Mrs. Fisher,

I think that Bl. Pius IX quote that your cited does not in fact support your analysis of what “no salvation outside the Church” means.  Consider, if there are really a great many people running around who have not sinned through any fault of their own, then what was the big deal about the Immaculate Conception?  It really is rather interesting that many people, including many Catholics, have a heard time believing that Mary was sinless her entire life, while at the time essentially arguing that almost everyone else is sinless their entire lives.

In the Syllabus of Errors, Bl. Pius IX, condemned the following four errors, along with many others:

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.—Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

16. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.—Encyclical “Qui pluribus,” Nov. 9, 1846.

17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.—Encyclical “Quanto conficiamur,” Aug. 10, 1863, etc.

18. Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.—Encyclical “Noscitis,” Dec. 8, 1849.

So while there may be a possibility of salvation for those outside of the true Church of Christ (the Catholic Church), it is certainly ont the normal path to salvation. 

The modernist contention that there is no salvation outside the Church, but nobody should worry, because everyone is really inside the Church, even if they don’t know it, is refuted by Pius XII in Humani Generis:

“Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.”

I fully agree with you that the way to grow in the faith is to learn what the Church actually teaches.  I think if you keep digging on this topic, you’ll find that your current position is an error.  It’s certainly a very common one.  The consequence of the error has been a near total collapse of evangelization- after all why would Catholics do the hard and unpopular work of trying to convert people, if those people are probably going to heaven anyway, and why would anyone convert to the Church with all of its rules, when they can keep living how they are now and still go to heaven? 

As far as your analysis of the election goes.  I’m not sure if your merely presenting this comment as what some others are saying or as your own position:

“Several top items on Obama’s agenda are explicitly immoral.  If someone understands the grave evil of what Obama wants to do, and votes for him anyway—either in favor or in indifference to that agenda—then that voter is committing a mortal sin.”

If you are presenting it as your position, why can’t you substitute Mr. Romney’s name for President Obama’s? 

God bless and have a great day.

Dan, we want to have people join the Caholic Church so they can experience the fullness of faith; have access to the sacraments that bolster us in life and fill us with so much extra grace. Brb

It would be nice if people had reading comprehension skills. Maybe this was mistranslated into Latin first, though…?

” Some say they are not bound by the doctrine, explained in Our Encyclical Letter of a few years ago, and based on the sources of revelation, which teaches that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing.[6] Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. “

The “meaningless formula” would be the one that says: “You must belong to the PHYSICAL ONE CHURCH and everyone else is hellbound”  This misses the nuanced approach God in His Mercy allows—a mystical Church—- the very thing Simcha described above. :)

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/salvation-outside-the-church
Please click the link to see the whole Catholic Answers article to see quotes from the Fathers and the more lengthy version :)

Many people misunderstand the nature of this teaching.

Indifferentists, going to one extreme, claim that it makes no difference what church one belongs to. Certain radical traditionalists, going to the other extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned.

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics.

These can be saved by what later came to be known as “baptism of blood” or ” baptism of desire” (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best tract, The Necessity of Baptism).

The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God.

However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity.

I like the illustration in the old Baltimore Catechism that shows the Church as a ship.Those who are baptised in the usual fashion are on the ship.Those who fall under the category of Baptism of Desire, etc are holding on to ropes attached to the ship.Bottom line, the ship’s pulling them all in the same direction.

“So when I vote, I think, I pray, I reject Obama, and then I do as I will.”

Masterful.

Simcha, you always say so eloquently what I’m thinking but can’t put into words. Thanks for this post!

Yes.  Remarking quite broadly: One can’t take anything out of context in the history of humanity.

My understanding is that if anyone is trying to know, love, or serve God to the best of their ability given the context and culture in which they were raised (even a non-Christian one) then God could choose in His mercy to allow them into heaven…but I assume after a long stint in purgatory.  But we only know that salvation is assured through the grace of God via the Catholic Church as long we choose to accept God’s graces and are not in a state of mortal sin when we die.

Please feel free to give me a gentle reminder if I am completely wrong.  :-)

1.  I am not a Catholic.
2.  I love Simcha and her blog.
3.  Partly because of Simcha and her blog (and reading other Catholic authors and the church’s position on the sanctity of life), I have begun to think about converting to Catholicism.  (I grew up in a mainline Protestant denomination and continue to be an active memeber of that church but am consistently disappointed by their weak stance on life issues.)
4.  I agree with Simcha completely about evaluating new information in context.  But unless I do my laundry at the laudromat, my first inclination at finding strange underwear in my house would not be to think charitable thoughts about my previously faithful spouse.  Maybe my SECOND thought would be.
5.  I have to disagree a little bit with Simcha’s take on new “mortal sins” in 2012.  Bishop Thomas John Praprocki has been criticized for his article in the Catholic Diocesean newspaper in our area.  Here is his response to that criticism:  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/simcha-fisher/catholic-context-and-catholic-noise#ixzz29ezZWe3w

and here is his original article:  http://ct.dio.org/bishops-column/59-think-and-pray-about-your-vote-in-upcoming-election/text.html

As a non-Catholic, I was impressed with the Bishop’s arguments.  He does not say that voting for Obama is a mortal sin, but “...I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”

Catholic or not, both articles above are worth a read.

6.  I think I have “issues” with Simcha on who is going to heaven… not that I get to decide… but I will leave that for another day.

