Feigned Ignorance vs. Unintentional Ignorance

[shocktrooper]

People who don’t accept the authority that told them it is wrong may or may not be on the hook (for mortal sin). It depends on a variety of factors. If they were raised Catholic with decent religious education, the chances that they ought to know better rise noticeably.

But how can anyone claim that, for instance, blocking life via contraception or sterilization, is good? It clearly goes against the natural, divine and moral law written in the heart of every man and woman. This is the part I just don’t get. Even the Church says that no one can claim ignorance when it comes to the natural law. She also teaches that the 10 Commandments are the written form of the natural law. So how can anyone claim invincible ignorance when it comes to any of the 10 Commandments?

 

[underacloud]

So if above is true, then what would be the point of Christ’s warning to those that lead a little one astray? If the child or person was not REALLY lead astray, then why warn the one who supposedly lead astray another with suffering and death. It is clear that scandal and poor teaching actually leads people astray. This means they are not in the flock if they are “astray”, correct? To me, it seems like too many people like to defer to playing the invincibly ignorant card, or baptism of desire card without reasonable reasons for doing so. As far as I know, the Church has never linked it’s teaching on other people of other faiths being saved to Her teaching of baptism of desire. This seems to have been a link created by some trying to interpret Vatican II’s teaching.

I don’t know of any Magisterial teaching that says, those of other faiths seeking God are saved by Baptism of Desire. If there is one, can someone please point me to it?

God bless.

The relevant Magesterial teaching was provided above by aragonjohn1:

“Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium),” “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation”

This does not explicitly say that the process is baptism of desire, by James Akin explains how that would be the process in the article I linked to. Regardless of the process, salvation is possible for those outside of the Catholic Church (yet still through the Church).

 

[underacloud]

But how can anyone claim that, for instance, blocking life via contraception or sterilization, is good? It clearly goes against the natural, divine and moral law written in the heart of every man and woman. This is the part I just don’t get. Even the Church says that no one can claim ignorance when it comes to the natural law. She also teaches that the 10 Commandments are the written form of the natural law. So how can anyone claim invincible ignorance when it comes to any of the 10 Commandments?

Contraception is an interesting point.

When the issue was being explored by the Church throughout last century, many (the majority at times) bishops and theologians were in favour of allowing it. I’m not raising this as an argument in favour of contraception, but merely to show that the issue is not so clear from natural moral law.

I have many protestant friends - very reasonale and faithful people - and within their faiths contraception is allowed. Natural moral law is not so clear for them either.

The 10 commandments do not *explicitly *forbid it either. The Church explains how contraception is morally wrong and goes against the sixth commandment, but I don’t see how anyonw can assume from their own conscience or from the sixth commandment that it ought to be clear for everyone.

This is one of the reasons why there are so many different Christian faiths. The ten commandments remain central to all Christian faiths, yet interpretation of natural moral law and the specific implications of the ten commandments are not so clear that we should assume any reasonable person would see things the way that we do.

 

[Pug]

But how can anyone claim that, for instance, blocking life via contraception or sterilization, is good? It clearly goes against the natural, divine and moral law written in the heart of every man and woman. This is the part I just don’t get. Even the Church says that no one can claim ignorance when it comes to the natural law. She also teaches that the 10 Commandments are the written form of the natural law. So how can anyone claim invincible ignorance when it comes to any of the 10 Commandments?

No ordinary adult can claim ignorance about the principles of the moral law. They presumably can claim ignorance about the details, applications, norms derived from principles, specifications, raw data, etc.

So, what are the principles we are talking about? The Decalogue itself, or every conceivable little thing you can deduce with reason from it? Sterilization is not listed in the Decalogue. Yes, the Church lists it under a commandment because that is how she lists things, but it is not in the words. Perhaps it is deduced from the idea that destruction of human goods as a means is wrong, or perhaps it is deduced from the fifth commandment. That is certainly where I think it would be listed, but I am wrong. The CCC mentions it under the sixth commandment. Certainly what drives it as wrong is not patent, given that this somewhat educated Catholic categorizes it incorrectly.

