Loading ...
In light of the recent anniversary, I thought our readers might be interested in this article from Human Life Review. George McKenna tracks the attitudes taken towards abortion by the major American political parties, and asks the perplexing question: how did the Democrats become America’s pro-abortion party? As McKenna points out, it’s not what one might have expected in the 1960’s, when the Democrats counted the great majority of Catholics among their voters, and trumpeted the defense of the weak as their primary agenda. Republicans, the historically anti-Catholic and pro-middle class party, flirted with abortion at a time when a young Ted Kennedy was declaring it morally repugnant. And yet, just a few years later, the Democrats were adding a plank to their platform declaring a “universal right” for women to procure an abortion, while Republicans were recasting themselves as the defenders of life. What happened?
I won’t summarize the whole article for you, and really (as necessarily happens when an author paints in such broad strokes) that question isn’t answered in fully satisfactory detail. The real focal point of the piece is the American bishops, and their response when the Democratic party – the party that they liked to identify as their own – turned into the party of death. While the bishops put up appreciable resistance in the 1970’s when the abortion issue was still in flux among the Democrats, the sad truth is that they more or less broke down when their objections were overruled. Obviously, they never formally agreed that abortion was okay. But they downplayed the issue by talking about the “seamless garment of life” and preaching the party’s other virtues. As we see, the damage was heavy and is not easily reversed. Probably all of us know Catholics who disagree with the Church’s position on abortion, and somehow think that it’s no big deal.
Interestingly, as Iosephus pointed out, McKenna doesn’t make clear what he thinks about the wider agenda of the left to which liberal Catholics were so attached. The Democratic Party is sometimes held up as an embodiment of the ideas and values laid out in Rerum Novarum, and as a mirror of Catholic social teaching. I’ll admit that I haven’t read that encyclical and hence don’t have any very deep thoughts about it. I have a knee-jerk reaction against references to Catholic social teaching because most of the people I’ve known to get excited about it have been wildly heretical in other ways. But I don’t have any hard and fast views about, say, wealth redistribution – none so strong, at least, that I’d be willing to disregard other explicit moral teachings in order to maintain my support for them.
And that’s really the tough question that I find myself asking at the end of an article like this. How much involvement in politics is healthy or appropriate for the Church? We see John Paul II standing up against communism and we’re all ready to cheer, but here is a case where political activism has seriously compromised the integrity of Church authorities in America. How can we stay relevant without risking more fiascos like this one?
Sometimes Church authorites need to be cautious about recognizing when a political issue involves prudential questions that they are not well-equipped to address. But also, I think we need to ponder carefully the ends that are being achieved with any given political initiative, because our priorities should not necessarily mirror the rest of the world’s. I do have some views about war and welfare and labor laws, but in the end, these sorts of political issues are largely concerned to make earthly life safer, healthier and pleasanter. It’s not wrong to take some care for such things, but we must remember that, ultimately, these earthly joys and sorrows are just the backdrop against which a more important battle is fought, for the souls of men. It’s very hard to know how particular political circumstances will affect that drama. There’s no particular reason to think that the man who dies fat and happy at the age of ninety-three is more likely to achieve salvation than the soldier who falls on the battlefield, or the child who dies of typhoid, or the peasant who works himself to death by the age of fifty-one. If anything, we might give the edge to the soldier, the child or the peasant.
Understand, I’m not saying that we should be indifferent to the suffering of others; quite the contrary, concrete acts of love and compassion are absolutely essential to the Christian life. But there is a reason for the injunction that we should “do no evil that good may come of it.” Only God knows whether good will come from any merely earthly event, and no amount of merely earthly good can outweigh the evil of sin. If concerns about poverty and war begin to incline us to turn a blind eye to the deliberate murder of millions of unborn children within our own borders, it’s clear that we need to rethink some things.
Anyway, give the article a read; it’s pretty interesting.
go to main page
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
whoops!
Sorry, Clara.