Thank you for this. I’ve been reading about the ways in which my vote(or non-vote)will determine the fate of my eternal soul, and it has pushed my “rebel now” button. I have grown very tired of people telling me that all of the thought I’ve given to making the right choice about voting means nothing if I don’t vote a specific way. I fit the in category of people that feel that voting for either would be wrong, so I am refraining from voting. Thank you for recognizing that as a valid choice that does not damn me for all eternity.

1.  I am not a Catholic.
2.  I love Simcha and her blog.
3.  Partly because of Simcha and her blog (and reading other Catholic authors and the church’s position on the sanctity of life), I have begun to think about converting to Catholicism.  (I grew up in a mainline Protestant denomination and continue to be an active memeber of that church but am consistently disappointed by their weak stance on life issues.)
4.  I agree with Simcha completely about evaluating new information in context.  But unless I do my laundry at the laudromat, my first inclination at finding strange underwear in my house would not be to think charitable thoughts about my previously faithful spouse.  Maybe my SECOND thought would be.
5.  I have to disagree a little bit with Simcha’s take on new “mortal sins” in 2012.  Bishop Thomas John Praprocki has been criticized for his article in the Catholic Diocesean newspaper in our area.  Here is his response to that criticism:

http://www.sj-r.com/opinions/x1784777635/Bishop-Paprocki-State-Journal-Register-editorial-twisted-my-words

and here is his original article:

http://ct.dio.org/bishops-column/59-think-and-pray-about-your-vote-in-upcoming-election/text.html

As a non-Catholic, I was impressed with the Bishop’s arguments.  He does not say that voting for Obama is a mortal sin, but “...I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against, but I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”

Catholic or not, both articles above are worth a read.

6.  I think I have “issues” with Simcha on who is going to heaven… not that I get to decide… but I will leave that for another day.

OK, so I agree with you here:  “Several top items on Obama’s agenda are explicitly immoral.  If someone understands the grave evil of what Obama wants to do, and votes for him anyway—either in favor or in indifference to that agenda—then that voter is committing a mortal sin.”

How does one convince a faithful Catholic who for one reason or another thinks Obama is the greater good in this election rather than the lesser one?  I don’t think they have a leg to stand on but sadly I know many people who are convinced he is still the more pro-life, etc candidate.  Well educated, regularly Mass attending Catholics.  Are they just naive?  Stupid?  Lying to themselves?  I keep honestly trying to wrap my brain around it and it hurts too much to think about it anymore…

Simcha, I had an experience very similar to yours.  I was reading 50 Questions on the Natural Law by Charles E. Rice, who stated that, according to the Catechism and John Paul II, the State cannot execute someone because that person has actually done something worthy of death, but it CAN execute someone if he is a threat to public safety.  I knew, of course, that that, combined with the hemming and hawing about “prudential judgement”, would mean that the State is OK to execute anyone who is a threat to the government, innocent or not, and I could not see any possible way this would be right.  I should have known that John Paul II, who experience the Nazis in his youth and the Communists as an adult, could not be such a fool, and sure enough, Rice’s paraphrase was totally wrong.  I chucked his book and will never again read anything he has written.

Actually, Roz, “arrogant” is more the word. The entire blog had an air of contempt and arrogance mingled with a shallow understanding of what the Church truly teaches. I have to warn you: don’t get too caught up in context. The only context that matters is Christ, Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. He made it abundantly clear that no salvation would come except through Him. Now you are right when you say only God knows what’s in our souls, but His Word was very clear and we must bear that in mind lest we run the risk of watering down our own faith, especially when we speak to non-Catholics and non-baptized individuals about our faith.
.
Christ wasn’t just clear, He was crystal clear: “Amen, Amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.” John 3:5
.
Now if you really want to put this whole “salvation outside of the Church” discussion truly in context, remember this: unbaptized infants who die do not enter heaven because Original Sin resides on their souls. However, they do not go to Hell, since the sin is present through no fault of their own. It has long since been believed that these infants enter into a natural happiness (or so I’ve heard it said from reliable sources). It is still unknown exactly what happens to them, but that is the belief. Here’s what the Church says about children who die unbaptized: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mystery of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused Him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261)” Now put that into the context of your entire argument, and you may decide not to do as you will.
.
Furthermore, Baptism alone gives us the right to the Beatific Vision. We on our own have no right to the Beatific Vision, but we are given that right through Baptism. (Yes, I said the same thing twice for emphasis).
.
Oh yeah, let’s not forget Christ Himself was baptized. Not because He needed it, of course, but because He wanted us to follow His example, much the same way He clearly stated to eat His Body and drink His Blood lest we have no Life in us. I could go on forever about Christ’s context, but He makes the case for Himself.
.
And I know my hint of sarcasm gives the same arrogant flair I accused you of. And for that, I’m only kinda sorry.
.
Lastly, I have to ask. Your last quote either makes the case for you voting for Obama (though in context of your other blogs and this one, that wouldn’t make sense), so it seems you may have chosen Romney, but I just want to know for sure. To some, it may seem you are justifying a vote for Obama, but I’m probably interpreting it that way because I haven’t had enough coffee and I’ve been up since 5:45 AM.

The Church is the doorway to Heaven.  Billions of souls have walked through it without realizing it was there.

Truly lastly, I sincerely hope you are not using the whole “context for salvation” drivel as a cover-up to justify voting for an individual whose beliefs are morally at odds with the Church, because on second look, it sure seems that way, taken into context of course.

Natalie, You cannot enlighten the unenlightened! If they have not been given the grace to see or do not cooperate with grace then they will never see. The only thing within my power is to pray that more people will cooperate with God’s grace for He is a generous God.

