "salvation" (as Christians define that word) is a complete fiction. Moreover, since the human brain dies at death, and since there is no scientific evidence that human consciousness can exist independently of the human brain, I further deduce that "eternal life" (again, as Christians define that word) is merely a happy dream. To the extent that "faith" actually does help Believers get through life's ups and downs (and there is no question that it does), this can be attributed entirely to a combination of selection bias and the placebo effect, and to the Church having a very long time to refine its propaganda machine.
Tim
I stand corrected — you are perfectly correct that one should state the terms of one's disagreements. I suppose my current distance from church doctrine made her pronouncement seem 'reasonable' especially in light of other recent commentary by the current pontiff, and others.
I agree with your analysis of neo-con activism in all of our public institutions – one need only look to Michelle Bachmann. She is the NC poster-child. Fact free, but full of vim and vigor in her public pronouncements denigrating anything that does not originate in a neo-con talking point.
How Palinesque of Bachmann, I often think.
Erich – that 'Palinesque' has become a recognized term of derogation in such a short time indicates how very single issue that women was, and how strongly publicized her pronouncements. It scares me that the last election was so close, and that she (Palin) had, and retains, such a relatively high approval rating!
I have many republican neighbors(!), many of whom truly believe that Palin was simply attacked by the media, and that we 'liberals' need to actually listen to what she says.
I tried to listen. My brain began to liquify. I had to stop, if only for the sake of my family!
Tony, go to our archives and enter "Palin" or "Caribou Barbie" and send the results to your misinformed Republican friends!
Tim: I think those supporters of Palin are beyond argument, beyond evidence. I suspect that for them, embracing Sarah Palin constitutes a sexually-tinged rebelliousness. Applauding Sarah is essentially giving the finger toward the powers that be. Embracing Sara is a reaction to the powerlessness felt as a result of the inability to muster even a meager personal understanding of the horrific problems facing the country. Her supporters want to nuzzle her bosom in more ways than one. She represented sex and safety. Her siren song has two verses: A) her abject flirtatiousness and B) her constant cocky assertion that everything is OK.
I have relatives in Alaska. I have friends in Alaska. I have visited Alaska and have seen that there is an about 10-1 ratio of men to women in Alaska. I think the "popularity" of Gov. Palin rests with the fact that while all alone out in the wilderness, once in awhile some woman with some semblance of "looks" is on the TV for the men to ogle.
There are about 600,000 people in Alaska. There are more voters in the Missouri 2nd where I live than in all Alaska! Gov. Palin has the support of some 500,000 people (at her height). What we have is a Governor who has the support of some 500,000 people being touted as the Second Coming.
So, she gave one good speech on TV (she was a sportscaster—AND didn't write it!), got some $150,000.00 from the RNC to dress her up (don't we all wish for that!), mouthed Karl Rove written scripts (when she was on them!) and THIS is what the far right wing neocon Brown Shirt weblog echochambering yobbo yappers want us to elect in 2012?
God help us!
The death and resurrection of Jesus is the grace of God which saved us all. The good works we do allow for that grace to be manifest to all. All are saved,
http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/04/28/catholic-di-author-weighs-in-on-salvation/
I wrote on this years ago, and through God’s grace and prayer, Frances has also made salvation for ALL known as a truth of Catholic teaching. Thank you, Holiness!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/pope-francis-good-atheists_n_3320757.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
You forgot to put the word “truth” in quotes (again).
Since we are not talking about anything which could ever be falsified (tested) in 4.54 Billion years, it is a stretch of Biblical proportions to use the word Truth when describing Catholic teaching. This also applies to anything else that comes out of the Rectum of Man.
“truth of Catholic teaching” such as … men have one more rib than women?
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio105/ribs.htm
To my atheist brothers and sisters:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/pope-francis-letter-atheists_n_3909425.html
It’s great to see the Church moving forward under Pope Francis.
Francis strikes, again! I love this guy!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/pope-francis-gay_n_3954776.html?ir=Religion
Erich, take note!
Tim, two comments.
1. This is one hell of a lot better than the previous psychopathic bigot who held that office.
2. You’re applauding an awful lot just because a man jumped over a very low bar.
That said, maybe Francis can convince Catholics that there are more important things shitting on gays and simplistically bashing abortion. I am happy to see this development, but it was way too long in coming.