Joe,
Ok, your second comment was much better — I can’t and don’t disagree with anything you say there. But you must 1) consider your audience and 2) moderate your tone if you want to helpfully make these points to people. I don’t want to be damned or for many others to be, too, and I don’t think anyone here would disagree with you about the sorry state of affairs in the Church. But tit-for-tat quoting of the Fathers and grudgematches over these points here among the choir aren’t going to help save souls. It’s absolutely true what you say that many priests lack a true zeal for souls, and that many laymen as a result are deluded about heaven’s open gates, but “be ye clever as snakes and as gentle as doves” — I don’t ask you to moderate or disguise the truth, but to think about convincing and converting your reader as the goal, not pounding him to the ground. Granted, there are some who need to be pounded to the ground to be opened to the truth; but they ain’t reading this thread of comments, most likely. Rhetoric is for everyone who really wishes to spread the Truth, and if you really want to help Clara and others, you need to make a concerted effort to learn to use arguments to win people to your side, not simply to silence them in submission. And sometimes that means letting minor disagreements go by, so as to allow things to focus on the developing discussion at hand. You serve as a good and ever-ready correctant to anything going to squishy in the thinking here, and I for one, and I ’spect others too, are glad for that. So, realize your full potential! Let your arguments stand on their own, and try not to personalize them so much. I think you’ll find you receive a more sympathetic response then, and as a result will actually have a chance to help everyone reading this to see the hard truths of the Faith.
I stayed out of this for awhile, because I didn’t figure Ambrosius needed any help, and I don’t like to participate in a pile-on. But now you seem to have resolved your differences sufficiently that it’s fair for me to say something. At the moment I only have a few minutes since I need to run to Rosary. But I wanted to get Joe Six Pack’s position straight:
1. You think the overwhelming majority of people are going to Hell.
2. You think that you’re no more likely than anyone else to be saved.
Ergo, 3) you think it’s overwhelmingly likely that you’re going to end up in Hell. Is that right?
If it is right, then I’m amazed you can be so relaxed about the eternal torment that in all likelihood awaits you. (Is the thought, “At least Jesus will have wept for me,” really very comforting when you know that you will be cursing him from below?)
On the other hand, if you think your chances are better than that, Ambrosius’ accusation may stand… your talk of damnation is at least in part the boasting of one who takes himself to have favored status.
If your response to this is, “I don’t really know what the odds are; I just assume that both salvation and damnation are open possibilities right now, and in that light I live as well as I can and beg daily for God’s mercy,” then you might begin to see why I find your regular references to numbers so distasteful.
I agree with you that most people need to take the possibility of damnation more seriously than they do. The study about talking to God, which I mentioned in a previous post, said that only 4% of Americans reported having any fear for their own damnation. That’s certainly disturbing. We should all fear damnation, and regard it as a real possibility. But, as Ambrosius has indicated, I think your tactics are very counterproductive. First of all, when you say things like, “Most people are going to Hell; just look around!” you exude an arrogance that seriously damages your credibility. Can you read men’s inmost souls? Have you been entrusted with judging them? Then hold your peace.
But secondly, your callous dismissal of the question as “easy” will lead many (even most, I would expect) to reject your message. At times you move within a hair’s breadth of Calvinism, my friend. (You think that non-Catholics have extremely little or no chance of being saved, and a great part of the world has never had any opportunity to be Catholic. They may, in your words, “choose” damnation, but evidently their circumstances were such that they were all but certain to make that choice. In the ordinary Six Pack’s mind (I’d think), it looks like God has been creating people and setting them straight on course for Hell. You really have to split some hairs to tell this apart from the doctrine of predestination.) Most people will find that pretty repugnant, and your casual declaration that none of this bothers you is not likely to endear you to people who are upset by the thought of most of their dearest acquaintances (and very likely they themselves) facing an eternity of intense suffering.
Wow, that’s a lot more than I meant to write. Now I really had better run, or I’ll miss Rosary.
“then you might begin to see why I find your regular references to numbers so distasteful.”