Silverlady - True!  I realize there isn’t much more I can do at this point but pray.  There is still that argumentative part of me that just wants to argue and yell and cry but I have a feeling that won’t be very productive for anyone.  :/

Howard ,
I haven’t read Charles Rice’s book, so perhaps shouldn’t even comment, but public safety does not have to translate into a totalitarian govt hauling off & executing folk at will.
That very small window left ajar in Catholic teaching for the death penalty is, as I understand it, for those criminals who would be a threat to society,despite incarceration.That leaves very few legitimate cases where execution would be necssary for the protection of society.

Dan Daly!!

Pope Paul VI suppressed the Syllabus of Errors.  No Catholic is required to pay any attention to it.  If any part of it is still in force it is because that part has been reinforced elsewhere in some other exercise of the ordinary magisterium.

Evangelical Dan can you give a reference for your claim that the syllabus of errors has been suppressed?  That’s a claim that I have never heard before. 

Pax Christi

One of the consequences of sin is a darkening of the intellect.  So seemingly “unrelated” sins such as lying, impurity, pridefulness, etc can hinder the process of recognizing the Catholic Church established by Christ.  To those advocating the theory that there are mass hordes of non-Catholics marching into heaven through the line marked “Invincibly Ignorant Enter Here”...I must ask, where exactly are all of these people who have never knowingly and willfully done anything wrong? 

Presuming upon God to offer some last minute chance at conversion to others, or denying the need of conversion all together, makes a mockery of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross and the Church He founded. 

Dan-
First, it is mortal sin that damns a man, not all sin. Mortal sin is harder because it requires full knowledge, full consent of will, and grave matter. Now, whether there are a great many or a small number of non-Catholics or non-Christians running around that are in a state of grace (or have lost this state of grace but been restored to it by a sort of perfect contrition) is not specified - but the POSSIBILITY that this can occur is specified.
—
Second, this possibility, properly understood, does not lower the urgency of evangelization precisely because we cannot know who will be saved by this way. When it comes to mortal sin, all we can see is the grave matter part, and denying God is grave matter. Whether it is done willfully and in full knowledge is completely and absolutely beyond or accessibility. So we should try to correct the grave wrongs without judging in any specific case whether or not the grave wrong was a grave sin.
—
Third, if evangelization has fallen because of misunderstanding this issue, this only condemns the way in which the teaching is misunderstood and not the teaching itself. The misunderstanding is in fact the one you present - people CAN go to heaven without being Catholic, but this does not meant that they WILL and since we cannot know which (even for Catholics), we should evangelize to increase chances and for reason #2 above.
—
Forth, it has been explicitly stated that no other Religion saves people - the saved are saved through the Church, but just don’t know it. Their religion may help them in so far as it agrees with Christianity (ie any religion that states that murder is wrong is correct on that point and helps prevent people from committing murder), but is a hindrance exactly where it disagrees.
—
—
Fithly with regard to the election, Romney can be substituted for Obama in that statement, but none of us are recommending support of or indifference to his errors, but rather the recognition that they are bad but not as bad as Obama’s. Ergo, voting for Romney is attempting to limit harm. Again, there is no a priori reason why you must vote for Romney from Catholic teaching. I tend to think that reason leads (except in cases where your state is already certain to go to one candidate or the other, etc.) but my reasoning is not binding on you. Likewise, the reasoning of someone else that we should not vote for the lesser of two evils in this case is not binding on me.

@ Howard: I think you may have misunderstood Charles Rice’s words, as I’ve read him before and found his writing carefully considered, measured, quite logical and definitely in line with Catholic teaching.                                            I have a question about voting for obama. I do consider it a mortal sin. If my fellow Catholics don’t know that what he stands for is gravely evil, I’ve posted things on Facebook telling them so. Is this not a good approach? I know I’ve rubbed people the wrong way, but isn’t it better they know? I think perhaps I’ll lay off the FB posts for now, as I’ve hammered my point through fairly well anyway. Just wondering if that’s the wrong way to do it. I’m tired of being silent just to avoid annoying people.

Jacob, I think that you and I are largely if not entirely in agreement.  I think Mrs. Fisher’s article conveys the very misunderstanding of the Church’s teaching on salvation that you correctly warn against. 

I don’t think it’s clear cut at all that Mr. Romney presents a lesser evil than President Obama.  In fact Romney has a record of doing pretty much everything that people are afraid Obama might do: supporting centralized government run healthcare with an individual insurance mandate and taxpayer funded abortions, demanding Catholic hospitals provide contraception and abortifacients, and issuing “same-sex marriage” licenses to homosexuals.  After looking into the matter, I’ve found that Mr. Romney presents essentially the same program as President Obama except that it’s slightly more dressed up in the rhetoric of “family values” and “American exceptionalism” which can actually make it more damaging by appearing to be more positive than it is. 

I don’t see how voting for either candidate is practical for improving the fortunes of our country.  Pax Christi.

I’d like to thank you once again for zeroing in, succinctly as always, on what matters—actually matters—to Catholics…but I can’t suppress the urge to criticize your children’s names instead….

