Non Catholics, ABC, and Salvation

[petras52]

The Catholic Church teaches that non Catholics can be saved. My married relatives are Lutheran and practice artificial birth control, which is allowed in their religion. According to Catholic teaching this implies that a Lutheran who practices abc can be saved while a Catholic, all other things being equal, goes to hell for doing the same thing. For an act to be truly intrinsically evil, like the Church says about abc, shouldn’t it and the consequences apply equally to people of all faiths? To me it doesn’t make sense that people of one faith can end up in heaven and those of another faith in hell for doing the same thing…

 

[Contarini]

The Catholic Church teaches that non Catholics can be saved. My married relatives are Lutheran and practice artificial birth control, which is allowed in their religion. According to Catholic teaching this implies that a Lutheran who practices abc can be saved while a Catholic, all other things being equal, goes to hell for doing the same thing. For an act to be truly intrinsically evil, like the Church says about abc, shouldn’t it and the consequences apply equally to people of all faiths? To me it doesn’t make sense that people of one faith can end up in heaven and those of another faith in hell for doing the same thing…

As I understand it, it all depends on whether one is doing it in good conscience. To commit a mortal sin you have to have full knowledge and deliberate consent. So if I practice birth control honestly believing it to be legitimate (and reinforced by the judgment of my church on this point), I may be saved, while you go to hell for going against what your Church teaches and your conscience knows to be true. (In fact I have a lot of doubts about birth control, but that’s not the point here.)

There’s a great line from A Man for All Seasons that touches on this. Norwich says to More, “Won’t you come with us [in accepting the Royal Supremacy] for fellowship?” More responds, “And when we stand before God, and you are saved for acting according to your conscience, and I am damned for going against mine, will you come with me then, for fellowship?”

I’m not sure the historical More would have said anything of the sort, but it’s a great line!

Edwin

 

[petras52]

As I understand it, it all depends on whether one is doing it in good conscience. To commit a mortal sin you have to have full knowledge and deliberate consent. So if I practice birth control honestly believing it to be legitimate (and reinforced by the judgment of my church on this point), I may be saved, while you go to hell for going against what your Church teaches and your conscience knows to be true. (In fact I have a lot of doubts about birth control, but that’s not the point here.)

There’s a great line from A Man for All Seasons that touches on this. Norwich says to More, “Won’t you come with us [in accepting the Royal Supremacy] for fellowship?” More responds, “And when we stand before God, and you are saved for acting according to your conscience, and I am damned for going against mine, will you come with me then, for fellowship?”

I’m not sure the historical More would have said anything of the sort, but it’s a great line!

Edwin

My conscience would not bother me if I did practice abc but my Chuch would condemn me saying I had a flawed conscience…it’s just hard for me to make sense of how something could be intrinsically evil with dire eternal consequences for people of one faith and a “get out of jail free card” for people of other faiths…

 

[davidv]

My conscience would not bother me if I did practice abc but my Chuch would condemn me saying I had a flawed conscience…it’s just hard for me to make sense of how something could be intrinsically evil with dire eternal consequences for people of one faith and a “get out of jail free card” for people of other faiths…

The Church does not condemn anyone. Jesus said that those who are condemned, condemn themselves.

If you think ABC is a nonproblem, your conscience is not properly formed.

God’s law applies to all. There is no “get out of jail free card”.

 

[petras52]

The Church does not condemn anyone. Jesus said that those who are condemned, condemn themselves.

If you think ABC is a nonproblem, your conscience is not properly formed.

God’s law applies to all. There is no “get out of jail free card”.

Re my conscience, that’s possible…however I like to see solid logic supporting the teaching…if the act, abc, is truly intrinsically evil, should not the consequences of its use apply to people of all faiths? The Church does not say to Lutherans.“you may be saved if you follow our rules re abc”… frankly this double standard does not make sense…I posed this to a priest who has a weekly column in a Catholic paper and he admitted in private email that it didn’t make sense to him either…so I guess maybe his conscience is not properly formed also…he also stated that maybe I would be going against my conscience while the Lutheran wouldn’t…of course this assumes my conscience believes abc is wrong in a married relationship…

 

[aperture]

The Church does not condemn anyone. Jesus said that those who are condemned, condemn themselves.