Even so, perhaps someone might recognize it as wrong in marriage but fail to realize it is wrong in a particular case, like if a severely mentally challenged individual (incapable of consent to anything, including marriage) is being raped again and again because the institution they are in is poor and can’t protect them, someone might sterilize them in an attempt to make things a little better, thinking it is okay in that case.

 

[Eufrosnia]

So “full knowledge” does not mean that one has to fully make the teaching their own and accept it completely? That is how I perceive it. It seems that if one is told that such and such is wrong (10 Commandments), and then they say, “yeah, for you maybe but I have no problem doing it, the Church is wrong”, then that person is still held culpable and meets that condition for mortal sin.

Have you also considered that “full knowledge” is not the only criterion for mortal sin? ‘Freely choosing’ is also an important factor. So most of the time, many may KNOW fully that something is wrong but be unable to still act or not act accordingly due to circumstances i.e. coercion, addiction, age etc.

Another thing might be that you are forgetting that this is not suppossed to be a metric that is applied externally. What I mean is that each individual is the one to use these guidelines to determine whether they have committed a mortal sin or not. If they are unsure, they should attend a confession anyway. What you are suggesting becomes an issue only when someone external wants to determine the heart of another individual. That is not what we are called to do anyways.

As far as our actions as an external observer goes, we must lovingly inform any brother or sister that we see who engages in sin and explain why its wrong. We can also try to remove things or circumstances that might act as catalysts to the sin they struggle with.

But none of us can determine if they have committed a mortal sin unless they give us a lot of information. At this point, it is the individual that knows best. We can only help him see the conclusion.

So while natural law is written in our hearts, it is only after figuring out what is written with certainty that one can contemplate on their acts. This makes it ever important for us to carry out our duty in raising awareness to moral truths among everyone. After they do their reflection on their actions, we can certainly help them figure out a level of culpability from the information they share. But all the information to determine culpability is available to the individual first. Not us.

 

[Eufrosnia]

The relevant Magesterial teaching was provided above by aragonjohn1:

“Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium),” “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation”

This does not explicitly say that the process is baptism of desire, by James Akin explains how that would be the process in the article I linked to. Regardless of the process, salvation is possible for those outside of the Catholic Church (yet still through the Church).

It is worth keeping in mind that this is a technical possibility. As far as practical Catholic action goes, we are called to evangelize.

There is sometimes the mistake of taking the technicality to the level of practicality and claiming that all one has to do is “be a good Buddhist/Hindu/Muslim to attain salvation”. That is not compatible with Church teaching and is wrong.

The exception in LG is saying that someone outside the church might have sufficient level of Actual grace through the Church to keep them from sinning mortally. But as many saints will state, it is hard enough to stay sinless even after receiving sanctifying grace which makes the Eucharist and sacrament of reconciliation of the utmost importance. If we are talking marriage, there are graces available for the baptized through it.

So is it technically possible for someone outside the church to be saved? Yes. How likely is it i.e. practically? Very slim. Hence the ongoing need for the church to evangelize which has never been denied.

 

[underacloud]

It is worth keeping in mind that this is a technical possibility. As far as practical Catholic action goes, we are called to evangelize.

There is sometimes the mistake of taking the technicality to the level of practicality and claiming that all one has to do is “be a good Buddhist/Hindu/Muslim to attain salvation”. That is not compatible with Church teaching and is wrong.

The exception in LG is saying that someone outside the church might have sufficient level of Actual grace through the Church to keep them from sinning mortally. But as many saints will state, it is hard enough to stay sinless even after receiving sanctifying grace which makes the Eucharist and sacrament of reconciliation of the utmost importance. If we are talking marriage, there are graces available for the baptized through it.

So is it technically possible for someone outside the church to be saved? Yes. How likely is it i.e. practically? Very slim. Hence the ongoing need for the church to evangelize which has never been denied.

Yes, this is all discussed in the article I linked to; the need for evangelism and the benefit of actual graces available through Church sacraments.

