Religious Liberty, Apostasy and Salvation

[Vouthon]

If someone is brought up Catholic and converts to another religion, does the Church view this person as an “apostate” and believe that they have damned themselves to hell?

If so, then I have problems rationally accepting this.

I believe as does the Church in religious liberty. I believe in the independent investigation of truth. Given this, I just cannot believe that God would deny salvation to a genuinly good person who is using their mind to figure out and find the transcedent reality.

For me, one can only reject Christ, his salvation and his Church – the vehicle of that salvation – if he “knows” that Christ is the Messiah and the Son of God. This means that if one were brought up a Catholic, with the “knowledge” of Christ, but then in the course of his life decides – through the medium of his own, independent search for truth – that Catholicism is not true and Christ is not the sole Saviour of the world, then he must be accounted guiltless and certainly would not be automatically condemned to hell for “rejecting” Jesus. He is not rejecting Christ, he simply at that moment in his life does not or no longer “knows” him - since the dictates of his conscience have told him that Christianity is not true.

How can finite human beings, living in this material world without the full knowledge and awareness of God that angels have, be condemned for determining to the best of their abilities what they believe the truth to be?

Only one who believes that Jesus is the Messiah can out-and-out reject him, in my opinion. This is the spirit of antichrist. Satan knew God and knew of his Messiah, the Word but rejected the Blessed Trinity in favour of Himself. Satan cannot be accounted a guiltless individual who simply followed the dictates of his own conscience because he knew God, whereas a Catholic who genuinely converts to atheism, is guiltless because he rationally does not believe that God exists. He has used his finite mind and has come to his own conclusions. Is this rejection? Is not rejection a person who believes in Jesus but does not care and lives a squalid life? Does one not have to “know” that Jesus is the Messiah to reject him?

For me, religious conversion is not rejection of Christ but rather the innate and God-give usage of one’s capacity for free thought.

Now I expect that many will believe I am way, way off. However I am trying at the moment to reconcile my own personal thoughts with my Cathoic Faith.

I am genuinly conflicted and so seek “help” so to speak, trying to chew this.

I have personal reasons for asking this. I have a very close friend who converted, two years ago, from Catholicism to a religion called the Baha’i Faith. He is in every way, I feel, a superior man to men. And yet am I too believe that God would condemn him to hell for simply using his own mind and following the dictates of his own conscience? Is he to be condemned for using his limited, human knowledge and coming to believe that Christianity is not the truth it claims to be, that Jesus is not God made man? My uncle became an atheist as well, many years ago.

This does not rationally make sense to me, and since Christianity is the religion of reason founded by the Reason (Logos) incarnate, I cannot accept such a proposition at this moment in time, which is why I hope it is not what the Church teaches.

 

[Corki]

Apostasy is not rejecting Christ. Apostasy is rejecting the Church.

Religious liberty is about accepting the religious practices of those people of other faiths. It doesn’t mean that we accept them as valid, only that we respect people who are non-Catholics to worship as non-Catholics.

It is not about accepting the non-Catholic practices of Catholics who choses to worship as non-Catholics. You are describing yourself in this category.

Whether or not such apostasy is mortally sinful is not for anyone here to say. We have no idea if you were well catechized or whether some extenuating personal trauma led you to reject the Church. Those are matters for you to take up with your Confessor.

 

[3KMWWC]

As I understand things, the Church teaches that one must follow one’s conscience in such matters. At the same time, one must endeavor to inform his conscience. An earnest seeker of the truth will not be condemned for misunderstanding. As you say, we do not have perfect knowledge. However, a person who seeks not the truth but rather affirmation of their own preferences may be guilty of pride - a deadly sin. Therefore, be an earnest and sincere seeker of truth and trust in Jesus and his infinite mercy. Pax et Bonum.

