New Apologetics Patrick Speckamp Please excuse the delay in replying. Personal matters have interfered with our timely response.
You wrote:
Thanks for your reply. Just a few things: You said it is not Catholic doctrine to say people of a different faith who have acquired knowledge about the Catholic faith but rejected it cannot be saved. Again, I can only refer to the official statement of Lumen Gentium quoted above. Past councils and popes phrased it even much more sharply, such as Pope Innocent III at the Fourth Lateran Council: “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all can be saved.” Can we forget about these statements or are they part of the official Catholic belief system?
We reply:
We do not deny any of these statements. However, they are a great source of misunderstanding to Catholics and non-Catholics. We agree that there is no salvation outside the Church. This simply means that for anyone to be saved, it is through Jesus Christ and by means of being a member of his body which is the Church. It does not mean that one has to be a “card-carrying” Catholic. To say that it does mean that one has to be a card-carrying Catholic is a heresy which has been condemned by the Church. We can send you further information on the heresy of “Feeneyism” if you like. We do assure you, though, that our position is not aberrant, but represents the official teaching of the Church. Here is the relevant section of the Catechism:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? 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. 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.
“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.”
Now to “know” the Gospel or the Church is not to merely hear words about the Gospel or the Church. It is to really understand what is being said and to see that it is true and good. If you are sincerely seeking the truth, then that is enough. Many would be dishonest (and mercenary) if they were to embrace the Gospel or the Church with the information they have. Christopher Hitchens was right to die as an honest atheist. Had he conceded to some version of the Gospel out of fear of hell it would have been far less holy than the love of truth that he showed until the end.
You wrote:
Also, you said: “The God we believe in is perfectly just. He is everything we (and Christopher Hitchens) already love, but infinitely so.” Great. But why not call it justice then? The god you seem to portray seems nothing more than an infinitely amplified projection of humanly desire for justice, similar to what Feuerbach proposed.
We reply: You could call it justice, but the term becomes inadequate upon minimal reflection. In this case, justice is a person, or rather a Trinity of persons. We are not dealing with a mere abstraction, but with perfect love, reason, and justice personified. Without any exaggeration, we have found it to be true that every atheist who actively opposes religious ideology is rejecting “god” because of a legitimate resistance to some injustice that they think they would have to renounce if they were to accept God. For example, the notion that all non-Christians are damned is manifestly unjust, and many leave religion because of it. But that is right. We should not accept such a monster as our God. Also, the notion of the suffering of the innocent is key. Most atheists cannot abide a God who is not infinitely opposed to such horrors. But that is right too. We agree that all just people must move on and keep looking for something better than a religion that compromises our basic perceptions of justice and reason. Our position is that perfect justice (which is the desire of all human beings of good will) is only exemplified in the Gospel as understood by the Catholic Church (which is starkly different from the fundamentalist understanding.)
You wrote:
You said “One way to experience supernatural intervention: If you go to confession, you will have the grace to believe again. The sacraments are direct encounters with supernatural intervention.” What gives you the certainty that god can forgive sins and, moreover, by the act of doing so he will endow me with a different kind of mindset that will bring me back to a belief in him?
We reply: This is more of us speaking from personal experience. We could argue it in a proof, but are not sure if it would be anything helpful since it is mixing categories in a strange way. If you would like us to explain the psychology behind the above statement, we will. There are some very interesting considerations there. Basically, without grace to do otherwise, we are forced to see the world a certain way regardless of reason. There are some striking epistemological aspects to grace vs. non-grace. Much needs to be said before it will make sense.
You wrote:
This seems to me not only an unfounded claim but also a kind of circular thinking, since it is essential to truly regret one’s sins in order to make a valid confession.
We reply: Only a very minimal regret is necessary. Indeed, it is almost impossible to have appropriate sorrow because we don’t understand what we are doing or the harm that sin causes. When I went to confession after a long time of atheism, it was mostly “to whom it may concern.” That was enough.
You wrote:
I do have regrets about things I did, but not in front of a god but in front of the people I mistreated and I certainly don’t regret having come to the informed conclusion that I cannot maintain my former belief in a god anymore. So, this endeavor to encounter supernatural intervention is rendered meaningless from the get-go.
We reply: We mistakenly think that we need to believe in God in order to pray. It’s not so. From a perspective of total honesty, much can be prayed conditionally. “If God exists, then I am sorry for my sins.” “If God exists, I ask for the supernatural gift of faith.” Again, we shared the point about confession because of the personal experience of it working to instantly introduce a supernatural light into one’s understanding. It’s very rational to try such things (such as conditional prayer), it’s kind of like putting your eye to a telescope when someone else says that there is an interesting thing to see on the other end.
You wrote:
Your postscript also entails another interesting question. You said “Other people (whom God has made irrevocably infinitely important) have said “no” to God, and therefore there are “holes” in divine providence because people who should have been involved in communicating his gift to you aren’t.” I am not sure if I understand you correctly but are you saying that I, having said “no” to god (although that’s putting it very bluntly), am in the way of other people’s prayers being answered?
We reply:
Yes, but so are we. We’re all in the same boat. On our view, disorder in the world comes from sin, and most of us are simply living as we can.
This “sin brings disorder” model may seem like a far-fetched understanding of why there is so much suffering in the world. However, on a view which accepts the existence of a perfectly just God, it follows that whatever comes from God is well-ordered. Any introduction of disorder into a well-ordered system will have a ripple effect of disorder. This is provable. Our actions affect much more than our private spheres.
You wrote:
If that is what you are saying, why should an almighty god care about an insignificant maverick like me and be hindered in answering the prayers of the righteous?
We reply:
For the same reason he cares about us sinful Catholic apologists. God is love, and he does nothing other than love. It is his will (being maximally generous) that he accomplish nothing without you. The ultimate happiness of all others is divinely ordained from all eternity to come through you, and not apart from you. This never changes no matter what you do. There is a voluminous amount to say on this topic. Your sufferings, including your doubt, are the sufferings of Christ with reference to the sin of the whole world. This union with Christ is how we are saved from the diminishment which so deeply afflicts us. His glory is your glory, and this inheritance of glory is the only way that our diminished state can be made well again. We realize that we have not fully explained this :) Please keep asking questions…
You wrote:
Finally, I would like to ask you one question. Even if you don’t answer anything else I wrote today, please answer me this question as succinctly as possible: In your opinion (which should be the opinion of the Catholic Church) am I going to hell if I don’t change my ways?
We reply:
No. Your “ways” are quite manifestly the love of justice and truth. You left the Church primarily out of love of what is right. This is *not* leaving the Church. In order to go to hell, you would have to radically change your ways. Hell is a place where we send ourselves so as to avoid the greater pain of being with God (who is truth and justice).
We have to be transformed into Christ in order for us to not condemn ourselves in the divine presence. This transformation is hard and takes a long time. However, love of justice and truth are the only things needed. He does the rest if we let him.
November 15, 2012 at 7:26pm · Like ·
1