Lest one think that Joe Six Pack is the only one who maintains this position on the fewness of the saved, it is true that the saints have traditionally taught this. The question then becomes, is it right to deem the matter “distasteful” when the people are most definitely not so. I quote as follows, from “The Apostolic Digest” by Michael Malone:
http://www.gospa.org/pl/pages/evang
elism/catholic_truth/few_saved.html
?ra=1
So is the position of these saints distasteful? It is not a pleasant position as far as its contents go, but I don’t see how it can be rejected as intrinsically “distasteful” to bring up numbers when our models, the saints, do just that. The position of St. Francis Xavier, S.J., and St. Alphonsus de Liguori is most interesting since they were most certainly not Calvinists yet did maintain that the pagans and infidels were lost.
” a great part of the world has never had any opportunity to be Catholic. They may, in your words, “choose” damnation, but evidently their circumstances were such that they were all but certain to make that choice.”
This is in God’s mind — how providentially all people have a chance to enter the Church. There is no way for us to know how these people have responded to graces in their lives. All we know is that there is no salvation outside the Church, period. That is a dogma, defined three times by different Popes and Ecumenical Councils, so it does not entail the heresy of Calvinistic predestination.
The right position seems to be: everyone has a choice as to their eternal fate. Both are real options. It is both hard and easy to get into Heaven, depending on how you look at, and both hard and easy to get into Hell. But, as an actual matter of fact, most people choose hell. Most people choose the difficulties entailed in killing their own conscience, as opposed to the easy yoke and light burden of Christ. That is the witness of generations of saints and doctors of the church who have looked into the matter. It is sad and ghastly to think of, but then so much of the way the world works is. So many of the sins I commit are. “Sufficient for the day is the evil therof.” My own sins are sufficient to show that I have merited hell many times over.
If we really wanted a fierce debate, we could mention how St. Thomas proves that part of the eternal beatitude of the saved is their delight in the just punishment of the damned.
Several points:
1. There are some things that are appropriate for very holy people to say, and less appropriate for most ordinary people. The complications and difficulties involved in this question are great, and I think it is distasteful for ordinary people to mention the damnation of almost everybody in passing and in such a blase manner. Six Pack has done this repeatedly; this is my thread so I finally decided to call him on it. If you’re a mystic or a Doctor of the Church, you’ll say what you need to say, but they take a bit more care with their words.
2. Six Pack declared that the Fathers agree “almost universally” that even the vast majority of Catholics go to Hell. That is spurious. The person who prepared this website obviously combed through scores of documents to find every pessimistic statement possible about the subject, and not a single person says that, and only one or two could even plausibly be taken to imply that. Looks pretty “universal” to me.
3. I did not take the position that only Calvinists declare pagans and heretics to be damned. What I said was: it takes some real theological hair-splitting to distinguish that position from Calvinism. Perhaps the hair-splitting will succeed in sorting the matter out, or perhaps the claim is just wrong. What I was really trying to show is that, whatever the true answer, the questions are not simple as Six Pack said they were. If you think they’re simple, you’re not giving the matter enough thought.
4. There are some pessimists out there, but there’s been plenty of disagreement about the number of the elect. And some have agreed with me that it’s probably better not to speculate about it… including St. Thomas. From the Summa, question 23, article 7:
“Concerning the number of all the predestined, some say that so many men will be saved as angels fell; some, so many as there were angels left; others, as many as the number of angels created by God. It is, however, better to say that, “to God alone is known the number for whom is reserved eternal happiness.’”
Also, from Catholic Encyclopedia, about the “many are called but few chosen” passage:
“It is agreed on all sides that the term refers to members of the Church Triumphant, but there is some doubt as to whether it refers to mere membership, or to a more exalted degree. This distinction is important; if the word implies mere membership in the Church Triumphant, then the chosen ones, or those who will be saved, are few, and the non-members in the Church Triumphant are many; if the word denotes a special degree of glory, then few will attain this rank, and many will fail to do so, though many are called to it. The sentence “many are called, but few chosen” does not, therefore, settle the question as to the relative number of the elect and the lost; theologians are divided on this point, and while Christ in the Gospels urges the importance of saving one’s soul (Luke 13:23, 24), he alternately so strengthens our hope and excites our fear as not to leave us any solid ground for either presumption or despair.”