 

[RebeccaJ]

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

1. God calls men to serve Him in spirit and in truth, hence they are bound in conscience but they stand under no compulsion. God has regard for the dignity of the human person whom He Himself created and man is to be guided by his own judgment and he is to enjoy freedom. This truth appears at its height in Christ Jesus, in whom God manifested Himself and His ways with men. Christ is at once our Master and our Lord(11) and also meek and humble of heart.(12) In attracting and inviting His disciples He used patience.(13) He wrought miracles to illuminate His teaching and to establish its truth, but His intention was to rouse faith in His hearers and to confirm them in faith, not to exert coercion upon them.(14) He did indeed denounce the unbelief of some who listened to Him, but He left vengeance to God in expectation of the day of judgment.(15) When He sent His Apostles into the world, He said to them: “He who believes and is baptized will be saved. He who does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16). But He Himself, noting that the cockle had been sown amid the wheat, gave orders that both should be allowed to grow until the harvest time, which will come at the end of the world.(16) He refused to be a political messiah, ruling by force17) He preferred to call Himself the Son of Man, who came “to serve and to give his life as a ransom for the many” (Mark 10:45). He showed Himself the perfect servant of God,(18) who “does not break the bruised reed nor extinguish the smoking flax” (Matt. 12:20).

 

[Vouthon]

Thank you for the replies guys!

 

[Vouthon]

Apostasy is not rejecting Christ. Apostasy is rejecting the Church.

Religious liberty is about accepting the religious practices of those people of other faiths. It doesn’t mean that we accept them as valid, only that we respect people who are non-Catholics to worship as non-Catholics.

It is not about accepting the non-Catholic practices of Catholics who choses to worship as non-Catholics. You are describing yourself in this category.

Whether or not such apostasy is mortally sinful is not for anyone here to say. We have no idea if you were well catechized or whether some extenuating personal trauma led you to reject the Church. Those are matters for you to take up with your Confessor.

Huh?!

Excuse me but I am actually a devout Catholic and would never dream of leaving the Church even if compelled at gun point…? What are you talking about?

I think you have failed to read fully/understand what I was talking about I wasn’t describing myself but rather a hypothetical situation where a Catholic did change there religion, as was the case with my friend and Uncle!

I myself am a cradle Catholic and will I asure you die a Catholic.

And sorry but what you outlined above ie accepting pratices of non-Catholics, is not religious liberty but religous toleration. Quite different.

The Islamic Republic of Iran even “tolerates” certain established religions but it does not have “religious liberty”, which is why any Muslim who tries to convert to Christianity is sentenced to death - as was the case with a recent pastor in Iran!

 

[Corki]

Huh?!

Excuse me but I am actually a devout Catholic and would never dream of leaving the Church even if compelled at gun point…? What are you talking about?

I am referring to this:

If someone is brought up Catholic and converts to another religion, does the Church view this person as an “apostate” and believe that they have damned themselves to hell?

I did not mean “you” in the personal sense.

 

[Vouthon]

I am referring to this:

I did not mean “you” in the personal sense.

LOL! Thanks for the clarification I was wondering

 

[Vouthon]

“…The dignity of the human person requires that a man should act on his own judgment and with his own freedom. Wherefore in community life there is good reason why it should be chiefly on his own deliberate initiative that a man should exercise his rights, fulfil his duties, and co-operate with others in the endless variety of necessary social tasks. What matters is that a man should make his own decisions and act on his own judgement out of a sense of duty. He is not to act as one compelled by external coercion or instigation. In view of all this, it is clear that a society of men which is maintained solely by force must be considered inhuman…” (Pope John XXIII, 1963)

“…[Man] has a right to freedom in investigating the truth…Among man’s rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public…all men are equal in natural dignity, no man has the capacity to force internal compliance on another. Only God can do that, for He alone scrutinizes and judges the secret counsels of the heart…Man’s personal dignity requires besides that he enjoy freedom and be able to make up his own mind when he acts. In his association with his fellows, therefore, there is every reason why his recognition of rights, observance of duties, and many-sided collaboration with other men, should be primarily a matter of his own personal decision. Each man should act on his own initiative, conviction, and sense of responsibility, not under the constant pressure of external coercion or enticement…It is always perfectly justifiable to distinguish between error as such and the person who falls into error—even in the case of men who err regarding the truth or are led astray as a result of their inadequate knowledge, in matters either of religion or of the highest ethical standards. A man who has fallen into error does not cease to be a man. He never forfeits his personal dignity; and that is something that must always be taken into account…” (Pacem in Terris, 1963)

 

[1ke]

If someone is brought up Catholic and converts to another religion, does the Church view this person as an “apostate” and believe that they have damned themselves to hell?

