Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics

[angus]

Let me restate my position. 

About 15 years ago, I stumbled upon a really weird catholic mass in a rainforest in Guatemala.  It was near Iximché, which is an ancient Highland Maya temple site built in honor of the corn goddess.  Late Postclassic period, if you're into that sort of thing.  Anyway, I was hot and sweaty and broke, walking back toward my rented room on the shores of Lago Atitlan, where I had a dime bag and a bottle of Venezuelan rum waiting for me.  I came to a clearing in the forest and noticed all these folks speaking Quiche or Kaqchikel, and occassionally Spanish with a thick, lilting indigenous accent, and pouring out some alcohol or other local firewater on the ground.  They were burning large piles of corn and other crops to ask the corn goddess for a good yield.  All of it happened under the aegis of a formally robed priest.  I was aware that Rome allowed the local bishops a great deal of latitude in dealing with the indigenous populations, but that was the first time I'd witnessed it firsthand.  In later years, I'd notice something similar in the Andes.  "I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall have no other gods before me.  Well, ye shall have some other gods and goddesses from time to time as it is necessary to ensure peace and spread the Word, and ye shall allow the people to maintain their prior religions, so long as ye continue to try to teach them Spanish and baptize them."

Consider the tens of thousands of Jews who converted to Christianity in Italy and Austria during the late 1930s and early 1940s.  It turned out not to do them any good, but do you suppose that the priests asked if they really meant it?  Of course they didn't.  They didn't have to do any soul-searching to decide if it was right for them to try to save lives.  Or to make peace.  This is what priests do.  They don't need permission from Rome either.  Well, officially they do, but on a day-to-day level, priests do this every day. 

Let's consider what Francis actually said:  “Il Signore ha redento con il sangue di Cristo: tutti, non soltanto i cattolici. Tutti! ‘Padre, gli atei?’. Anche loro. Tutti!"

There you have it!  (FYI:  Tutti = everybody.  atei = atheists.)

So, yeah, it's like it says in the OP:  "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics.  Everyone!  ...even the atheists.  Everyone!"  This is not a controversial statement.  It's a bit informal, but it is a reasonable restatement of church dogma.  Note, importantly, that redento = redemption.  I suspect that there's some general ignorance in the public about the word redemption.  It does not mean the same thing as salvation.  He does not articulate the salvation of atheists.  Be clear on that.  Also, he goes on to say that "atei che fare il bene haberre redento."  Or something like this.  That is, atheists who do good will be "redeemed."  (It seems to me that the central message here is:  Tutti abbiamo il dovere di fare il bene.  So, all spin aside, he definitely did not say:  Tutti gli atei andranno in paradiso.)

Still, somewhere, right now, there's a grieving mother, an staunchly observant Catholic, who has lost an infant child who hasn't yet been baptized.  Maybe it was stillborn.  Maybe it died soon after its birth.  Does the priest tell her that the baby's soul will be lost forever in blackness and permanent death?  Of course not.  He tells her that the baby is now with its grandparents and with Jesus, and that it is not suffering.  The statement by Francis isn't a new idea.  It's what priests do every day. 

It's a good time to lament the fact that neither Supersoulty nor jmfcst post here any longer.  This thread could have evolved into a titanic debate between those two.  No matter.  Fare il bene. 

Also, Peace be with you. 

[politicus]

Let me restate my position. 

About 15 years ago, I stumbled upon a really weird catholic mass in a rainforest in Guatemala.  It was near Iximché, which is an ancient Highland Maya temple site built in honor of the corn goddess.  Late Postclassic period, if you're into that sort of thing.  Anyway, I was hot and sweaty and broke, walking back toward my rented room on the shores of Lago Atitlan, where I had a dime bag and a bottle of Venezuelan rum waiting for me.  I came to a clearing in the forest and noticed all these folks speaking Quiche or Kaqchikel, and occassionally Spanish with a thick, lilting indigenous accent, and pouring out some alcohol or other local firewater on the ground.  They were burning large piles of corn and other crops to ask the corn goddess for a good yield.  All of it happened under the aegis of a formally robed priest.  I was aware that Rome allowed the local bishops a great deal of latitude in dealing with the indigenous populations, but that was the first time I'd witnessed it firsthand.  In later years, I'd notice something similar in the Andes.  "I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall have no other gods before me.  Well, ye shall have some other gods and goddesses from time to time as it is necessary to ensure peace and spread the Word, and ye shall allow the people to maintain their prior religions, so long as ye continue to try to teach them Spanish and baptize them."

Consider the tens of thousands of Jews who converted to Christianity in Italy and Austria during the late 1930s and early 1940s.  It turned out not to do them any good, but do you suppose that the priests asked if they really meant it?  Of course they didn't.  They didn't have to do any soul-searching to decide if it was right for them to try to save lives.  Or to make peace.  This is what priests do.  They don't need permission from Rome either.  Well, officially they do, but on a day-to-day level, priests do this every day. 

Let's consider what Francis actually said:  “Il Signore ha redento con il sangue di Cristo: tutti, non soltanto i cattolici. Tutti! ‘Padre, gli atei?’. Anche loro. Tutti!"