Dan, perhaps then we just read the article differently, as I did not see that at all. As for Romney vs Obama, given that Romney has explicitly stated that he wants to defund planned parenthood, and that his running mate (who has scrupulously stated what the ticket will do even when he passionately disagrees with it - specifically on the issue of abortion exceptions) has decried the HHS mandate as a violation of religious liberty, I can not agree that Romney will continue these policies of funding.
-
I freely admit that Romney is less than ideal on the life issues, and I fully expect that if he gets elected he will give a few token gestures the prolife way, maybe lower public funding for abortion a little or something, and then sit on his hands and do nothing for four years. I don’t think he’s a good pro-life president.
-
But Obama has been radically expanding abortion and the like, and given that Romney has been criticizing him for this, and that even politicians have to at least pretend to try to live up to what they shout at the top of their lungs to get elected, even if they don’t really do anything about it, I can’t see Romney doing the same thing. Maybe he’ll do some other bad things. He probably will. But he’d have a hard time doing exactly what Obama is doing now or worse things along the same lines, given what he’s said about it, and what Obama is doing now is pretty terrible.
-
But again, this is just my reasoning, and while I believe it to be correct, I cannot expect others to follow it until I convince them so. A priori, either position is acceptable - which, I think, was the article’s point in this regard.

Here is where Mrs. Fisher advances the misunderstanding of Church teaching on salvation:

“In other words, yes, we are all saved through the Church, and through the Church alone.  But many, many, many souls are members of Christ’s Church without even knowing it.  The Church is really, really big—much bigger, even, than those of us who are baptized often realize.”

She does not say that many, many, many souls MAY be members of Christ’s Church without even knowing it.  She says that they ARE.  She does not say that the Church MAY be much bigger than we realize but that it IS.  This is the presumption of which I referred.  As you said, we can’t judge cuplability of others.  Mrs. Fisher does exactly that by assuming that all these people are not culpable for their own actions and therefore not in need of conversion to the Catholic faith. 

Pax Christi

So while Bl. Pius IX condemned the proposition that there is “good hope” that those not in True Church may be saved, which would still allow for some possibility that is less than “good hope”, Mrs. Fisher assumes the salvation of “many, many, many souls” outside of the Church as a matter of fact. 

Pax Christi

Here is some additional context that is true most of the time, and that I’ve found helpful all of the time…

Comments on blog posts are more often than not noise.

It’s time for us to grow up, and come to terms with the fact that just because a Saint or a “Bl.” or even a doctor of the Church said something, it does NOT make it dogma! If their statement was not spoken “ex cathedra” (literally invoking the authority of Peter)it is merely to be weighed with proper and serious discernment. Even Saint Thomas Aquinas speculated about “ensoulment,”—going so far as to consider whether a female soul might enter the fetus later than the male soul.  Hogwash.
.
We have been promised that the Holy Spirit will guide us unto all Truth.  He continues to form us, refine us and enlighten us.  This process is far from complete.
.
Whom did Jesus have the MOST impatience for? The fundamentalists… Those whose narrowness confined them to a heartless reading of the “letter of the law”.  Whom did St. Paul warn about becoming a “clanging gong”? ... Did it matter if they knew “the language of angels”?  Whom were thrown out by Jesus into the dark, with “gnashing of teeth”?  (I don’t *KNOW* you!)
.
The Natural law is written upon every. single. human. heart.in.the. world.  Every single human being actively chooses life or death with every. single. choice. they make every.single. day.
.
Sin causes slavery. It causes us to make selfish choices. Lack of faith allows us to make choices based on fear rather than justice.  Perhaps this is why an elderly baby boomer would place their trust in a man who tolerates infanticide, but whom they think will uphold a socialism that puts their retirement interests first.  How about the mother without insurance, who agonizes over her nine-year-old who is suffering from brain cancer.  If she mistakenly votes for the man that tolerates infanticide, but whom she believes will help continue ensuring health care she so passionately worries about—is she damned?  How absurd.  All of these people fail to understand that a man who is heartless enough to let infants die in linen closets is a WOLF who has not earned the right to watch over sheep.  Their choice is for earthly means, and in an earthly prince.  They place their hope in a hopeless place.  Their choice estranges them, but doesn’t condemn them.  God is patient with his fearful children.
.
We are taught that mortal sin requires full consent of the will.  Those who are wounded, and enslaved,(often by powerful force of habit) cannot, by the nature of their bondage, give *full consent* to the moral evil they choose.
.
If we are anything like God at all, what parent among us would condemn to ETERNAL DAMNATION, a child who retains *good will* and who, while confused by sin, still desires to *choose rightly*?  Only a tyrant who relishes justice over mercy would do something like this.  Old testament believers can be excused for this legalism, as they had never beheld God Himself hanging naked on a tree being tortured for our sins.  The good parent never tires in pursuing the prodigal.
.
St. Paul tells us he received the Gospel from Jesus himself, yet even he reveals that he “is working out his salvation”, while he trembles.  Is salvation a serious business?  Most assuredly.  Nor does it afford us the confidence to hide behind the label of “Catholic”! Catholics that believe bells and smells, uniforms, genuflections, devotions, and right procedures grant them assurance of salvation are thinly disguised Pharisees. To those whom much is given, MUCH is expected! Woe to us if our pomp and circumstance puff us up with pride and false assumptions. Personally, I am not worried that Hindus, Muslims and pagans will have no entry into heaven. I am confident that they will enter through the pierced heart of God.  Those of good will, will fly joyously into His embrace—their hearts which struggled for goodness on this earth will finally recognize the source of this goodness they labored towards. I am more worried about giving an accounting for the Pearl of Great Price that was left in *my* safekeeping, which commands me to sacrifice myself for my neighbor.  I am indeed responsible for saying “yes” to the Good News in every choice that I make, in this economy of Divine Salvation.  I am responsible for my brother and his salvation.  I recognize that we are all as connected as a mother is connected to her unborn child.  I am no club member.  The responsibility of being a daughter of the church is monumental.
.
“Purgatory”, “place of atonement”, “bosom of Abraham”, “Limbo”...These are all just words to describe places between the Beatific vision, and this Earth that we begin our pilgrimage on.