An apostate would be one who renounced Christianity for some other religion. A heretic or schismatic would be one who left the Catholic Church for some ecclesial community or Church not in communion with the Pope.

Their eternal destiny depends upon their knowledge and free will, just as with all other mortal sins, and whether or not they repent and are reconciled.

The Church does not teach anyone has “damned themselves to hell.” The Church teaches that those who die in a state of mortal sin go to Hell. Such a person might indeed be in a state of mortal sin, but they might not be. Again, it depends on many factors.

I suggest you read the Catechism on the four marks of the Church.

 

[1ke]

Apostasy is not rejecting Christ. Apostasy is rejecting the Church.

Apostacy is the rejection of the Christiann faith. So, yes, it is rejecting Christ and his Church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I also recommend reading the CCC, 1730-1802, answers what you are looking for, in the ways and terms of freedom and sin, and how they relate to each other, ourselves, other and the Church.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I can agree with Vouthon, up to a point.
No, leaving the Catholic faith for a time because one has,
perhaps out of scandal or reading some literature that seems to cast legitimate doubts on it (note, I said, THAT SEEMS to cast legitimate doubts on it), is NOT always
evidence of a wicked, apostate, antichrist heart. Not in every case.

However, that being said, and speaking from personal experience,
I would like to lovingly warn everyone here,
that, spiritually speaking,
it is extremely dangerous to your spiritual health and risky to your salvation
to turn away from the Catholic faith at all, so please be extremely studious,
extremely prayerful, extremely careful. It is not mere HUMAN forces, alone,
that contribute to doubts about the Catholic faith, and those nonhuman, fallen forces
will play up your doubts to the hilt, ruining you spiritually, permanently, if possible.
God bless you,
Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+

 

[Vouthon]

I also recommend reading the CCC, 1730-1802, answers what you are looking for, in the ways and terms of freedom and sin, and how they relate to each other, ourselves, other and the Church.

Thank you Rebecca! Those sections of the Catechism make it completely clear that a Catholic should have the full right, under law, to follow his conscience in religious matters ie convert to another faith.

It is a wonderful reflection on the primacy of conscience (influenced and directly quoting Venerable Pius XII):

“…God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions…The right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person. This right must be recognized and protected by civil authority…Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters”…A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself…”

This obviously gives a Catholic the legal right to change his religion, if he were sincerely seeking, since in such matters the Church says that he “MUST” (not “should” or “might like too”) follow the dictates of his conscience. Notice the qualifier “ESPECIALLY” before “religious conscience”. The Church here is clearly following the line of the Church Fathers Lactantius and Tertullian, who were the first people in history to argue for freedom of religion and to provide a natural and theological justification for it:

“It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his own convictions. One man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man. It is not the nature of religion to compel religion. Religion ought to be adopted voluntarily and not by force”. (Tertullian, Church Father, Ad Scapulam 2)

“Religion being a matter of the will, it cannot be forced on anyone. In this matter it is better to employ words than blows…Religion is the one field in which freedom has pitched her tent, for religion is, first and foremost, a matter of free will, and no man can be forced under compulsion to adore what he has no will to adore…Of what use is cruelty? What has the rack to do with piety?.. For nothing is so intrinsically a matter of free will as religion”. (Lactantius, Christian theologian and tutor of Constantine, Divine Institutes 5)

Too think that these Church Fathers argued for a concept over 1,700 or so years ago that only was recognised by modern society in the late 19th-20th centuries!

They were too ahead of their time in my opinion, which is why the Church later curtailed religious freedom to meet the needs of the time (a Christian Europe, an predominantly Islamic East, in such a context religious freedom was rather without meaning).

