Pope responds question from atheist - Can a non-believer be saved?

[Denver]

I've been listening to some (conservative) local talk radio, where several callers have called in and seemed a bit outraged that the pope would say this, and are complaining that that is not the Catholicism they know.

But actually it doesn't seem to be anything new. The pope was really just quoting the current church's catechism. A few quotes from the 1994 version (put out under Cardinal Ratzinger. Yep, that guy...), Part III, article 6, Moral Conscience:

Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment.... For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God.... His conscience is man's most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths.

When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

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.

There's lots more in there about how a good conscience gets formed, and how to avoid bad judgements. As some have already pointed out, it seems he is more than anything saying that regardless of what you believe now, listening to your conscience CAN put you on the path to salvation. He doesn't say it WILL.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[A'isha]

The doctrine regarding Limbo has not been "restated" by Popes, but has been amended by them, to bring it progressively into line with the developing sensitivity of society, and of people in general.
1. Unbaptised babies tortured in Hell. Gregory the Great: ... For they even receive everlasting torments, who never sinned by their own will. And hence it is written, Even the infant of a single day is not pure in His sight upon earth. (Moralia 9: 32)
2. "Hell-Lite" where unbaptised babes only have some sorts of pain. Don't get fried. For Pope Innocent (III) ’s teaching is to the effect that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer ‘no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God.’ Toner, Catholic Encyclopedia 1910, Limbo
3. "Hell Super-Lite" where damned babes don't suffer any pain at all. Pope St Pius X: Babies dead without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but neither do they suffer, because, having original sin alone, they do not deserve paradise, but neither do they merit hell or purgatory. 1905 Catechism of Pope [St] Pius X.
4. Babes un-damned and sent to Heaven to meet Baby Jesus. Pope John Paul II, as reported by the then Cardinal Ratzinger: This state people called limbo. In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us ... Finally, the pope made a decisive turn in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae ... when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament.” (God and the World, Ignatius Press, 2002, p. 401

Read that last sentence again. JP II expressed the hope that an omnipotent being might be powerful enough to do something or other.

Exactly. Just as eight bits said, there is not and has never been an established doctrine of Limbo, just various theological disputes and theories.

 

[Craig B]

Exactly. Just as eight bits said, there is not and has never been an established doctrine of Limbo, just various theological disputes and theories.

No! Do you think that each pope who expounded on this topic told his flock: well, this is just a disputed theory of mine, that unbaptised babies fry in hell, or are spiritually deprived in hell, or are comfortable in hell, or are not in hell at all? Each expounded his own message as a doctrine - and that doctrine has changed. Changed utterly, more than once! And Ratzinger was right: these things changed as and whenever the existing dogma started to seem absurd or obnoxious to the average mind.

 

[A'isha]

No! Do you think that each pope who expounded on this topic told his flock: well, this is just a disputed theory of mine, that unbaptised babies fry in hell, or are spiritually deprived in hell, or are comfortable in hell, or are not in hell at all? Each expounded his own message as a doctrine - and that doctrine has changed. Changed utterly, more than once! And Ratzinger was right: these things changed as and whenever the existing dogma started to seem absurd or obnoxious to the average mind.

They expounded on their positions, and each of them undoubtedly were convinced that their positions were correct, but their positions were not doctrine. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a very specific thing.

 

[Correa Neto]

In theory, that's all in the hands of God, and only He can make that judgment as to whether you get to slip through into heaven or are condemned to hell. Better to become a good Catholic, just to be on the safe side.

In practice, it depends on whether any given member of the clergy or laity is feeling particularly judgmental about you and/or is trying to hector you into becoming a good Catholic.

As I wrote, marketing strategies... They change it according to the target public/market.

You made an analogy between religion and an airline ticket. Its a good one regarding some of the progressive Christian trends. God without religion -or at least without the strict obervation of one- seems to be on its rise sometimes. Or maybe people just wander around untill they happen to find a pastor or priest who says the things they like or want to hear and then settle down. I've seen both things happening. Cant help but making analogies with market economy. Sometimes -unfortunately perhaps too often- people settle with fundamentalists. The Catholic rites are too cold and distant. But these are my views, based on my (fully anecdotal) obervations and experiences.

 

[Craig B]

Exactly. Just as eight bits said, there is not and has never been an established doctrine of Limbo, just various theological disputes and theories.