As mentioned, the number of those saved outside the visible boundary of the Church is unspecified. We are free to believe what we will, even approaching a near universalism, so long as we don’t fall into actual universalism by saying that hell is an impossibility. You may not think that many will be saved by this method, but you cannot say that the Church says specifically that many will not.
-
And again, this does not effect the necessity for evangelization, because of the uncertainty involved. It would be worth the slog of convincing everyone of the truth even if it only caused one person to be saved who otherwise wouldn’t be. In fact, it would be worth it even if it changed nothing, because the truth ought to be known. Evangelization helps to correct the grave defect in our world of people not explicitly knowing God.
-
In regards to the syllabus, I would like to point out that Pope Pius IX referred to it later as “raw meat that needed to be cooked” and Blessed John Henry Newman pointed out that many of its point were not as stringent when considered in the context from which they were quoted. It’s a good guide, when used carefully but, somewhat ironically given the theme of the article we are arguing over, it needs context.

Mother Teresa sealed my understanding of the salvation of those who appear to exist outside of the sheepfold.  Who can forget that film, in which she describes with profound admiration the Hindu mother with many children, whose family has not eaten in days.  When mother Teresa brings her a bag of rice; BEFORE she feeds her own family, she rushes down the alley way with a significant portion of the bag.  “But where are you going?”  Mother Teresa asked her in amazement.  The woman replies with concern, “the—-family (Muslim) hasn’t eaten for days either”.
.
How many Catholics have lived the profound message of the gospel so THOROUGHLY, as this Hindu woman lives it, by BRAILLE.  God help the poor, confused legalism, of a person, whom would condemn this noble woman to Hell for all eternity had she not been catechized, and formally been accepted into the church.  What poverty of narrow mindedness.

As far as unborn babies go, who die before baptism…it seems to me that those who can not place them in the arms of their father, repeat the folly of those in the gospel parable who were hired first to labor in the vineyard.  They are jealous of those whom they think have not earned what they have earned, instead of being honored to have been chosen to labor for the King, longer.

Simcha, do you ever choose for the sake of the charity of your thoughts to stop reading the comments? :) without mentioning any names that rhyme with Oz…
It s clear that you know your faith and transmit your reflections with a balanced and humorous, yet wise approach. I’ve been reading a good while, thank you for writings. And I’m sorry when I see how misunderstood your work is by some!

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

DECLARATION
“DOMINUS IESUS”
ON THE UNICITY AND SALVIFIC UNIVERSALITY
OF JESUS CHRIST AND THE CHURCH

22.  With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31).90 This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ˜one religion is as good as another’.91 If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.92 However, all the children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word, and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be more severely judged.93 One understands then that, following the Lord’s command (cf. Mt 28:19-20) and as a requirement of her love for all people, the Church proclaims and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6). In him, in whom God reconciled all things to himself (cf. 2 Cor 5:18-19), men find the fullness of their religious life.94

In inter-religious dialogue as well, the mission ad gentes today as always retains its full force and necessity.95 Indeed, God ˜desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth’ (1 Tim 2:4); that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the promptings of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. Because she believes in God’s universal plan of salvation, the Church must be missionary.96 Inter-religious dialogue, therefore, as part of her evangelizing mission, is just one of the actions of the Church in her mission ad gentes.97 Equality, which is a presupposition of inter-religious dialogue, refers to the equal personal dignity of the parties in dialogue, not to doctrinal content, nor even less to the position of Jesus Christ ” who is God himself made man” in relation to the founders of the other religions. Indeed, the Church, guided by charity and respect for freedom,98 must be primarily committed to proclaiming to all people the truth definitively revealed by the Lord, and to announcing the necessity of conversion to Jesus Christ and of adherence to the Church through Baptism and the other sacraments, in order to participate fully in communion with God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus, the certainty of the universal salvific will of God does not diminish, but rather increases the duty and urgency of the proclamation of salvation and of conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ.

(90) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 17; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 11.

(91) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 36.

(92) Cf. Pius XII, Encyclical Letter Mystici corporis: DS 3821.

(93) Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14.

(94) Second Vatican Council, Declaration Nostra aetate, 2.

(95) Second Vatican Council, Decree Ad gentes, 7.

(96) Catechism of the Catholic Church, 851; cf. also 849-856.

(97) Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, 55; Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Asia, 31.

(98) Cf. Second Vatican Council, Declaration Dignitatis humanae, 1.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, August 6, 2000, the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

If one, to enter heaven, has to be a baptized Catholic, one way or another, before death, then how did Moses get in?  After Jesus died he visited the dead so that they could accept Him, thereby opening the gates of heaven for them.

@Anna, you nailed it. Great piece Simcha..

What about Limbo? When can we talk about that neglected old hypothesis? I’m pretty sure the point of the post was that unbaptized babies can’t be guaranteed a place heaven…the stuff about voting and declaring new mortal sins was clearly a distraction. So, just give me a minute to find a 2,300 word essay to cut and paste into this combox and we can start getting to the heart of the matter.

Dan Daly,

My mistake.  For some reason I was thinking about the oath against modernism which was suppressed in by Paul VI in July of 1967.  The Syllabus of errors, however, has undergone a great deal of doctrinal development since Pius IX.  It would wrong headed in the extreme to quote the Syllabus while ignoring more current magisterial teaching.

Ever wonder if Jesus has the capacity to have a little sit-down with your non-Catholic and/or non-believer loved one after the doctor has declared them gone?