As for the question how likely is it for people outside the Church to be saved, I do not think “very slim” is a fair conclusion. It is certainly suggested by many of the saints, writing in times before LG, but the reality is that no one knows. It’s a discussion that’s been had on this forum countless times. I don’t want to get into that discussion again here, other than to say that I’m happy to leave it up to God without theorising one way or another regarding likely numbers/proportions/etc; but the door is open, so to speak.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Yes, this is all discussed in the article I linked to; the need for evangelism and the benefit of actual graces available through Church sacraments.

As for the question how likely is it for people outside the Church to be saved, I do not think “very slim” is a fair conclusion. It is certainly suggested by many of the saints, writing in times before LG, but the reality is that no one knows. It’s a discussion that’s been had on this forum countless times. I don’t want to get into that discussion again here, other than to say that I’m happy to leave it up to God without theorising one way or another regarding likely numbers/proportions/etc; but the door is open, so to speak.

If the chances are not slim, this will directly contradict the value of the Sacraments, teachings of the church etc. So I think there is sufficient reason to think that the chances are indeed slim. Otherwise why even evangelize?

As far as saint writings goes, I am pretty sure they do consider the chances to be not that great either. But I would certainly be interested in hearing some if you know to the contrary.

Just think about Protestant brethren for an example. As close as it can get to being Catholic. They have access to some graces and teaching through the Scripture. But even then, they still seem unable to maintain moral law. I would argue that it is a good example of the need for graces through the sacraments and other elements of the Catholic faith (like prayers to the saints and Blessed Mother). Without it, its a tough road.

 

[underacloud]

If the chances are not slim, this will directly contradict the value of the Sacraments, teachings of the church etc. So I think there is sufficient reason to think that the chances are indeed slim. Otherwise why even evangelize?

Not at all. There is much value in the sacraments other than the merely binary issue of salvation. They are about receiving real grace from God to know Him better and carry out His will in our lives.

Those who frequently receive the sacraments will, hopefully, be growing closer to God. Possible benefits of this could include being more prepared to enjoy the beatific vision than others and having a shorter/easier path through purgatory than others. Those others may still end up in the same place, but may have a harder journey and be less prepared for the beatific vision. They will still enjoy the vision to the fullest, but their “full” may be less than others. There may be other real benefits of the sacraments, such as the grace given to married Catholics to sustain their marriages.

Does access to the sacraments increase the likelihood of salvation? I don’t know. God knows. But doesn’t it seem quite unfair if one’s chance of salvation is greatly affected by the circumstances of their life, beyond their own control/responsibility? This is really what ignorance is about, why this “technicality” is provided, and why we allow God to judge.

 

[shocktrooper]

The relevant Magesterial teaching was provided above by aragonjohn1:

“Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium),” “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation”

This does not explicitly say that the process is baptism of desire, by James Akin explains how that would be the process in the article I linked to. Regardless of the process, salvation is possible for those outside of the Catholic Church (yet still through the Church).

underacloud,

That link between LG and BoD is made via others, not the Church. I agree with Lumen Gentium but it does not say they are saved by Baptism of Desire. It simply says they “MAY” be saved. What person on earth may not be saved? Did Christ not come to save all? Baptism of Desire has always been specific to those desiring to be baptized with water but fail to do so for one reason or another. LG does not change that teaching explicitly. It simply states the obvious, that all “may” be saved if they have no fault of their own, meaning they are “invincibly ignorant”.

I do agree with you that BoD can be properly linked to those outside the Church and I agree with that position, however, I was looking for something more explicit from the Church linking the two. My biggest problem with those that like to play the BoD card is that they presume all non-Christians in the world have never heard the Gospel of Christ. It is my argument that even if they heard it incorrectly, they are not “invincibly ignorant” because the moral and divine law applies to all and holds all accountable. If I were to drive on the wrong side of the road because my parents told me it was better to do so, and I heard the opposite taught but wanted to not get things muddied between my family and I, then I would still be accountable to the law when pulled over for a driving violation and endangering others. Or maybe I was lazy and did not want to find out for myself what side of the road I should be driving on. Maybe I did not pray for God to open my heart to the truth.

