E
Exalt
Guest
I want to see what real Catholics think; not professional theologians or clergy. I already know thier answer. I’m a religious studies student at a Catholic university, after all.
I’ll go back and look at it right now.
- Status
B
BlaineTog
Guest
In all likelyhood, you’re largely not wrong. However, the reason why I don’t knock on doors, put of billboards, make TV commercials, and hand out tracts is because those methods don’t work. At least, they wouldn’t work in my hands. All Catholics are called to evangelize by example, but only some are called to directly evangelize with their words. I am not one of those few, so I don’t worry myself about it.
Our sins. A sin is a step towards hell. Jesus helps us to turn around and walk in the right direction.
A
Aquinas74
Guest
Based on from your (name removed by moderator)ut, if this person totally rejected God of her own free will and accord, then I believe she would go to Hell. However being that I am not God and it is not my job to sit in judgment of her I will leave that to him.
E
elwoodpd
Guest
(1)
“I want to see what real Catholics think; not professional theologians or clergy. I already know thier answer. I’m a religious studies student at a Catholic university, after all.”
I don’t understand your first statement in light of your second statement.
Could you clarify?
(2)
Also,
a. What do you believe the church teaches on this issue?
b. Which answer do you believe to be the best answer (if any)?
c. Which answer are you addressing in your posts?
P.S. I don’t mean to be picky, it just seems to me very important to see exactly what your position is on this, and exactly what kind of answer you are searching for, in order to cut to the heart of the issue and to answer your question.
Then you said:
“I want to see what real Catholics think; not professional theologians or clergy. I already know thier answer. I’m a religious studies student at a Catholic university, after all.”
I don’t understand your first statement in light of your second statement.
Could you clarify?
(2)
Also,
a. What do you believe the church teaches on this issue?
b. Which answer do you believe to be the best answer (if any)?
c. Which answer are you addressing in your posts?
P.S. I don’t mean to be picky, it just seems to me very important to see exactly what your position is on this, and exactly what kind of answer you are searching for, in order to cut to the heart of the issue and to answer your question.
S
Steve40
Guest
Out Side the Church There is No Salvation CCC 846.
As far as we know she is hell bound. No aithiest has ever been canonized so there is no evidence that one can get through the norrow gate as an aithiest. All of the post resurection siants used the Grace of the Sacrements, no exception.
E
elwoodpd
Guest
This is, in my opinion, grade-A stuff, in response to your question.
This is the the “Ask an Apologist” forum here:
While you are correct that man cannot save himself, that does not mean that God cannot choose to save someone who is unable in conscience to believe God exists but lives as best he can according to the knowledge he does have.
Gaudium et Spes, a document of the Second Vatican Council, stated about atheism:
Quote:
Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation. For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion (GS 19).
This section implies that the culpability for atheism is not necessarily entirely the individual atheist’s. To the extent that belief in God has been made impossible for him by others, there may be some mitigation for his culpability for unbelief. For the atheist, ultimately we must trust that even he too is not beyond the reach of God’s mercy if he strives to live morally.
The second great commandment is love of neighbor and Christ said of those who serve others, even if they do not explicitly do it for Christ’s own sake:
Quote:
Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?” And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Matt. 25:37-40).
“If anyone comes to me, I want to lead them to Him.” --St. Edith Stein
This is the the “Ask an Apologist” forum here:
While you are correct that man cannot save himself, that does not mean that God cannot choose to save someone who is unable in conscience to believe God exists but lives as best he can according to the knowledge he does have.
Gaudium et Spes, a document of the Second Vatican Council, stated about atheism:
Quote:
Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation. For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion (GS 19).
This section implies that the culpability for atheism is not necessarily entirely the individual atheist’s. To the extent that belief in God has been made impossible for him by others, there may be some mitigation for his culpability for unbelief. For the atheist, ultimately we must trust that even he too is not beyond the reach of God’s mercy if he strives to live morally.
The second great commandment is love of neighbor and Christ said of those who serve others, even if they do not explicitly do it for Christ’s own sake:
Quote:
Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?” And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Matt. 25:37-40).