If you think ABC is a nonproblem, your conscience is not properly formed.

God’s law applies to all. There is no “get out of jail free card”.

Yet the definition of “intrinsic evil” means something that is naturally, organically, obviously wrong. Things that seem to fit into this category are murder and theft. I know of few people that do not believe these things are wrong. Yet I know of many people who are OK with things that the Catholic Church explicitly condemns, such as contraception; their conscience(s) simply do not find anything wrong there. Does this not go against the definition of an “intrinsic” evil? I do not see how this works.

 

[Big_Ro]

The Church does not condemn anyone. Jesus said that those who are condemned, condemn themselves.

If you think ABC is a nonproblem, your conscience is not properly formed.

God’s law applies to all. There is no “get out of jail free card”.

I’m really trying to make sense of your statement. You’re saying, if I understand correctly, that the Catholic Church does not condemn anyone. I certainly believe that Jesus does not condemn because he says so in scripture. So, it would follow that church, being Christs bride on earth, should not condemn either. We are condemned then, as you say, bu our own actions. So, If I take up some practice, such as ABC, and do not feel in any way that it is a mortal sin, I’m okay. However, I do have a improperly formed conscience. Does my improperly formed conscience then condemn me? Or maybe another way of asking would be is having an improperly formed conscience a sin?

 

[mark_a]

The Catholic Church teaches that non Catholics can be saved. My married relatives are Lutheran and practice artificial birth control, which is allowed in their religion. According to Catholic teaching this implies that a Lutheran who practices abc can be saved while a Catholic, all other things being equal, goes to hell for doing the same thing. For an act to be truly intrinsically evil, like the Church says about abc, shouldn’t it and the consequences apply equally to people of all faiths? To me it doesn’t make sense that people of one faith can end up in heaven and those of another faith in hell for doing the same thing…

If you can’t accept the Church’s teaching about contraception, specifically what is it that makes you Catholic?

I believe the root of the problem is that we live in a culture that is selfish and cannot accept the Church’s teaching that all human life is sacred.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, it could be a sin to have an improperly formed conscience.

If you are perfectly capable of both finding and understanding the correct information, yet choose not to do so and to rely on imperfect methods such as "what I think I remember reading in 6th grade’ or “what my next door neighbor read on a blog”. . .then basing your conscience on those rather than the truth (found in the Catechism or other approved venues) would be a sin of omission–you omitted to do all that you should have done to inform yourself.

However, if you misread something because you’re dyslexic, or if you went to ask your priest and he (for whatever reason) gave you incorrect information. . .your culpability is lessened, because so far as you knew you were doing all that you could and going through the proper ‘channels’ to gain a correct understanding.

Many people seem to be confused in that they believe that if they ‘understand’ a teaching ‘differently’ or if ‘the priest’ says something different from the Church, well hey, then, that is a matter of conscience and conscience is always right whereas the Church can sometimes be wrong. And of course that is not true.

There really is absolutely no case where a person’s ‘well informed conscience’ can differ from the teaching of the Church and be ‘correct’. At most, it can be a well-meant but imperfect ‘mistake’ where the person honestly thought that he had correct understanding and approval by the Church/ priest. But usually it is a case where the person gains a distinct ‘benefit’ from disregarding the teaching of the Church.

IOW, I have never, ever seen a case where a person’s conscience was more ‘rigorous’ than the teachings of the Church.

Because even those who, for example, think the NO and Vatican 2 were ‘wrong’, are basing their understanding on the teachings of the Church as they know it. They aren’t going out into ‘societal norms.’