And also (sorry, this is a long one):
Lastly, there were optimists who, combining these two opinions into a third, made the total of men saved equal to the unnumbered myriads of berated spirits. But even granted that the principle of our calculation is correct, no mathematician would be able to figure out the absolute number on a basis so vague, since the number of angels and demons is an unknown quantity to us. Hence, “the best answer”, rightly remarks St. Thomas, “is to say: God alone knows the number of his elect”. By relative number is meant the numerical relation between the predestined and the reprobate. Will the majority of the human race be saved or will they be damned? Will one-half be damned the other half saved? In this question the opinion of the rigorists is opposed to the milder view of the optimists. Pointing to several texts of the Bible (Matthew 7:14; 22:14) and to sayings of great spiritual doctors, the rigorists defend as probable the thesis that not only most Christians but also most Catholics are doomed to eternal damnation. Almost repulsive in its tone is Massillon’s sermon on the small number of the elect. Yet even St. Thomas (loc. cit., a. 7) asserted: “Pauciores sunt qui salvantur” (only the smaller number of men are saved). And a few years ago, when the Jesuit P. Castelein (”Le rigorisme, le nombre des élus et la doctrine du salut”, 2nd ed., Brussels, 1899) impugned this theory with weighty arguments, he was sharply opposed by the Redemptorist P. Godts (”De paucitate salvandorum quid docuerunt sancti”, 3rd ed., Brussels, 1899). That the number of the elect cannot be so very small is evident from the Apocalypse (vii, 9). When one hears the rigorists, one is tempted to repeat Dieringer’s bitter remark: “Can it be that the Church actually exists in order to people hell?” The truth is that neither the one nor the other can be proved from Scripture or Tradition (cf. Heinrich-Gutberlet, “Dogmat. Theologie”, Mainz, 1897, VIII, 363 sq.). But supplementing these two sources by arguments drawn from reason we may safely defend as probable the opinion that the majority of Christians, especially of Catholics, will be saved. If we add to this relative number the overwhelming majority of non-Christians (Jews, Mahommedans, heathens), then Gener (”Theol. dogmat. scholast.”, Rome, 1767, II, 242 sq.) is probably right when he assumes the salvation of half of the human race, lest “it should be said to the shame and offence of the Divine majesty and clemency that the [future] Kingdom of Satan is larger than the Kingdom of Christ” (cf. W. Schneider, “Das andere Leben”, 9th ed., Paderborn, 1908, 476 sq.).”
I just think it’s a question that’s been much discussed, so we should be appropriately circumspect about exact numbers or probabillity.
I stand by everything I said.
I agree 100% with Tobias Petrus.
In this forum I’m not trying to save souls. I figure that I’m talking to a group of Catholics who are already serious about their salvation and we’re just debating the finer points of Catholicism. If I were talking to a group of openly bad Catholics, committed Novus Ordinarians, protestants, or non-Catholics, my tone, tenor and even message would be different and varied to suit that particular audience.
If you want to talk critically about tones of voice, I don’t appreciate the constant pedantic and patronizing tone that doesn’t address the substance of my words but my style or lack of personal holiness.
I can’t quote or repeat words of saints because I’m not a holy person. Please.
Clara says: If you think they’re simple, you’re not giving the matter enough thought.
Yes, it’s simple. Stop sinning, go to Heaven. Continue sinning, go to Hell. That’s it. Very simple.
Clara says: And some have agreed with me that it’s probably better not to speculate about it… including St. Thomas. From the Summa, question 23, article 7:
I’m not speculating on a certain #. From the mouths of the saints and from clear empirical evidence it’s clear that the majority of men will not be saved. (just of the people alive today - out of 6 billion only about 1 billion are Catholics. Maybe another few hundred thousand are baptized non-Catholics whose salvation is questionable. Of the 1 billion Catholics how many are in a state of sanctifying grace? We cannot know for sure and certainly cannot judge any individual persons, but on the whole, we know that most Catholics persist in lives of serious mortal sin (contraception, adultery, abortion) and that they do not frequent the sacraments in order to save their own souls. These are just facts. If you think you can get to heaven without sanctifying grace, please send that news flash to Holy Father Benedict.)