“If anyone comes to me, I want to lead them to Him.” --St. Edith Stein
E
Exalt
Guest
I’ve studied under theologians both conservative and liberal. I’ve read the entire catechism cover-to-cover many times. I’ve read the Bible, Augustine, Aquinas, and many others.
But they aren’t the church. They’re part of the church and have had great influence over it, but they’re not the church as a whole.
You are.
Your opinion is far more interesting and important to me than the opinion of the leaders.
Edit: Oh wow, I’m slightly retarded. Yes, you’re right, there is a contradiction there. I was hoping people would read that and post what they thought the theological response was. And as far as finding an “official theological response” - different Catholic theologians have said different things over the centuries. I don’t believe there is an “official” response regarding my *specific *question and scenario. You could infer something from what’s written in the catechism or by given popes or Aquinas or Augustine - but I don’t think it’s mandated that all Catholics agree with one of their viewpoints - and almost every single catholic I’ve talked to in “real life” has given me a different answer. That includes the theologians and pastors.
Because the Church is far bigger than it’s leadership, I’m gathering the answer to that question right now.
The best answer? Or the answer that I think is true? As an atheist, I don’t believe in hell. I think Jane lived a great life and would be missed dearly, especially by her daughter. If hell does exist, I don’t think she deserves to go there. I don’t think God, if he is good, would send someone like Jane there.
A bit confused on this question; could you rephrase it?
No worries.
I find religion to be very interesting and important. I’ve talked to “real life” Catholics, and others, about this issue, and am curious as to this forum’s position on the issue - and how it compares to other Catholics I know.
E
elwoodpd
Guest
“As an atheist, I don’t believe in hell.”
- If God doesn’t exist and hell doesn’t exist, than what is the point of your question?
"My contention is that the lax conversion efforts of most Catholics is due to most Catholics not really believing that people like Jane will go to hell. If they did, they’d be knocking on doors, putting up billboards, making TV commercials - anything and everything to get people to believe.
Where am I wrong?"
Is this the point to your original question?
But…
- If God doesn’t exist and heaven and hell doesn’t exist, then what does it matter whether Catholics evangelize or not?
S
Sarpedon
Guest
The below are my personal musings, which I think accord with the Church.
Atheists seem to fall into two main camps. One is those who do not believe in God because they do not want him to exist, often because of their sinful lifestyle. The other is those who in many ways want God to exist, but for purely intellectual reasons cannot bring themselves to belief. Obviously, the first group does not have great prospects for salvation. The second group is a little more complex.
Jane seems to fall into the second category. Let’s assume her atheism is purely based on reason, for she truly wants God to exist and would lead a holy life if He did. There are several scenarios that could happen:
Atheists seem to fall into two main camps. One is those who do not believe in God because they do not want him to exist, often because of their sinful lifestyle. The other is those who in many ways want God to exist, but for purely intellectual reasons cannot bring themselves to belief. Obviously, the first group does not have great prospects for salvation. The second group is a little more complex.
Jane seems to fall into the second category. Let’s assume her atheism is purely based on reason, for she truly wants God to exist and would lead a holy life if He did. There are several scenarios that could happen:
- God gives each person a different capacity for reason, so I would think that He would take this into account during judgement. If Jane has been truly decieved by false reasoning, perhaps she could be saved because she was only being honest with herself about what she thought to be true. She did not reject God out of spite or pride, only because she thought she could not remain honest and believe at the same time.
- The main question with the above scenario is whether she chose to place her own human reason above God. If she decided to trust in herself and her reason rather than God, she would probably be damned. Of course, not all atheists view it from this perspective, or are even aware of it. They may place their trust in themselves without realizing it, which God would take into account.
- Other factors that would affect judgment include whether God was actively sought, sin based on what their heart tells them right, and pyschological factors, among others. For example, if Jane in No. 1 did not earnestly strive to arrive at the truth of God’s existence, she could be held accountable for this. If someone did immoral things knowing that they are wrong and spurning the imaginary God who says they are wrong, they would be accountable.
E
elwoodpd
Guest
Excellent post, Sarpedon.
“One can accept God through an act of the will, even if he remains unconvinced intellectually. I think whether an atheist is aware of this reality is of ultimate importance, for to continue in atheism aware of it is to trust in yourself rather than God. If an atheist is unaware of it, maybe he has never truly rejected God.”