If ever the leaders of the Roman decide to get rid of the idea of, as it may be, Purgatory (and they should), then non-Catholics will say, "The doctrine of the Church has changed." But the faithful will respond, "No, it was never more than a disputed theory." How can they say that? Because it has changed, and doctrines don't change, so it was never a doctrine.

And the non-Catholics will say, "Catholics believed in it as implicitly as they believed in the other things they were taught, by their teachers at Our Lady of the Pontifical Infallibility Primary School, or wherever." (In the case of Limbo, they were - albeit inconsistently - instructed by Popes, even a sainted Pope, Pius X.)

The Party Line never changes. If it changes, that proves it wasn't the Line to begin with. One thing is for sure: an organisation that bases its claim to infallibility on such reasoning may be opposed, or even derided; but it can never be refuted. And, hey, if it can't be refuted it must be infallible!

 

[cullennz]

The whole point of most religions seems to be that living is pointless in the end.


As long as you say sorry for any ***** you happened to do before you cark it

 

[A'isha]

If ever the leaders of the Roman decide to get rid of the idea of, as it may be, Purgatory (and they should), then non-Catholics will say, "The doctrine of the Church has changed." But the faithful will respond, "No, it was never more than a disputed theory." How can they say that? Because it has changed, and doctrines don't change, so it was never a doctrine.

And the non-Catholics will say, "Catholics believed in it as implicitly as they believed in the other things they were taught, by their teachers at Our Lady of the Pontifical Infallibility Primary School, or wherever." (In the case of Limbo, they were - albeit inconsistently - instructed by Popes, even a sainted Pope, Pius X.)

The Party Line never changes. If it changes, that proves it wasn't the Line to begin with. One thing is for sure: an organisation that bases its claim to infallibility on such reasoning may be opposed, or even derided; but it can never be refuted. And, hey, if it can't be refuted it must be infallible!

The Church has long drawn a distinction between what it's infallible about, and what it's not, and between the things that are undecided (and therefore subject to debate and can change), and things that are settled and undebatable as far as Canon and Doctrine are concerned.

Things like Limbo/Purgatory do not have same doctrinal status as, say, things like the Immaculate Conception.

 

[Craig B]

Garbled post deleted.

 

[Craig B]

The Church has long drawn a distinction between what it's infallible about, and what it's not, and between the things that are undecided (and therefore subject to debate and can change), and things that are settled and undebatable as far as Canon and Doctrine are concerned.

Things like Limbo/Purgatory do not have same doctrinal status as, say, things like the Immaculate Conception.

Apart from the Immaculate Conception, 1851, the Papal Infallibility 1870, and the Bodily Assumption 1950, what else?

 

[Soapy Sam]

I heard that explanation before, but it's not what Francis said. Here's a Google translation of his response from the Italian original:

"God's mercy has no limits if you go to him with a sincere heart and a contrite , the question for those who do not believe in God is to obey his conscience . Sin, even for those who have no faith , there is when you go against conscience. Listen and obey it means, in fact , decide in the face of what is perceived as good or as bad. And on this decision you play the goodness or evil of our actions"

He seems to be saying that you do not need to believe in Jesus to be saved. If that's so, why going through the motions?

Purest Pelagian Heresy!
BURN HIM!

 

[Denver]

Point of trivia:

According to "Catholicism" by McBrien, 2nd edition (one of the texts used when I was getting a minor in this stuff at a Jesuit university), there is difference between Catholic Doctrine and Dogma:


Sacred Scripture: letters, liturgical documents, narratives, and theological reflections which the church itself recognizes to be fundamental, normative, constitutive expressions of its faith.

Doctrine: Official teachings based on sacred scriptures and the ongoing teaching of the church.

Dogma: Official teachings proposed with such solemnity that their rejection is tantamount to heresy, which is a denial of some truth of faith deemed by the teaching of the church to essential to the faith.

I mention this because as I read the thread, I have to keep catching myself thinking first that just because someone violates catholic doctrine does not mean they are violating catholic dogma, and wondering if the argument I just read that in was using the same definition of the words I am.

 

[A'isha]

Apart from the Immaculate Conception, 1851, the Papal Infallibility 1870, and the Bodily Assumption 1950, what else?

The Canons promulgated by the various Ecumenical Councils, for instance.

 

[Craig B]

Point of trivia:

According to "Catholicism" by McBrien, 2nd edition (one of the texts used when I was getting a minor in this stuff at a Jesuit university), there is difference between Catholic Doctrine and Dogma:


Sacred Scripture: letters, liturgical documents, narratives, and theological reflections which the church itself recognizes to be fundamental, normative, constitutive expressions of its faith.