Clara says: 1. You think the overwhelming majority of people are going to Hell. 2. You think that you’re no more likely than anyone else to be saved. Ergo, 3) you think it’s overwhelmingly likely that you’re going to end up in Hell. Is that right?
Yes, I think it’s very likely, save a moral miracle from God, that I will go to Hell. But so what? What should I do with this knowledge stay in my room and cry all day? Abandon Catholicism, start a life of sin, and take my chances on Satan’s team?
No, we each have to press on, do the best we can, work out our salvations with fear and trembling, and pray mightily to Our Lady that she intercedes for us now and especially at the hours of our deaths. Pray the rosary, wear the scapular, pray to St. Joseph for a holy death, do some small mortifications daily, go to weekly confession and frequent Holy Communion.. What else can we do?
Anyone, anyone at all, and this includes myself on numerous occasions, who commits a single mortal sin deserves not one ounce of pity should that person die unrepentant and/or unconfessed.
Also, anyone who willfully maintains his ignorance of the laws of God and the Church commits a mortal sin.
Also, I’ll stick with the fathers, doctors, and saints. I’m not interested in your avant-garde German theologians.
Joe Six Pack,
I personally don’t get all worked up from your comments. Other people I think do.
People just need to understand your character and upbringing, I imagine.
Some people are raised in environments where everything said must be done with a certain nicety.
I was not raised in that environment. It is hard not to act like you actually.
In any case I would disagree with Ambrosius on his lack of being able to confirm your lack of holiness. For one Cardinal Francis Arinze said “ignorance is not a virtue.” This would prompt me to a speedy conclusion…take it as a laugh.
The second, is your coming off as an sincerely arrogant traditionalist who seems to know what the Church should do or shouldn’t on a rather grand scale. This is not holy in addition to not humble. I know folks will disagree. Tough.
Can anyone name a saint who disagreed so vehemently on what the Church states? Even Padre Pio was submissive to an incorrect *personal* “disciplinary” decision on behalf of the — Pope was it?
He did not act like you.
In either case I would say many souls *could* very easily be damned. Just tell the Cornell Society for a Good time you take His words “there are few who enter it” as prophetic since apparently this is a non-infallible subject which the Church has not even spoken much about nor never will.
I should say “predictive” rather than prophetic.
The only reason I’m responding is because you throw around hurtful charges against me without any evidence of my transgressions.
“People just need to understand your character and upbringing, I imagine.”
Please Dr. Freud tell me more about my character and upbringing..
“In any case I would disagree with Ambrosius on his lack of being able to confirm your lack of holiness. For one Cardinal Francis Arinze said “ignorance is not a virtue.” This would prompt me to a speedy conclusion…take it as a laugh.”
It’s an act of charity to instruct the so-called ignorant, so tell me what I’m ignorant about?
“The second, is your coming off as an sincerely arrogant traditionalist who seems to know what the Church should do or shouldn’t on a rather grand scale. This is not holy in addition to not humble.”
How am I telling the Church how to act?
“Can anyone name a saint who disagreed so vehemently on what the Church states? Even Padre Pio was submissive to an incorrect *personal* “disciplinary” decision on behalf of the — Pope was it?”
Tell me how I disobey the Church?
As someone who endures a weekly heretical (using Armenian monophysite creed) Novus Ordo Missae where the Precious Blood regularly falls to the ground during Communion due to total irreverence and lack of using a paten during intinction, tell me dear Johnboy, how I’m being disobedient?
You act like we have no right to complain. It’s not enough to obey, but we have to “like” the Novus Ordo church too.
I’ve discovered over the last few weeks that the priests in my current location violate the seal of the confession too. I had Father X (my usual confessor) pull me aside several days after a confession to expand on some remarks/advice he had given me. This is a violated of the seal of confessional.
Then, after I confessed recently to Father Y (because Fr. X was unavailable), Fr. Y told me that he had heard that I was making improvement in a particular area. Meaning Frs. X, Y, and Z share details about the confessions.