But today’s Catholic who dissents from Church teaching is always going from a ‘hard’ teaching to an ‘easy’ one, rather than going from an ‘easy’ teaching to embracing something ‘harder.’

And that to me says quite a lot.

 

[davidv]

I’m really trying to make sense of your statement. You’re saying, if I understand correctly, that the Catholic Church does not condemn anyone. I certainly believe that Jesus does not condemn because he says so in scripture. So, it would follow that church, being Christs bride on earth, should not condemn either. We are condemned then, as you say, bu our own actions. So, If I take up some practice, such as ABC, and do not feel in any way that it is a mortal sin, I’m okay. However, I do have a improperly formed conscience. Does my improperly formed conscience then condemn me? Or maybe another way of asking would be is having an improperly formed conscience a sin?

Since the Church is that Body of Christ (Bride) then she teaches what is true. If what you feel is contrary, then I can, with certainty, know that you have rejected truth if you insist on going with your feelings rather than the Church’s teaching.

Even if you don’t know, sinful behavior is harmful, though not mortally so.

Your improperly formed conscience and the sins that result can condemn you if you had the means and capacity to learn and accept the truth. Not forming your concience would be a sin unless one has no access to the correct information or does not have the intellectual capacity to properly interpret it.

 

[Big_Ro]

Since the Church is that Body of Christ (Bride) then she teaches what is true. If what you feel is contrary, then I can, with certainty, know that you have rejected truth if you insist on going with your feelings rather than the Church’s teaching.

Even if you don’t know, sinful behavior is harmful, though not mortally so.

Your improperly formed conscience and the sins that result can condemn you if you had the means and capacity to learn and accept the truth. Not forming your concience would be a sin unless one has no access to the correct information or does not have the intellectual capacity to properly interpret it.

I’m kind of working with yours and Tantum Ergo’s answer, which seems aimed at me. I can’t be sure.

So, what I think you’re saying is that (assuming I have made a proper effort to learn the teachings of the church and have the capacity to understand) if I continue in some practice, ABC in this case, after aining and understanding the teachings of the truth because I don’t agree with it, I am committing a mortal sin. Or is it not mortal? So, could I then decide to leave the Church (not an option for me just using this as an example to try and understand) and become, say a Lutheran, in order to continue practicing ABC, would I then not be committing a sin because (I assume Lutheran’s are allowed to practice ABC. If not substitute some appropriate non-catholic religion) I would be allowed to do so as a Lutheran. I know very poorly worded, but I think you get it.

 

[Betterave]

I’m kind of working with yours and Tantum Ergo’s answer, which seems aimed at me. I can’t be sure.

So, what I think you’re saying is that (assuming I have made a proper effort to learn the teachings of the church and have the capacity to understand) if I continue in some practice, ABC in this case, after aining and understanding the teachings of the truth because I don’t agree with it, I am committing a mortal sin. Or is it not mortal? So, could I then decide to leave the Church (not an option for me just using this as an example to try and understand) and become, say a Lutheran, in order to continue practicing ABC, would I then not be committing a sin because (I assume Lutheran’s are allowed to practice ABC. If not substitute some appropriate non-catholic religion) I would be allowed to do so as a Lutheran. I know very poorly worded, but I think you get it.

You could join a religion that is permissive so as to seek endorsement of your desire to sin, but that itself would obviously be gravely sinful (objectively speaking).

NB: Lutherans do not have get out of jail free cards. Remember Jesus said something about the servant who sins without knowledge still being punished, though he who sins *with *knowledge is punished more severely? Also the ABC prohibition isn’t just a legalistic rule (as has been mentioned); it is a real offense against the dignity of the human person and as such inevitably alienates us from love (from God) and moves us towards hell on earth as well as eternal damnation.