The more we know, the more sacraments we have received, the more we are prepared for the battle of winning souls.  Won’t these great graces, also hold us to a higher standard of judgement? 
What is Purgatory, but a time in which we will be compelled to see the wounding nature of our sins, and the repercussion of these wounding actions upon our own soul, and that of our neighbor.  We can have church laws memorized and filed away in our photographic memories, but if we live a dualism in our lives where our mind consents to one thing, and our actions prove something else, our knowledge and the sacraments we have received will serve to accuse us. If the theology of the body reveals us for whom we really are, than every single action we commit in each day, mundane or not,either evangelizes, or does not.

Posted by Bill Robberson on Thursday, Oct 18, 2012 2:20 PM (EST):Ever wonder if Jesus has the capacity to have a little sit-down with your non-Catholic and/or non-believer loved one after the doctor has declared them gone?
**************************
Absolutely.And I hope He does that for Catholics, too.

My understanding that you can only enter heaven if you have accepted Christ as your Saviour is a Protestant concept, and is called pre-destination. Which is why they believe you must be an adult to be baptized, because as a child you cannot make a fully conscious decision to be a true follower of Christ. Baptism is enough for salvation. Much like the Muslim believes that outward gestures of bowing and bending to Meccca is enough to honor God (Allah).
But, the beauty of our Faith as Catholics, is we do not believe this, but rather go by the notion that the Sacraments strengthen us along the way, and our everyday actions and thoughts give us the merit by which God will judge us to enter heaven. He is so loving and merciful that the opportunity is there till we draw our last breath.
And although Jesus was crystal clear on the rights and wrongs of life, God obviously understands the human heart and the human condition (which He created), which is why he still made Peter, who denied him and wasn’t the brightest cookie in the bag, the cornerstone rock on which to build His Church. Peter had the genuine human desire to Love, even though he failed at it miserably in action so many times.
I took from Simcha’s article, that we should not overestimate ourselves. And that the mere fact that God created us ALL is enough to know how complex true salvation is. I loved Anna Lisa’s analogy about the Hindu woman who received the rice from Mother Theresa. And believe that God sees our true hearts before he looks at how much Catechism knowledge or Catholic Intellectual discourse we can sprout out. We may fool each other, but we can’t fool Him. No matter who we are in life- President or Pauper. I love this even playing field.
So, if you had the fortune to know the Catholic faith, then lucky you, and I am one of those fortunate people. But if you haven’t, then God Bless you for a genuine desire to live authentically even though you don’t realize you are doing so. God sees your heart too, because He Created you too!

Unfortunately, if we don’t vote in this election - we are still casting a vote.  And the consequences of Obama are grave for our nation.  Mortal sin, venial sin or neither.  :(

...what kind of God do some of you people worship?!  Take a breath, or a drink, or something.  Don’t break out the tambourines and liturgical dancing, but have a little humanity to you already.

THANK YOU, Simcha, for being good, for being witty, for being honest, and for being blatantly Catholic and human at the same time.  Thanks for being the one who does that, because Lord knows many people wouldn’t put up with com boxes.

Thank you, Simcha, for a wonderful, logical, faith and fact based blog post.  What a breath of fresh air!  I note that some of the respondents, above, are rather more in favor of an exclusive approach and would prefer that more people go to Hell, but i can’t agree with them.  The Catholic Catechism backs up your take on this issue 100%  One of the things i LOVE about the Catholic Church (and i am a convert, so i have fresh eyes) is that there is an amazing depth AND breadth in our theology, probably due in part to the fact that we have had 2,000 years of inspired thinkers and theologians to comment upon and clarify scripture, tradition, history, etc. 

It bothers me that people think our God is so small that he cannot read a heart and accept a person who is living a Christ-like life simply because that person hasn’t officially joined the Catholic Church!  Why would God want to send one of his beloved creatures to hell on what amounts to a spiritual technicality.

You are RIGHT.  The church is much bigger than people realize and it includes people who are not even aware they are part of it because their hearts have been called by God and they are following that call to the best of their ability.

I doubt that hell contains lots of good, Christ-like people who, but for the technicality of not having joined the church formally are doomed forever!  What a mean God that would be…and a LIMITED God.

Having spent a LOT of time in other religions prior to becoming Catholic, i know for a fact that there are saintly people all over this world in all different religions.  I’d be awfully surprised to learn they’ve gone to Hell.  It makes no sense.

HERE IS A QUOTE FROM THE CATECHISM:

834 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.“332

———
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
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.337
848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.“338

Logical? The entire post is a non-sequitur. She begins talking about “context” (context in what? she doesn’t explain), goes on to the issue of salvation outside of the Church, then segues into a political rant, concluding that she is going to “do as [she] will[s].” How is that logical in any sense of the word?
.
Give me logic. I thrive on good arguments. But this piece is political tripe in the guise of Christian writing. Nice try, Simcha, but your sarcasm betrayed you on this one.