Doctrine: Official teachings based on sacred scriptures and the ongoing teaching of the church.

Dogma: Official teachings proposed with such solemnity that their rejection is tantamount to heresy, which is a denial of some truth of faith deemed by the teaching of the church to essential to the faith.

I mention this because as I read the thread, I have to keep catching myself thinking first that just because someone violates catholic doctrine does not mean they are violating catholic dogma, and wondering if the argument I just read that in was using the same definition of the words I am.

Here's Pius XII's observations in this matter from the Encyclical, Humani Generis, August 1950:

It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.

In short: the Pope says it, you better shut up and believe it.

 

[Denver]

Here's Pius XII's observations in this matter from the Encyclical, Humani Generis, August 1950: In short: the Pope says it, you better shut up and believe it.

Though the wikipedia article on that (in which I find the text you quoted) seems to give it a more grey area too. The encyclical in itself is just an important official communication from the pope. It may be ex cathedra, it may not. When it is, and sometimes even perhaps when it isn't, I think it can carry the weight of dogma, but not necessarily.

 

[Craig B]

Though the wikipedia article on that (in which I find the text you quoted) seems to give it a more grey area too. The encyclical in itself is just an important official communication from the pope. It may be ex cathedra, it may not.

Eh?

When it is, and sometimes even perhaps when it isn't, I think it can carry the weight of dogma, but not necessarily.

That is incomprehensible, and at all events it belies ANTPogo's more definitive

The Church has long drawn a distinction between what it's infallible about, and what it's not, and between the things that are undecided (and therefore subject to debate and can change), and things that are settled and undebatable as far as Canon and Doctrine are concerned.

 

[Craig B]

It may be ex cathedra, it may not. When it is, and sometimes even perhaps when it isn't, I think it can carry the weight of dogma, but not necessarily.

You don't know if this is infallible or not?

For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that ... Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.

Humani Generis, 37.

 

[Denver]

Eh? That is incomprehensible, and at all events it belies ANTPogo's more definitive

You don't know if this is infallible or not? Humani Generis, 37.

I don't know what point you are making. Mine is that the word 'doctrine' and the word 'dogma' mean different things, and it's helpful to know the difference when discussing one or the other.

 

[Craig B]

I don't know what point you are making. Mine is that the word 'doctrine' and the word 'dogma' mean different things, and it's helpful to know the difference when discussing one or the other.

My point is that in reality it is the current word of the current Pope that is decisive. You are unable to say whether things are "ex cathedra" or not; therefore neither you nor I can say whether they are to be taken as infallible. Thus, things change from time to time, whether they are referred to as dogmas, doctrines, or whatever. If they do change they are retrospectively described as mere theories or conjectures.

Pius XII makes it clear that if he says something, it is to be accepted without argument. However, the Encyclical in which he says this, far from being infallible, contains absurdities.

 

[Denver]

My point is that in reality it is the current word of the current Pope that is decisive. You are unable to say whether things are "ex cathedra" or not; therefore neither you nor I can say whether they are to be taken as infallible. Thus, things change from time to time, whether they are referred to as dogmas, doctrines, or whatever. If they do change they are retrospectively described as mere theories or conjectures.

Pius XII makes it clear that if he says something, it is to be accepted without argument. However, the Encyclical in which he says this, far from being infallible, contains absurdities.

Of course anything that anyone says who is in a position of authority (be it in the church or otherwise), people are expected to accept. The question becomes, what if you don't?

If we're talking the church, and it's defined as dogma, then you are pretty much by definition not part of the church (unless you change your position). If it is defined as doctrine, while you may still be 'required' to accept it, if you don't, the result is not as clear as a disagreement with dogma. You could still be a christian, maybe called a bad christian, but still within the confines of the church. As as we drift off into less strongly insisted upon things, the consequences seem to be even less severe.

Which is why I threw out these definitions. Sure, to be a good catholic, you are expected to accept everything the pope (and maybe everyone else up there) tells you (though there is also the issue of obeying your conscience, which I posted about earlier too). But if you don't, the impacts upon your 'salvation' seem to vary. Some may deny it altogether. Some might make your life here or in purgatory the more egregious, but still allow salvation. And so on.

Given the OP and the pope's actual comments regarding atheists, the distinction probably doesn't matter much (except as it confuses me at least). There seem to be catholic theologians (McBrien as I mentioned) who think this is a serious enough matter to try and make a clear distinction between the two. Take it or leave it.