 

[Contarini]

My conscience would not bother me if I did practice abc but my Chuch would condemn me saying I had a flawed conscience

And it would say the same about me. It would say that both of us have improperly formed consciences (actually by Catholic standards mine may be in better working order than yours on this issue!). The only difference would be that as a Catholic you could be presumed, on general principles, to have had more opportunities of forming your conscience and thus to be more guilty. But of course in individual cases that might not be true.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I’m kind of working with yours and Tantum Ergo’s answer, which seems aimed at me. I can’t be sure.

So, what I think you’re saying is that (assuming I have made a proper effort to learn the teachings of the church and have the capacity to understand) if I continue in some practice, ABC in this case, after aining and understanding the teachings of the truth because I don’t agree with it, I am committing a mortal sin. Or is it not mortal? So, could I then decide to leave the Church (not an option for me just using this as an example to try and understand) and become, say a Lutheran, in order to continue practicing ABC, would I then not be committing a sin because (I assume Lutheran’s are allowed to practice ABC. If not substitute some appropriate non-catholic religion) I would be allowed to do so as a Lutheran. I know very poorly worded, but I think you get it.

Do you think Lutheranism is theologically correct? Do you no longer believe Catholicism to be the true Church?

I think it boils down to that for Catholics. If you trust the authority of the Church, and you recognize that the Church teaches something, then why don’t you accept that teaching? Leaving the Church doesn’t make the situation better–it makes it worse, because now you are rejecting Catholicism in general and not just on one point. If you honestly come to believe that the Church has no authority because it is (in your opinion) wrong on this point, then leaving the Church might be the right thing to do. Or if you come to believe that the teaching against ABC is not really the authoritative teaching of the Church but simply a traditional cultural attitude which the Popes are mistakenly endorsing, then obviously you stay in the Church and disobey its teaching on this point (assuming that you have good reason to think that practicing NFP and/or abstinence is actually wrong–if you just think the Church is being too strict, then you should presumably still try to obey it if possible out of respect for its authority even if it is mistaken).

Edwin

 

[petras52]

If you can’t accept the Church’s teaching about contraception, specifically what is it that makes you Catholic?

I believe the root of the problem is that we live in a culture that is selfish and cannot accept the Church’s teaching that all human life is sacred.

Realizing that I may be wrong, I have long ago “submitted” to the Chuch’s teaching on abc…that doesn’t mean that I have to agree with it. In light of my original post, it just doesn’t make sense…Like all Catholics I was taught that the Holy Spirit guides the Chuch in matters of faith and morals and for most of my life I just accepted its teachings without question. However recent events, scandals, by those in authority have made me question whether authorities always follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit

 

[shelby2014]

As far as forming consciences go, one would also have to consider that until the mid 20th century most protestant denomininations also condemned ABC. It would seem that because the topic is so divisive and inflammatory these days, EVERYONE should be working to determine the correct approach, and a protestant might easily question the change in doctrine. Or they may determine the change was correct based on the teachings of their faith.

I wouldn’t say it’s a get out of jail free card. Some people just can’t wrap their minds around birth control being wrong. My family is protestant, and they have very deeply ingrained beliefs about birth control - they believe it is more moral to use it in most cases. Others believe that life doesn’t begin at conception. I don’t know how hard they have been forming their consciences, but even if they tried, I don’t think it would change. So I think their culpability is less.

But for me, who converted to catholicism, I had to look into the Church’s teachings, consider if they made logical sense (they did) moral sense (they did) etc.

 

[Betterave]

Realizing that I may be wrong, I have long ago “submitted” to the Chuch’s teaching on abc…that doesn’t mean that I have to agree with it. In light of my original post, it just doesn’t make sense…Like all Catholics I was taught that the Holy Spirit guides the Chuch in matters of faith and morals and for most of my life I just accepted its teachings without question. However recent events, scandals, by those in authority have made me question whether authorities always follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit

Authorities very clearly do *not *always follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But do not mix up that obvious fact with the distinct question of the Holy Spirit’s infallible guidance of the the Church’s *magisterial *(teaching) authority.