There was no malice involved here. These priests are doing what they think is best for me. But they are violating some of the most serious laws of the Church in their ignorance. The penalty for a priest breaking the seal of confession is the highest level of excommunication which only the Holy Father himself can lift.
Yet, you, Johnboy, have no tolerance at all for traditionalists. It’s not enough that we obey the Church. Attend the Novus Ordo if a lawful Latin Mass is not available. Go to confession to ignorant Novus Ordo priests. No that’s not enough for you. We must keep our mouths shut, lest the Holy Charge of DISOBEDIENCE or Pharisee comes out of you mouth.
An interesting quote in light of Johnboy’s stance against any word being uttered in criticism of that emperor standing before us without clothes - the Novus Ordo Church.
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said: “Who is going to save our Church? Not our bishops, not our priests and religious. It is up to you, the people. You have the minds, the eyes, and the ears to save the Church. Your mission is to see that your priests act like priests, your bishops act like bishops, and your religious act like religious.”
I don’t see myself as being able to save anything accept, please God, my own soul, certainly not the Church. I only offer this quote because Johnboy becomes highly indignant should any traditionalist think he knows better than the Church.
By the way, why according to Archbishop Sheen does the Church need saving Johnboy, if we are in the wonderful Springtime of Vatican II?
Joe’s original position: It’s almost universally agreed among saints, doctors and Fathers that the great majority of people, including the great majority of Catholics, will not be saved.
I’ve already explained that this is not true. You have failed to produce a single saint, doctor, or Father who makes that statement; a few of the more rigorist ones (St. Alphonsus, for example, or St. Louis de Montfort) could plausibly be taken to imply it, but many are more reticent. The Angelic Doctor, for example, speculates that the elect are probably in the minority, and advises us to leave it at that. So if you were aiming at “fine points of doctrine,” as you say, you should acknowledge that your original statement, which started this discussion in the first place, was wrong.
If you were deliberately exaggerating for rhetorical effect, I and others have already explained why your tactics are not effective.
So, you’re not (by your own admission) working for our spiritual betterment, and you’re not accurately reflecting the teachings of the doctors and saints. I can’t see, then, that your words have any real purpose.
Also, it becomes clear through your posts that, without presuming anything definitely, you do think that you (and your wife and children too, I imagine) have a much better chance of achieving salvation than most people, either Novus Catholics or non-Catholics. So in speaking of the almost-certainly-damned, you are in large part thinking about other people. That being the case, I earnestly entreat you not to refer to such things in such a glib and casual manner. It causes pain to some, and benefits nobody.
Joseph Six Pack…
A correction on the confessional scandals you endured:
Those were your psychologists…
Seriously, though. Hehehe.
What is your position in the — Army is it?
Or are you still mad at me?
Hehehe.
OK Clara, if I had said that some Fathers and holy saints speculate that only a few of even among Catholics are saved, would this have been better? Or is it still out of bounds to quote saints at certain times or by certain people?
“Also, it becomes clear through your posts that, without presuming anything definitely, you do think that you (and your wife and children too, I imagine) have a much better chance of achieving salvation than most people, either Novus Catholics or non-Catholics. So in speaking of the almost-certainly-damned, you are in large part thinking about other people. That being the case, I earnestly entreat you not to refer to such things in such a glib and casual manner. It causes pain to some, and benefits nobody.”
I don’t even know how to begin to address this and I probably shouldn’t. You assume such freedom in telling me what I presume about myself and my family. And, I can’t get my mind around your mindset that recognizing that a few are saved somehow must mean that I in fact am one of the saved no matter how many times I tell you this isn’t the case. Recognizing that only a few are saved, not through predestination, but through willful ignorance or outright disobedience to God, is a fact and this fact should drive us on to work on our personal salvation and the salvation of those in our charge. I don’t presume that my wife and children are saved. But the prospect of them going to Hell helps me to be a better Catholic father. And if they don’t get to Heaven due to my negligence, then I don’t get to Heaven either.
Frankly, I find your take on this uncatholic. You still have one foot in Mormonism - at least emotionally.
If you censor me for the last two sentences, please review your last few comments to me and reflect on the double standard.