I particularly like this point. Could you elaborate on it?
“One can accept God through an act of the will, even if he remains unconvinced intellectually. I think whether an atheist is aware of this reality is of ultimate importance, for to continue in atheism aware of it is to trust in yourself rather than God. If an atheist is unaware of it, maybe he has never truly rejected God.”
I particularly like this point. Could you elaborate on it?
S
Sarpedon
Guest
Our ultimate fate is based on the choices we make using our free will. This ability to choose is separate from our emotional and intellectual faculties. For example, I could swear an oath of allegiance to Al Queda even though I emotionally feel that that it is a horrible organization and using reason I can know that their actions are not just. In the same way we can swear allegiance to God or refuse to do so regardless of whether we intellectually believe or emotionally feel His presence. (BTW its much better to swear allegiance to God than Al Queda
)Of course, it is much better to intellectually believe and to emotionally feel God alongside our act of the will. Having rational support for your choice bolsters your faith and helps you bring others to God. God gave us our reason, so it is good to use it.
If an atheist knows that he can accept God regardless of his possibily flawed reason, yet still chooses not to, he cannot be saved. In essence, he places his trust in himself and his own reason rather than God.
I’m sure that many atheists don’t view their belief as I just described it. They may believe in atheism, not because of pride and trust in oneself, but because they mistakenly believe that they cannot choose God without being intellectually convinced. Perhaps atheists who die in this state will recieve baptism by desire, assuming they earnestly sought God but were prevented from finding Him by a misunderstanding.
If one accepts swears allegiance to God and accepts His grace, I’m sure that God will grant him the reason necessary to come to the fullness of Truth.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
I think both groups are in trouble. The first is obviously outside the reach of salvation because they have personally chosen to reject God’s grace.
The second might have some hope of salvation only if they are inculpably ignorant of the Gospel message - if they have heard it and still can’t “bring themselves to belief”, I don’t think they can be saved if they die in this state. For one thing, we have to remember that faith is a gift freely offered by God, we only accept it or reject it. We don’t conjure it up ourselves.
Second, we know that God wills all men to be saved - and that for an adult, explicit or implicit faith is required for that salvation and is made possible by the grace of God Himself. Now if a person is actually hearing the gospel message (which itself is a grace) and still doesn’t believe - then we cannot just assume that the grace to believe wasn’t given simply because we can’t put our finger on it and say “Aha - there was the rejected grace!”. I think, rather, we must assume that the grace was indeed there to believe but was rejected.
Third, and this goes to our hypothetical “Jane”. I can’t imagine anyone who has “thoroughly investigated” the Gospel message as given by His One True Church can still remain “unconvinced.” I can’t imagine one standing before the judgement seat of Christ and saying Christ just didn’t give him/her “enough” evidence for belief.
On the contrary - I think that at the judgement, we will see every grace that was ever given to us in this life, as well as our response to it. There will be no debate at the final judgement - we’ll just nod our heads and say, “Yes - that’s right, uh-huh, yep…”
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
D
DustinsDad
Guest
With all due respect, this isn’t an efficient way to learn the teachings of the Catholic Church - we are fallen men and women and struggle with accepting or rejecting the truths revealed by God - your perception will be tainted by whatever imperfections there are in your “sample”.
For example, if one went to ancient OT Israiel and witnessed some of the stuff going on at various times and talked to folks at these times back then for their “opinion”, one might come away thinking the OT religion of Yahweh taught that it was ok to make nice with the neighboring pagan religions and erect temples to Baal and whatnot throughout the land. Obviously, this was not taught by God to Israel and was not a part of their teachings - it was a part of their sins…but using your “method” of investigation, one could easily come to that conclusion.
Methinks you have a problem with your method.
I disagree, I think it’s unanimous. In your scenerio, the person died an athiest after having heard and investigated the Gospel and there was no death-bed or last minute conversion.
That’s hell my friend.
DustinsDad
S
Sarpedon
Guest
I think atheists sometimes feel that they cannot accept the gift. They reject it not because they do not want it, but because they feel dishonest accepting it if they cannot bring themselves to an intellectual assurance of God.