IMO, in today’s age, one would be hard pressed to find anyone in any developed nation that is truly “invincibly ignorant”.

I am not arguing with you. I am just trying to work this out so that I can better understand it.

God bless.

 

[shocktrooper]

Contraception is an interesting point.

When the issue was being explored by the Church throughout last century, many (the majority at times) bishops and theologians were in favour of allowing it. I’m not raising this as an argument in favour of contraception, but merely to show that the issue is not so clear from natural moral law.

I have many protestant friends - very reasonale and faithful people - and within their faiths contraception is allowed. Natural moral law is not so clear for them either.

The 10 commandments do not *explicitly *forbid it either. The Church explains how contraception is morally wrong and goes against the sixth commandment, but I don’t see how anyonw can assume from their own conscience or from the sixth commandment that it ought to be clear for everyone.

This is one of the reasons why there are so many different Christian faiths. The ten commandments remain central to all Christian faiths, yet interpretation of natural moral law and the specific implications of the ten commandments are not so clear that we should assume any reasonable person would see things the way that we do.

It is literally impossible for someone to be invincibly ignorant of the moral fact that CONTRA-ception goes against the natural order. IMPOSSIBLE. Again, the Church has made this clear, since this is a moral issue and the Church says NO ONE is ignorant of the moral or natural law.

 

[underacloud]

underacloud,

That link between LG and BoD is made via others, not the Church. I agree with Lumen Gentium but it does not say they are saved by Baptism of Desire. It simply says they “MAY” be saved. What person on earth may not be saved? Did Christ not come to save all? Baptism of Desire has always been specific to those desiring to be baptized with water but fail to do so for one reason or another. LG does not change that teaching explicitly. It simply states the obvious, that all “may” be saved if they have no fault of their own, meaning they are “invincibly ignorant”.

I do agree with you that BoD can be properly linked to those outside the Church and I agree with that position, however, I was looking for something more explicit from the Church linking the two. My biggest problem with those that like to play the BoD card is that they presume all non-Christians in the world have never heard the Gospel of Christ. It is my argument that even if they heard it incorrectly, they are not “invincibly ignorant” because the moral and divine law applies to all and holds all accountable. If I were to drive on the wrong side of the road because my parents told me it was better to do so, and I heard the opposite taught but wanted to not get things muddied between my family and I, then I would still be accountable to the law when pulled over for a driving violation and endangering others. Or maybe I was lazy and did not want to find out for myself what side of the road I should be driving on. Maybe I did not pray for God to open my heart to the truth.

IMO, in today’s age, one would be hard pressed to find anyone in any developed nation that is truly “invincibly ignorant”.

I am not arguing with you. I am just trying to work this out so that I can better understand it.

God bless.

Actually, baptism of desire is discussed in the catechism:

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.“63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”

Also, I suggest that invincible ignorance is a far more nuanced concept than you allow for. One could have heard the gospel preached in such a way that they cannot accept it; simply hearing the gospel message does not negate innocent ignorance. As for “playing the BoD card”…well, it is offered by the Church as a means for Christ to save those who do not seem to be a part of His Church. God will judge each person and it is up to God to decide whether BoD applies. It is not something that a person plays or claims…it is up to God alone.

 

[underacloud]

It is literally impossible for someone to be invincibly ignorant of the moral fact that CONTRA-ception goes against the natural order. IMPOSSIBLE. Again, the Church has made this clear, since this is a moral issue and the Church says NO ONE is ignorant of the moral or natural law.

From the catechism, the actual quote is “no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man”. (CCC 1860)

It does not follow that no one is ignorant of *specifics *of moral law. Indeed, the catechism states: “Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” (CCC 1790) It goes on to discuss that such ignorance may be the responsibility of the sinner or not.

Again, it is up to God…and God alone…to judge whether an individual is invincibly ignorant of any given moral law. I find it presumptuous, and unnecessary, to declare such a thing impossible.

 

[shocktrooper]

Actually, baptism of desire is discussed in the catechism:

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.“63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.”