Do you or do you not think that Novus Catholics and non-Catholics stand a considerably greater chance of being damned than traditional Catholics like yourselves? I’m not blaming you for thinking that per se. It makes perfect sense that you would follow the course you think most likely to lead to salvation. But don’t get all indignant when I attribute to you positions that you seem fairly obviously to hold.
I reject the whole notion of having a “better chance” - it’s not a matter of chance. Frankly, I think your mindset here is disturbing.
God calls all men into the Church.
One needs sanctifying grace in order to get to Heaven.
The Church exists for one purpose - to bring, strengthen and restore sanctifying grace to men.
God calls all men into the Church.
If people persist to follow a religion of man - be that religion started by a 19th Century American polygamist; a 15th Century lecherous English King; a 16th Century horny German monk; or a 5th Century bloodthirsty Arab pedophile - rather than follow the one religion established by God, then they will face the eternal consequences.
Catholics obviously have a great advantage since we have access to the sacraments and to Our Lady’s protection. But the world, the flesh, and the devil are hard at work - no one’s salvation is assured.
For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required.
So reflecting on this passage, perhaps traditional Catholics have the hardest path to follow of all.
One of the best chaplains (by best I mean working with soldiers and families to resolve problems) I’ve had the pleasure to work with in my short army career was a Mormon chaplain.
I onced asked him why he doesn’t believe people can go to Hell?
His answer:
“God is our Father. His love for us is infinitely greater than my love for my own children. I could not send my own children to Hell. So our Father in Heaven, of infinite love, cannot send his children to Hell”
We must pray hard for all non-Catholics including these poor Mormon souls who have some great natural virtue to offer the Church.
Clara,
You seem to fall into the trap of judging everything by your modern concept of fairness.
Just because something about our faith doesn’t make us feel particularly good doesn’t mean we need to abandon it, ignore it, or sugar-coat it.
I personally still don’t “feel” particularly good about how Church tradition calls for the separation between Catholics and Jews and restricts Jews from access to the economic life of society. The Golden Ages of Christendom don’t “seem fair” to my American masonic-influenced mind. Nevertheless that’s what would be called for in a properly ordered Catholic society.
You can’t seem to understand how whole nations of people will be tossed into the fires of Hell just because they are not Catholics.
Earthly fathers can send their children to Hell. Does this seem fair? It doesn’t matter, because it’s the truth.
A bad father can cause his children to go to Hell. Why should God punish children for the sins or negligences of the father? Why bother to ask the question? It’s just a fact.
One man’s sin, our father Adam, has cursed the human race to forever be prone to sinfulness, to be children of wrath, to love sin and naturally speaking to hate virtue, to suffer and become sick, and to die. Does this seem fair?
Was it fair for God to command the Israelites to kill entire nations of people?
The enemies of Israel were in that position because of the unfaithfulness of their fathers.
God deluged the entire world, killing everyone save 8 people - was that fair?
Most non-Catholics in the West are outside of the Church because of some decision of a forefather 2, 3, or 400 years ago to leave the Church. How many generations of children did his sinfulness send to Hell?
Most non-Catholics outside the West are in the situation of being outside the Ark of Salvation because of a decision of a forefather 4 or 5,000 years ago.
Fatherhood is a serious responsibility. The creation of immortal souls is a wonderful thing, but the prospect of being responsible for the eternal bliss or eternal, never-ending torment of these souls should terrify everyone.
Perhaps further meditation on this fact would cause you to reflect on things like your cavalier attitude toward sending your future little ones off to modern schools.
But then again, if you create a God in your own image, one of tolerance and full of Novus Ordo “love”, then you can talk yourself into just about anything.
It’s staggering to believe that Adam had full knowledge of what the consequences of his sin would be. He knew the generations upon generations of souls which would fall to Hell because of his pride. This is terrifying to think about. That’s why our personal sins are only mortal sins which effect only our personal souls and why Adam’s sin was so powerful it effects all humanity – he had total knowledge of what would happen. Furthermore, he had no weakness or concupiscence. He did not sin out of weakness like most of us do. He had no lust, or anger, or some other disordered passion to blame for his sin. The Original Sin was total pride and with extreme malice. Father Adam makes Adolf Hitler look like a pussy cat.