But what of the fate of the soul of the sincere Catholic who converts out of earnest desire for Truth to another faith?

Pope John Paul II once said:

“The Gospel teaches us that those who live in accordance with the Beatitudes - the poor in spirit, the pure of heart, those who bear lovingly the sufferings of life - will enter God’s kingdom…All who seek God with a sincere heart, including those who do not know Christ and his Church, contribute under the influence of grace to the building of this kingdom” (JOHN PAUL II, GENERAL AUDIENCE, 6 December 2000)

This would seem to imply, in conjuction with the Catechism quotations, that a person who exercises his inalieable right to freedom of conscience in religious matters without fear of compulsion and converts from Catholicism to another faith, would still be able to enter the Kingdom of God (receive the sanctifying grace of Christ’s salvation) if he were a sincere seeker genuinly - with his imperfect knowledge - trying to discern the Truth - as 3KMWWC already argued - which for whatever reason, his limited intellect was unable to fully discern in Catholicism, the true Church wherein dwells the fullness of truth.

Now John Paul II’s use of the word “know” is important.

What does it mean? Does it imply that one must have heard and understood that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ? Or does it imply that one must BELIEVE/HAVE THE CONVICTION that the Catholic Church is the true Church of Christ?

This “know” idea was referred to by the Vatican II Fathers in “Lumen Gentium”. What does it mean?

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by God through Jesus Christ, would refuse to enter her or to remain in her could not be saved" (Lumen Gentium, 14).

Does it only apply if someone knows or STILL knows but refuses to enter or remain. If someone no longer still believes, how does “could not be saved” apply to them?

Thoughts?

 

[Vouthon]

If “KNOW” was to mean that a person would simply have to have heard that the Catholic Church proclaims itself to be the “necessary” salvation of the world through Christ, then that would contradict the words of Pope John Paul II, since a non-Catholic who knows could still be “sincere” in hos own belief. Also it would seem to mean that most of the people in the world of other faiths who know what the Catholic Church teaches about itself, are damned to hell, even if they sincerely follow their own religion which contradicts other Church teacvhing on the extraordinary grace of Christ.

This interpretation is thus, in my honest opinion, ludicrous.

I believe that “know”, implies “belief”/“assent”/“conviction” that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be. If this is absent, then a person truly does not “know” and so falls under this category:

"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not “know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.”

—Lumen gentium 16

So I would say that for a Non-Catholic or ex-Catholic to “know” that the Catholic Church is the means of salvation mediated through Christ, they must “believe” it to be so and enter therein. If they do not “believe”, then they do not “know” since they are simply following their limited understanding as bidden by the dictates of their conscience.

“Knowledge” requires FULL understanding that the Catholic Church IS, not just that it proclaims itself to BE the true Church, but a full understanding that IT IS WHAT IT CLAIMS TO BE.

With this understanding, I personally judge the person to be without mortal sin. In this case the person does not KNOW that the Catholic Church IS what the Catholic Church proclaims itself TO BE.

This for me is the true understanding of the above passage.

In the dictionary “to know” means:

“to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty”

Thus a sincere person who does not believe that the Catholic Church is what it claims to be has clearly not understood the Church’s claim as fact/has not apprehended iot “clearly and with certainity”. He thus lacks knowledge of the truth.

 

[Corki]

Apostacy is the rejection of the Christiann faith. So, yes, it is rejecting Christ and his Church.

An apostate would be one who renounced Christianity for some other religion. A heretic or schismatic would be one who left the Catholic Church for some ecclesial community or Church not in communion with the Pope.

Their eternal destiny depends upon their knowledge and free will, just as with all other mortal sins, and whether or not they repent and are reconciled.

Sorry. So, I guess it would depend on what religion the person described in the OP converted to.

If another Christian denomination (which isn’t really another religion), it would be heresy.
If another religion altogether (such as Muslim or Hindu), it would be apostasy?

 

[Vouthon]

“The Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic Faith against his will”

• (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885).

“No one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic faith against his will, for as St. Augustine reminds us, Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will.”