Also, I suggest that invincible ignorance is a far more nuanced concept than you allow for. One could have heard the gospel preached in such a way that they cannot accept it; simply hearing the gospel message does not negate innocent ignorance. As for “playing the BoD card”…well, it is offered by the Church as a means for Christ to save those who do not seem to be a part of His Church. God will judge each person and it is up to God to decide whether BoD applies. It is not something that a person plays or claims…it is up to God alone.

Thank you for referencing the CCC. I really appreciate it. This is what I was looking for.

 

[shocktrooper]

From the catechism, the actual quote is “no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man”. (CCC 1860)

It does not follow that no one is ignorant of *specifics *of moral law. Indeed, the catechism states: “Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.” (CCC 1790) It goes on to discuss that such ignorance may be the responsibility of the sinner or not.

Again, it is up to God…and God alone…to judge whether an individual is invincibly ignorant of any given moral law. I find it presumptuous, and unnecessary, to declare such a thing impossible.

Sorry, on this one I think you are wrong, but maybe not. Deemed means to “hold as an opinion” or consider, meaning one can not have the opinion that they are ignorant of the moral law or be considered to be ignorant…

CCC 1790 simply states that a moral conscience can remain ignorant but this would simply be a case of a malformed conscience, correct? This is not saying that the moral law was never written in their conscience, just that they have suppressed it involuntarily or voluntarily. Either way, when it comes to the moral law, we can’t be considered to be ignorant.

Thanks.

 

[underacloud]

Sorry, on this one I think you are wrong, but maybe not. Deemed means to “hold as an opinion” or consider, meaning one can not have the opinion that they are ignorant of the moral law or be considered to be ignorant…

Sorry, I think you missed my point, which is a semantic but important one. No one is deemed ignorant of the *principles *of moral law. What these principles are exactly is not elaborated on, but it is not the same thing as to say that no one remains ignorant of *all the specifics *of moral law.

CCC 1790 simply states that a moral conscience can remain ignorant but this would simply be a case of a malformed conscience, correct? This is not saying that the moral law was never written in their conscience, just that they have suppressed it involuntarily or voluntarily. Either way, when it comes to the moral law, we can’t be considered to be ignorant.

I think if you read the section in full it is clearer: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

So it says that “ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility”…that is, a person should have developed their own conscience better. But it also says that ignorance can be invincible and that specific evils cannot be imputed to such a person. Ignorance of specifics of moral law is certainly possible.

 

[shocktrooper]

Sorry, I think you missed my point, which is a semantic but important one. No one is deemed ignorant of the *principles *of moral law. What these principles are exactly is not elaborated on, but it is not the same thing as to say that no one remains ignorant of *all the specifics *of moral law.

Thank you again for helping with this. I have concluded that I have to read the CCC more. And I shall do so, but I think a “principle” of the moral/natural law is man + woman = baby if thought of in the procreative way. Any subtraction or contradiction, including contraception and sterilization negates this “principle”. It is extremely obvious that any form of preventing childbirth in an unnatural way violates a principle of the natural order. People are not idiots when it comes to this or any other natural law, they are simply turned in on themselves and prevent the light from penetrating their hardness of heart. Good thing God never gives up on anyone!

 

[Eufrosnia]

Does access to the sacraments increase the likelihood of salvation? I don’t know. God knows. But doesn’t it seem quite unfair if one’s chance of salvation is greatly affected by the circumstances of their life, beyond their own control/responsibility? This is really what ignorance is about, why this “technicality” is provided, and why we allow God to judge.

It is divinely revealed that it does. Otherwise what would be the logic in even giving sacraments to begin with?

It is only unfair depending on how you address God’s divine Providence. Those who ascribe to a Molinist point of view would disagree that there is any unfairness.

Even if we ascribe to simply view of grace, one could argue that sufficient grace was given to every individual but they just refused. We just don’t know enough to say some were not given enough grace.