Pius XII:  “there is a heavy responsibility on everyone, man or woman, who has the right to vote, especially when the interests of religion are at stake; abstention in this case is in itself, it should be thoroughly understood, a grave and a fatal sin of omission. On the contrary, to exercise, and exercise well, one’s right to vote is to work effectively for the true good of the people, as loyal defenders of the cause of God and of the Church.”  (Pius XII, Allocution to the Congress of the International Union of Catholic Women’s Leagues, Rome, Italy, September 11, 1947)

i find it a sad commentary on our educational system in America when people call something “tripe” because they can’t follow a train of thought that includes more than one aspect of an issue.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” ~ Socrates

Well Carmen there are many many good people gone before you who can’t even read or write, let alone show-off their fancy vocabulary like “non-sequitur” and have “logical” drawn out arguments that you so yearn for.
And guess what? Their example of faith has resonated more than words ever will. Sorry we aren’t all up to your intellectual standard.
I don’t understand what “context” you needed defined. Life led by our good Christian Morals? Making decisions based on what Christ taught? Following our well formed consciences. Look at things in the spirit of what and how they were said! Is that enough “context” definition for you.
I suspect you want the ranting Catholic noise, but in fact you don’t need a degree in the Catechism of the Catholic faith or be able to analyze great Christian writing to come to the conclusion which dirt-bag you should vote for. Or if you are going to even vote.
So sorry, I understood what Simcha meant, I just fail to understand what you mean. You lost me at your insults of “political tripe” and “political rants”. If you need clarification then why can’t you kindly ask for it?
Otherwise dismiss it, or don’t read it at all.

What I would like is some actual magisterial backing for the idea that voting for Obama is a mortal sin.  The good bishop seems to think so, but he, on his own, is not infallible.  Neither is the USCCB infallible.  There are very few infallible teachings about voting, because it’s so new, but my understanding has always been that Catholics may vote for whomever they want, provided they vote with the intention of bringing about moral goods.  That is to say, they can’t vote for a pro-choice guy because he’s pro-choice, but they can vote for him because he feeds the poor, or because the other guy wants to send the Jews to concentration camps.  You can even vote for a bad guy as part of a larger strategy to get him out on his next term.  You are not cooperating with evil unless you share the evil intent.
.
At least, that’s what I ALWAYS heard before this election.  I’m interested to see if anyone can bring up some contrary evidence—out of curiosity only; I have no intention of voting for Obama myself. ;)
.
The Bishop doesn’t see anything gravely objectionable about Romney.  I do: his plan for Iran.  His website makes it quite clear that his plan has no resemblance to Catholic just-war theory.  He refuses to consider diplomacy first, and he isn’t ruling out preemptive strikes.  Because of this stance, thousands of innocent Iranians may die.  The fact that they have been born already, or that they aren’t American, doesn’t change my strong belief that this would be a grave injustice.
.
I don’t require anyone else to agree with me; I feel that there is no sin in choosing either option so long as you have the right intention.  But I myself won’t be voting for either of these two chuckleheads.

Does anyone *actually* believe that it is a MORTAL SIN to vote for either one of them???
Seriously?
MORTAL SIN not repented of translates to *Hell forever*...
Does anyone out there actually believe this, or is this just about bullying?
I think the only way I could buy into this is if someone actually voted for Obama because they enthusiastically endorse killing the unborn, but then voting for Obama wouldn’t change the state of their creepy soul.

i am looking forward to the election so we can stop talking about politics.  BTW, Sheila is right with regard to intention.

On the necessity of baptism for salvation, Dan and Carmen have good information. So do the Church Fathers - the same saints whose writing converted so many to the truth. Baptism is valid outside the Church (read up on that) as long as the form and substance are followed. Why would Holy Mother Church make such explicit teaching if it were not true, important, and necessary? If it only need be a simple act of the will and reason, why have it as a sacrament? Is there a Holy Matrimony or Holy Orders or Penance/Reconciliation or Confirmation or Extreme Unction/Sacrament of the Sick or Holy Eucharist of Desire or of the Blood? I don’t think so. Everyone or anyone will not likely be able to receive all seven sacraments. One removes Original and actual (mortal) sin (if present in the soul): baptism. Only the baptized can receive the other six. Baptism is necessary for salvation.
Innocent babies and even adults who die unbaptized are not condemned to hell, but what happens to their souls at death is left open according to Pope Benedict XVI. The likelihood of an adult not committing any actual mortal sin even if unbaptized would be pretty slim. More reason to seek access to the remedies and hope for salvation that the One True Church administers and holds fast for all who seek heaven. Sin is death. Grace is life. Repent and seek life.

Toward clearing up confusion among Catholics which some commenters on this thread may have caused, may I suggest we go straight to the Church’s Magisterium? There’s pope John Paul’s Catechism of the Catholic Church in paragraphs 846, 847, and 848.
There’s also Vatican II, in section 22 of its Constitution Gaudium et Spes, stating that “since Christ died for all [humans] (Cum ... pro omnibus mortuus est Christus), and since man’s ultimate vocation is in very reality ... divine (cumque vocatio hominis ultima revera ... sit ... divina), we ought to hold that the Holy Spirit offers to ALL [humans] the possibility (tenere debemus Spiritum Sanctum CUNCTIS possibilitatem offerre) that, by a manner known to God, they be associated with this paschal mystery (ut, modo Deo cognito, huic paschali mysterio consocientur).” (My emphasis and literal translation; this material is readily available at the Vatican’s website.)

“So when I vote, I think, I pray, I reject Obama, and then I do as I will.”

Someone commented that this statement was “Masterful.”

I prefer to turn to the Master, and may we all do so:  “So when I vote, I think, I pray, I reject Obama, and then I do as God wills.”

As my FIL used to say, “Pray for ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.”
—
In an attempt to poorly paraphrase Fr. Larry Richards, there are two things God reserved for himself: judgment and vengence.  God *forbade* us to judge.  And the single, overarching commandment that encompasses all others is simply “to love.”
—
In short, if we are trying to educate others, let it be so that we always point the path to Our Lord and let it always be out of love.  Anything else is not worth our time.