I think the key point here is what “hearing the gospel message” means. I’ve always understood it as realizing the truth of the Catholic Church and its necessity for salvation, and rejecting it. This would obviously lead to damnation. I don’t know if just being aware of the church and its doctrines always means that one is held culpable for not assenting to catholicism.
In paragraph 155 in the catechism it states, “In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: “Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.””
I think an athiest can, by an act of the will, assent to God’s existence even if he is not convinced by reason that He exists. If an athiest desires to do this but dies without doing so because he misunderstands the nature of belief (viewing it as almost an opinion rather than an act), I think he can be saved through baptism by desire.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Perhaps, but that’s what faith would give them - folks are putting the cart before the horse in this scenerio seems to me. Faith often comes before understanding, that faith then gives and strengthens the understanding, which further strengthens the faith - and so on and so on.
Then again, if we want intellectual assurance before we assent to faith, then what do we need faith for? I mean, the faith is completely reasonable - but you can’t get there on reason alone.
Besides, I’m sure there are a multitude of reasons why an athiest won’t accept the free gift of faith when it is presented to them - I’m just not sure what these reasons have to do with the question of salvation.
That’s the way alot of folks describe it nowadays, but in actuality, it throws 2000 years of constant Christian understanding on it’s head. It amounts to saying, “outside the Church there is no Salvation unless you don’t believe that outside the Church there is no salvation”…it makes truth relative - and basically meaningless.
It makes every anathama ever proclaimed by the Church relative, we’d have put an “unless one doesn’t believe this” after every one. For example, Trent’s Decree on Justification (Session VI, Canon I) would have to read like this…CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema…unless he doesn’t believe this to be true.
Well I’d say that of course knowing and believing the truth of the Catholic faith and rejecting it leads to damnation - but then you’d have to ask who rejects it who knows it to be true? That number has to be small indeed - those few entirely warped souls who directly and intently worship Satan and want him to “win” and have deceived themselves into believing this is possible.
Far greater in number are those who have had the faith at one time and reject it for the pleasures or the “lies” of the world (such as our “Jane”), those folks who start buying into - little by little perhaps - the lies and deceipts of the evil one until they make a “shipwreck of their faith”, and also those , or those who could have known and accepted the free gift but chose not to.
For example, a classic example, look at this…Acts 17:30-34
And God indeed having winked at the times of this ignorance, now declareth unto men, that all should every where do penance. Because he hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world in equity, by the man whom he hath appointed; giving faith to all, by raising him up from the dead. And when they had heard of the resurrection of the dead, some indeed mocked, but others said: We will hear thee again concerning this matter. So Paul went out from among them. But certain men adhering to him, did believe…
There is no indication whatsoever that those who rejected Paul’s preaching of the Gospel accepted it as true and then rejected it - they rejected it plain and simple…and will be judged accordingly.
Agreed, but in the given scenerio, the person’s intellect and will did not cooperate with divine grace in the first place.
Now if you say that the will responded but that the intellect didn’t assent I’d have to disagree because the will trumps intellect - for example, this person knows the claims of the faith, they studied it, the will wants to believe and so even without fully comprehending everything, the person would still have faith by responding to that grace of God that moved the will. It’s the old "Lord I believe, help my unbelief" thing.
But in the given scenerio, there is no indication that this rudementary belief was there at all - in fact the given scenerio made it an explicit point to say the person chose to become athiest and remained athiest to the day of death with no last minute conversions.
Yes indeed - but by that very act he/she ceases to be an athiest.
Ummmm - perhaps (let me think about that one) if the person is invincibly and inculpably ignorant of the “nature of belief”, but the given scenerio doesn’t allow for it, for this person has studied the faith and thus doesn’t have the excuse of not knowing the true “nature of belief.”
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
R
rwoehmke
Guest
There is “knowing” and “knowing”. If one knows the Catholic Church is the true Church he has an obligation to come on board. If he knows the Catholic Church is claiming to be the true Church, but doesn’t get it. It would seem to be a whole nother matter. I believe knowing can be mere knowledge or it can be conviction. In my opinion two very different situations. Conviction when ignored could well lead one straight to hell.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
I would say that if he knows the Catholic Church claims to be the One True Church, then he has an obligation to God to explore the claims, to hear the call so to speak.