I would say as far as practical reason goes, the logic would go as

1. Chances of being saved outside the Catholic Church are slim
2. Therefore put effort to convert to Catholicism or bring in to communion

 

[underacloud]

It is divinely revealed that it does. Otherwise what would be the logic in even giving sacraments to begin with?

I discussed before the benefit of the sacraments beyond the binary issue of salvation.

I’m not certain that it’s true that it is divinely revealed that access to the sacraments increases the likelihood of salvation, although it does seem implied in Christ’s command to baptise the nations.

It is only unfair depending on how you address God’s divine Providence. Those who ascribe to a Molinist point of view would disagree that there is any unfairness.

Even if we ascribe to simply view of grace, one could argue that sufficient grace was given to every individual but they just refused. We just don’t know enough to say some were not given enough grace.

Yes, I’m very happy to say that my understanding of God’s providence is meagre. Certainly a Molinist position gives some understanding of how free will and providence can coexist. And it does provide a possibility for salvation outside of the Church being slim, yet not unfair.

I would say as far as practical reason goes, the logic would go as

1. Chances of being saved outside the Catholic Church are slim
2. Therefore put effort to convert to Catholicism or bring in to communion

I still don’t like to say things that would seem to limit God’s mercy in any way. It is not clear how many or how few are saved. Perhaps it is fair to say that chances are “slimmer” outside the Church, but I would still hope that God can find a way.

…“Who then can be saved?” Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” (Luke 18:26-27)

 

[Eufrosnia]

I discussed before the benefit of the sacraments beyond the binary issue of salvation.

I’m not certain that it’s true that it is divinely revealed that access to the sacraments increases the likelihood of salvation, although it does seem implied in Christ’s command to baptise the nations.

Well think about it this way, if it does not increase the likelihood, then it is worthless anyway and can be done away with.

The Catholic Theology states that Baptism infuses one with Sanctifying grace i.e. share in the Divine life of God. Sacrament of Reconciliation and the Eucharist help reattain this perfect relationship and nourish it.

A non-Catholic simply does not have access to it.

Yes, I’m very happy to say that my understanding of God’s providence is meagre. Certainly a Molinist position gives some understanding of how free will and providence can coexist. And it does provide a possibility for salvation outside of the Church being slim, yet not unfair.

I still don’t like to say things that would seem to limit God’s mercy in any way. It is not clear how many or how few are saved. Perhaps it is fair to say that chances are “slimmer” outside the Church, but I would still hope that God can find a way.

…“Who then can be saved?” Jesus replied, “What is impossible with men is possible with God.” (Luke 18:26-27)

Well it is certainly ONLY possible with God. Salvation is primarily accomplished through his Grace.

I see this issue somewhat in the example of marriage.

So staying faithful to an eternal bond in marriage for an example is very difficult for a non-Christian. But, for a Christian, there is the added incentive of grace given through the sacrament of marriage as well as other sacraments, and even through the knowledge of the importance of marriage obtained through the church.

This does not to say that a non-Christian could never have a successful marriage till their death (the issue is somewhat different here because non-Christians do not share a bond the same sense Christians do. But nevertheless, the breaking of a marriage does lead to disorder in the relationship between man and a woman). A non-Christian couple might have been exposed to the teachings of the Church and it might have appealed more to the law written in their hearts. So their deep conviction to achieve a lasting marriage could pull them through. Though that can still happen but the chances are slimmer and there maybe many faith based impediments (their own faith might allow divorce or not give marriage any prominence).

Now it also does not mean that all Christians would have a successful marriage till death. It just means that if a Christian should have chosen to accept the graces given through the sacrament, they would certainly be able to respond to God. The article of faith here would be that God would never have given an obstacle so big that it was not possible to be overcome through the available graces. The reason why we fail is because we reject his grace.

It is a very similar view I have with the salvation of non-Christians. So could they be saved? Technically yes. But the chances are less.

Are all Christians saved? No, because they can still reject grace.

So why should we evangelize,convert or bring in to communion? Because it would give everyone the best access to all the possible grace that one could have from God.

P.S. Just to clarify, I personally do not hold the Molinist position. But I find it useful in terms of some its explanatory power with respect to these issues.