SImcha,
Thanks for the post!  II do think it is important to vote to get Obama out.  If we all waited for the perfect candidate and didn’t vote because we are waiting for the pope to run for president…well then there would never be anyone voted into office that could at least make a small positive change.  The Democratic party made it clear that they are pro abortion and will push for government funding for abortion.  Romney says he will work on defunding Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.  Why wouldn’t we vote for Romney just based on that?  Seems like a no brainer to me.

Lisa ,
I agree.It’s a no brainer.
Mr Romney is running for president, not pastor of my local church.
Someone had commented that Catholic prolifers seem more worried about Romney & Ryan not being “perfect”, than Obama & Biden being completely in Planned Parenthood’s camp.
It seems an obvious choice.

I no longer have Rice’s book, nor will I ever again read anything he has written, but the key thing that he did was to COMPLETELY disconnect the idea of executions from merit.  Just like Caiaphas did.

Perhaps he did this through a lack of skill; if so, the book remains at fault, though the author’s guilt is mitigated.

Don’t think this is a harmless error.  How many Catholics have tried to twist the fact that the decision to go to war lies with the authorized public authority into some sort of implication that their decisions are beyond scrutiny?  How many have taken the Pope’s biographer as an equal authority with the Pope on the question of war?

Rice COULD HAVE SAID that in order for an execution to be appropriate, it must be just AND necessary.  He did not. (Whether the shifting winds of episcopal opinion or even papal declarations have anything to do with the NATURAL law is another question, of course.)

I let a certain Catholic commentator convince that I have a duty to vote.  (I didn’t vote in 2008.)  I am sort of glad that I did because I think it is the reason that I took the trouble to try and convince one of my cousins that the the Catholic Church is a good church.

Freedom of will.  Freedom of an informed conscience.

Thanks Simcha for this piece. I’m a conservative Catholic but often have to tune out some of my favorite Catholic media sources during election season because of all the vitriol and rally cries for ex-communications and such. The bishops’ document on forming our consciences is enough.

Thank you, Simcha, for this piece.

Sheila and Silver:  Have you ever heard of the phrase, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions?”

Regardless of your intentions, the catechism teaches us that we are responsible for ALL our actions.  Just because your intention is good does not necessarily mean that there are no evil consequences to your actions.

Also, Sheila, by not voting, you are actually making it possible for the most pro-abortion president in the history of our country, to win another term.

Moreover, abortion trumps the just war argument any day of the week.  Preventing the wholesale murder of babies is more acceptable than speculating on preventing a war that has not occured, yet.

PAX CHRISTI!

Is the Church the Body of Christ?  Did not Christ admit the unbaptized “good thief” into paradise?

Why then is it wrong to allow for the possibility of unbaptized souls into heaven?

Baptism is the ordinary means to get onto the path for salvation, but God can allow for other possibilities.

It should be abundantly clear that the Bible, gospels, and statements of various Church leaders are so befuddled and contradictory that it is impossible to rationally determine if a good person, despite being a non-Christian, will enter heaven.

On the whole brouhaha about who gets into heaven, I thought it might be useful to share the letter from the Holy Office condemning the position of Father Feeney.

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1467

I quote:

...no one will be saved if, knowing that the Church is of divine institution by Christ, he nevertheless refuses to submit to her or separates himself from the obedience of the Roman Pontiff, Christ’s Vicar on earth.

Not only did our Saviour order all peoples to enter the Church, but He also decreed that it is the means of salvation without which no one can enter the eternal kingdom of glory.

In his infinite mercy, God willed that, since it was a matter of the means of salvation ordained for man’s ultimate end, not by intrinsic necessity, but only by divine institution, its salutary effects could also be obtained in certain circumstances when these means are only objects of “desire” or of “hope”. This point was clearly established at the Council of Trent, with regard to both the sacrament of baptism and of penance (Denziger, n. 797 and 807).

The same must be said of the Church, as a general means of salvation. That is why for a person to obtain his salvation, it is not always required that he be de facto incorporated into the Church as a member, but he must at least be united to the Church through desire or hope.

However, it is not always necessary that this hope be explicit as in the case of catechumens. When one is in a state of invincible ignorance, God accepts an implicit desire, thus called because it is implicit in the soul’s good disposition, whereby it desires to conform its will to the will of God…

@Zeke, this is why we can reduce the whole kit and kaboodle to the first two commandments: To pledge ourselves to love God above all else, and to love our neighbor as ourself…the rest is a combination of saga about the human condition, and reflections on why the saga will eventually have a happy ending.  Keep it simple bro.

I read on another website that Father Mitch Pawca said it’s a mortal sin to vote for a candidate that supports intrinsic evils such abortion. Apparently it was his last show on EWTN (which I missed.)  I trust Father Mitch over this blogger any day.

I do not believe it’s a mortal sin to vote 3rd party, but I do think it’s astronomically stupid. There’s no way we’re going to vote Obama out if we don’t stand together for someone who has a chance at winning. No 3rd party candidate has that chance. Romney is the one. He’s not perfect (tip: only Christ is perfect, and he ain’t runnin for pres), but the point right now is to halt the damage and “choose the lesser of the two evils.”

Posted by Zeke on Sunday, Oct 21, 2012 10:40 AM (EST):It should be abundantly clear that the Bible, gospels, and statements of various Church leaders are so befuddled and contradictory that it is impossible to rationally determine if a good person, despite being a non-Christian, will enter heaven.”
************************************
Zeke,
“Rationally”, yes it might be.But God operates beyond our finite, intellectual,rational limitations.So, there’s always hope.