If and when he does respond to this obligation and grace, then God will give him the further grace to enter into His One True Church.
And here is where it gets tricky, because there are a whole heck of alot of folks out there who aren’t really sure what the Catholic Church claims anymore - oy!
Let’s take a look at this recent document from the CDF. Despite some good things, there are still some ambiguities:“The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.
It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church”
One could read this as those in heretical protestant sects can be saved in those protestant heretical sects because they contain enough of the truthy to “get 'em in” so to speak. This is a common belief and has led to (or is a result thereof) of religious indifferentism.
But if read in the light of the constant Christian understanding, we would know that this text actually means that those in the heretical protestant sects can possibly be saved by either of the possibilities:
*]Those elements of truth move them to explore and eventually enter visibly the One True Church to believe all the truths revealed by Christ and to subsequently reject the heresies their sect still holds to. …
*]They are invincibly (inculpably) ignorant of the truths of the Catholic faith that they do reject in their heretical protestant sect *and *they are baptized and they die with no mortal sin on their soul.
I think folks nowadays extend theoritical possibility number two far too broadly - makeing the once nuanced exception now the rule.
Number one up there is more in line with “impels toward Catholic Unity” - since these elements of truth actually obligate and should move the person to explore and enter the Church - not to save them where they are at, still clinging to hereisies and rejecting Christ’s Church. The only way around it is to say they are not culpable for that rejection yet somehow manage to die with no unrepentant mortal sins on their souls without the strengthening power of the Holy Eucharist and outside of Sacramental Confession.
In the end, it is Christ’s to judge where invincible ignorance meets willful rejection or willful negligence.
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
E
elwoodpd
Guest
Really, I think the answer is very simple.
There’s only a few real possibilities ultimately.
First, that the person deliberately rejected God.
Second, that the person rejected God unintentionally.
Third, the person rejected God with partial intent.
Now the conclusions, which I feel reasonably certain the Church supports.
Scenario 1: The person either repents, or goes to hell. After all, that is what leads any person to hell, an eternal “no” to God.
Scenario 2: If it was unintentional, then the Church clearly teaches that a person is only responsible for what they consciously do. Therefore in this case there would be no responsibility (or “culpability”) on the part of the person for their non-belief in God.
Scenario 3: In that case, the person still has to choose God in order to go to heaven, and to repent of their sins, but nevertheless they have not said the kind of a “no” to God that would send them to hell.
There’s only a few real possibilities ultimately.
First, that the person deliberately rejected God.
Second, that the person rejected God unintentionally.
Third, the person rejected God with partial intent.
Now the conclusions, which I feel reasonably certain the Church supports.
Scenario 1: The person either repents, or goes to hell. After all, that is what leads any person to hell, an eternal “no” to God.
Scenario 2: If it was unintentional, then the Church clearly teaches that a person is only responsible for what they consciously do. Therefore in this case there would be no responsibility (or “culpability”) on the part of the person for their non-belief in God.
Scenario 3: In that case, the person still has to choose God in order to go to heaven, and to repent of their sins, but nevertheless they have not said the kind of a “no” to God that would send them to hell.
D
DustinsDad
Guest
Are you suggesting that this person was unconcious when they chose to become athiest?
I’d say this hypothetical person made a shipwreck of their faith the second they started to question it as a means of “proving it” and by looking to other religions for truth keeping open the possibility that they may be true in the back of their mind.
It’s one thing to ask questions of your faith and earnestly seek an answer from the Church, it’s another thing to question the faith so as to put God to the test. It all depends on how one approaches the questions one has.
I’d also say that the age old advice and teaching of the Church to stay away from false religions and teachings still holds today. Even today with those of us dabbling in apologetics, while it’s important to know what those outside of HMC believe and teach, we better be rock solid in our own faith and in our own understanding of our own faith before we start reading and examining “other” teachings…we are human and we can fall and we can be deceived…the devil is waiting to trip us up and he’ll use any means possible to do just that.
In closing I’d say one more thing…I suspect that hell is full of folks who didn’t* intend* to go there…if you know what I mean.
Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad
E
Exalt
Guest
If you were born into an Muslim home, you would be saying the exact same thing about the truth of Islam.
- Status