C
Contarini
Guest
I think that the fact that Christians ask this question is one of the strongest arguments for universalism. There are all kinds of reasons to practice any given religion. The idea that the only reason to practice a religion is to avoid hell is, to my mind, bizarre and horrifying, and it needs explaining.
And someone who is genuinely convinced, in good faith, based on their earnest attempt to know the truth and do the good, that “secular humanism” is correct, then yes, that would be possible.
But obviously a person who knew that Christianity was true but chose to follow secular humanism would not be acting in good faith. Such a choice would tend to separate you from God, to corrupt and destroy you.
Even if, somehow, you repented at the end and were saved, the corrupt choice to turn away from the truth would still have done you immense damage and prevented you from living your life as God intended it.
That’s surely reason enough to follow the truth.
And without having watched the video, I doubt that Fr. Barron was teaching that everyone will inevitably be saved. That might have the effect you worry about, because it would mean that those choices that naturally tend toward damnation can be confidently expected not to have their natural effect, making them to some degree meaningless (not entirely, because they would still have effects on this life and Purgatory and might also limit the degree to which one was capable of enjoying the Beatific Vision).
But unless I’m mistaken, an orthodox Catholic is not allowed to hold that everyone will be saved.
If Fr. Barron just saying that everyone may be saved, then we still need to worry about damnation. The “hopeful universalist” position is conditional: everyone will be saved if everyone eventually repents. Choices that take you away from the truth do put your soul in danger.
Well, the “stuff” isn’t all the same. It depends on what you mean by “stuff.”
The Catholic Church can claim to be “unchanging” in the sense that it does not contradict its solemnly promulgated teachings. But all kinds of other stuff does in fact change.
What you would hear in catechesis in the 50s and what even so relatively conservative a teacher as Fr. Barron would say today is indeed quite different.
I’m glad to hear that your parents are willing to go to this study series.
A lot of Catholics, who grew up with the idea that “nothing changes,” were very confused by the changes after Vatican II and jumped to the conclusion that therefore everything was up for grabs and they could just pick and choose whatever bits of Catholicism they liked. As a non-Catholic who has tottered on the verge of conversion to Catholicism for years, I’ve encountered this attitude frequently.
No. According to Catholic teaching, you need “full knowledge and deliberate consent” to commit a mortal sin.
No human being is in a position to judge whether any other human being has “full knowledge and deliberate consent.”
Hence, you are in no position to judge whether your parents are headed for hell or not.
Also, you seem to be confusing very different things. Your first example is of your mother failing to go to Mass (I assume that this was a Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation). According to Catholic teaching, that’s a grave sin.
Your second example is of your father’s speaking disparagingly of a political statement by the U.S. bishops. Perhaps he is speaking with a lack of respect for the bishops, but that’s not necessarily a rejection of the teaching of the Church itself. One can accept Church teaching while thinking that the specific political actions of the bishops leave a lot to be desired.
Edwin