• (Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei 1885)

 

[RebeccaJ]

vouthon, Catholic teaching on freedom needs to be understood as well. God gave us our freedom in order that we could follow Him freely. A person who has so aligned their life to the will of God, will find they cannot sin…sin becomes no longer an option. A rare person, no? But this is what it means to be holy.

So, freedom of conscious means yes, search for Truth, but Truth is not a never ending array of choices, all equally “true”. Truth is a Person, Jesus Christ, and all truth, no matter where it is found, is authored by Truth itself: GOD.

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that all religious belief that contains any amount of Truth, does so by the grace of God. The fullness of Truth, exists in the Catholic Church, because the Church is God’s.

Yes, people may wander from the Truth, with a desire to find Truth itself, but if this decision is willfully done in defiance of Truth, then the intent of the person is not seeking Truth, but a denial of Truth.

Who can say what is in the heart of a person? Only God, so we do not judge if the action of leaving the Catholic Church is right or wrong. That is God’s judgement to make.

The Good News is, Jesus Christ. A friend has pointed out today that the defining characteristic of sin, is that it is forgiven. Which is not to say that sin is automatically forgiven, but it is always already forgiven. There of course must be a recognition that a sin has been committed, and contrition.

The Church never teaches that there is no such thing as sin and no such thing as needing to be forgiven, quite the opposite, the reality of the world is, we sin, and as such should seek forgiveness.

It is also a teaching that focusing on a single teaching or doctrine will inevitably lead to heresy. So, though you have read the teachings of the Church in regards to freedom of religion, this teaching does not exist in and of itself. It exists in the whole Truth of the Church. The Catechism lays out the whole truth of the Catholic Church, a single teaching not being something outside of the Church, but something that is held within it. So, it is sort of ironic to believe that the Church is teaching it is perfectly alright to leave the source of Truth from which this single teaching you have focused on is derived!

Hope that helps.

 

[Vouthon]

Dear Rebecca

Thank you for your thoughts! I found it very insightful.

I’m not saying that its “perfectly alright” to leave the “source of Truth”. Obviously it is a right that a person must have on the civil level. On the level of morality and divine law, it is not “perfectly alright” objectively speaking, but if a person is a sincere seeker of Truth and for whatever reason fails to understand that the Catholic Church is the source of Truth, given his limited human intellect, then he does not “know” in the rational, comprehension sense of the word, and so I cannot believe for a second that he would be condemned for the use of his faculty for liberty and personal volition, even though his limited understanding led him to err in this respect.

God does not see as man sees. God judges by the heart, which as you say only God can know.

However I certainly do not believe and have never said that “its perfectly alright” to turn aside from the Truth. What I did say was that I firmly do not believe that God would allow a person go be eternally damned for turning aside from the Truth, if he sincerely believed that the Church wasn’t the full truth (for whatever reason) and sincerely searched elsewhere.

I’m not saying its “perfectly OK” though, because it isn’t On that I think we are agreed.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Dear Rebecca

Thank you for your thoughts! I found it very insightful.

I’m not saying that its “perfectly alright” to leave the “source of Truth”. Obviously it is a right that a person must have on the civil level. On the level of morality and divine law, it is not “perfectly alright” objectively speaking, but if a person is a sincere seeker of Truth and for whatever reason fails to understand that the Catholic Church is the source of Truth, given his limited human intellect, then he does not “know” in the rational, comprehension sense of the word, and so I cannot believe for a second that he would be condemned for the use of his faculty for liberty and personal volition, even though his limited understanding led him to err in this respect.

God does not see as man sees. God judges by the heart, which as you say only God can know.

However I certainly do not believe and have never said that “its perfectly alright” to turn aside from the Truth. What I did say was that I firmly do not believe that God would allow a person go be eternally damned for turning aside from the Truth, if he sincerely believed that the Church wasn’t the full truth (for whatever reason) and sincerely searched elsewhere.

I’m not saying its “perfectly OK” though, because it isn’t On that I think we are agreed.

I agree!