So, we can focus on God’s righteous wrath and cruel judgment that awaits us all (like you seem to be prone to do, and thereby not want to think about it at all), or we can mediate on the fact that Adam was in fact saved! God’s boundless mercy was available to save even Adam from Hell. This mercy is truly boundless and totally open to everyone. No one is beyond salvation.
Anyone who has committed even one mortal sin deserves Hell. We have no right whatsoever to make a claim on God’s mercy.
You act like the fact that only a few are saved is a scandalous topic that shouldn’t be discussed and if so only by The Doctors.
Who are you to say such a thing?
You have no right to second guess God nor to deign think a severe minority being saved is somehow a scandal or crime.
Saying, like I do, that only a few, even among Catholics, will be saved may be casting an overly severe judgment on mankind; but I would argue that saying what you say is casting an arrogant judgment on God and is far more a deadly trap to fall into.
If I’m wrong, then I’ve misjudged my fellow men. If you’re wrong then you’ve misjudged God. What will happen if you continue to persist in your beliefs and you stand before the Almighty only to realize only a minority of the human race is present in Heaven? What will you say, “you cruel God, let me go down to Hell to be with my dear family”?
This is how your position borders on heresy.
Many Jews don’t accept the Christian God because of his boundless mercy. They cannot worship a God who would forgive Adolf Hitler if Hitler had given Him the chance to.
Many others don’t accept the Christian God because of his righteous anger and wrath. Like the followers of the fallen angel Moroni. Don’t fall into the camp.
I haven’t read much of the continued “salvation history” responses but I must conclude the following:
Most of the souls that go to hell are probably “Novus Ordo” Catholics and non-Catholics because there are so few traditional Catholics in the world…
It’s a matter of probability — even if I consider everyone has an equal chance.
Joe Six Pack wins!
Great job.
Of course I was being silly on the last post:
CLARA IS THE CHAMPION IN THIS ONE.
JOE SIX PACK — LAAHOOO-ZA-HERRRR!
Today I started reading Catholics and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire, 1453-1923.
One aspect of the account of Mehmet II’s conquering of Bosnia made me think of this notion of entire nations of people being thrown in the fires of Hell for all eternity.
After being defeated and occupied by the Turks, the author writes, “Among the remaining Catholics [of Bosnia who did not flee to Catholic Hungary] conversion to Islam or Orthodoxy became frequent and it was estimated that by 1515, 150,000 Catholics had abandoned their faith.”
However, the author continues with the following:
“A number of Catholic prisoners were taken from Bosnia and northern Albania and brought to Istanbul as slaves. One of these was Andreas of Chios, who was accused before the Turkish authorities of having once been a Muslim. The penalty for apostasy from Islam was death, to be avoided only by a return to one’s former faith. Despite the fact that Andreas had been mistakenly charged, he was tortured each day for over a week, parts of his body being cut away until the bones of his arms and legs were exposed, in order to extract from him a denial of Christianity. Yet, he remained constant: ‘Do with me whatever you like; only one thing I ask, that you don’t harangue me with your speeches.’ At last, on 29 May 1465, he was beheaded and his body taken by the Catholics in Galata to be buried in St. Mary’s Church.”
If this doesn’t speak to the “few who are saved” what does??
On one hand, 150,000 Catholics defect from the True Faith - sending their own souls and most likely the countless souls of their progeny for generation after generation into the fires of Hell.
And on the other hand, 1 Catholic perseveres to the end, Andreas of Chios.
JSP: by “15th Century lecherous English King” you mean Henry VIII? He ruled 1509-1547, so that would be the 16th century. Meanwhile the “5th Century bloodthirsty Arab pedophile” thirsted for blood roughly 570-632: 6th-7th centuries. I hope you’ll forgive my pedantry. I indulge myself on this occasion because (true though they may be) insults to billions look less effective made out of ignorance.
It’s good to see that set of FUNK & WAGNELLS you received for Christmas in 1955 can be put to such good use.
Bravo.