There you have it!  (FYI:  Tutti = everybody.  atei = atheists.)

So, yeah, it's like it says in the OP:  "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics.  Everyone!  ...even the atheists.  Everyone!"  This is not a controversial statement.  It's a bit informal, but it is a reasonable restatement of church dogma.  Note, importantly, that redento = redemption.  I suspect that there's some general ignorance in the public about the word redemption.  It does not mean the same thing as salvation.  He does not articulate the salvation of atheists.  Be clear on that.  Also, he goes on to say that "atei che fare il bene haberre redento."  Or something like this.  That is, atheists who do good will be "redeemed."  (It seems to me that the central message here is:  Tutti abbiamo il dovere di fare il bene.  So, all spin aside, he definitely did not say:  Tutti gli atei andranno in paradiso.)

Still, somewhere, right now, there's a grieving mother, an staunchly observant Catholic, who has lost an infant child who hasn't yet been baptized.  Maybe it was stillborn.  Maybe it died soon after its birth.  Does the priest tell her that the baby's soul will be lost forever in blackness and permanent death?  Of course not.  He tells her that the baby is now with its grandparents and with Jesus, and that it is not suffering.  The statement by Francis isn't a new idea.  It's what priests do every day. 

It's a good time to lament the fact that neither Supersoulty nor jmfcst post here any longer.  This thread could have evolved into a titanic debate between those two.  No matter.  Fare il bene. 

Also, Peace be with you. 

The Catholic church has a large body of good, decent priests. Its what keeps the church alive despite all the corruption, violations, bigotry and hypocrisy.
The refreshing thing about Francis is that this guy actually acts like a priest, not a scholar or a bureaucrat. This emphasis could potentially make him a reformer.
So its not that what he says is radical, its what he chooses to say and the way he says it that give some of us hope.

[anvi]

Point well-taken about the distinction between redemption and salvation, angus.  But the emphasis in Francis' statement and sermon in the OP also stressed the importance of doing good, and that, in the Catholic view he is articulating, all, in virtue of Jesus' redemption, are capable of and still obligated to do good, whether they have faith or not.  It's the stress on the importance of good works I like. 

[angus]

The refreshing thing about Francis is that this guy actually acts like a priest, not a scholar or a bureaucrat. This emphasis could potentially make him a reformer.

It's the stress on the importance of good works I like. 

Va bene, sono d'accordo.  (It's all good.)

As for the difference between salvation and redemption, Father Guido Sarducci from Saturday Night Live used to have a very practical view when he explained salvation:  "Life is a job. You get, like, $14.50 a day, but after you die you have to pay for your sins. Stealing a hub cap is around $100. Masturbation is 35 cents.  It doesn't seem like much, but it adds up. If there's money left when you subtract what you owe from what you've earned, you can go to heaven. If not, you have to go back to work. Sort of like reincarnation--many nuns are Mafia guys working it off."

It's probably funnier when Father Guido says it.

Ciao. 

[anvi]

Masturbating is only 35 cents?  Damn the priests at my Catholic high school were definitely from a different order than Fr. Guido. 

[Lurker]

Point well-taken about the distinction between redemption and salvation, angus. 

 Agreed, a very useful explanation by angus. Judging by the reaction in this thread I got the impression that many did not entirely understand the distinction between the two.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Is it just me, or are Popes getting more liberal?

Well, he's certainly more liberal than the Pope Emeritus.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Anyway, he was thoroughly vetted, not only by the people who officially do the vetting but by the all-important US Election Atlas Forum, but I'd be lying if I said that the fact that he was a Hitler Youth as well as the Pope isn't interesting.  You'd be lying if you said that as well.  Not many people are going to be able to make such a claim.  That, too, adds to the fascination.  

I suppose it's only "interesting" for non-Germans who go "OMG, Nazis!". And not even for all of them. It's actually quite boring IMO.

1) Ratzinger is German.
2) He was born in 1927.
3) In Nazi Germany, you became a member of the Hitler Youth with age 14.
4) Nazi Germany existed till 1945.
5) Ratzinger turned 14 in 1941.

He merely exhibits a biographic detail any German from the same age cohort would. It's almost like saying that it's "fascinating" that Richard Nixon served in the U.S. military during World War II.

What's "interesting" is that someone was able to turn this non sequitur into an actual story. It tells more about how the news industry works than anything else.

[angus]

It's almost like saying that it's "fascinating" that Richard Nixon served in the U.S. military during World War II.

Don't kid yourself, man.  Nothing is as interesting as a Nazi pope.  Well, except maybe a Jewish pope.  I don't really see that happening, though.

[politicus]

It's almost like saying that it's "fascinating" that Richard Nixon served in the U.S. military during World War II.

Don't kid yourself, man.  Nothing is as interesting as a Nazi pope.  Well, except maybe a Jewish pope.  I don't really see that happening, though.

Being in Hitler Jugend in 1941 was not a sign of Nazi symphaty, neither from him nor his parents.

Since March 25 1939 all boys in the age group were conscripted into the organization and parents were warned that their children would be taken from them and placed in orphanages unless they enrolled them in Hitler Jugend.

[angus]

Being in Hitler Jugend in 1941 was not a sign of Nazi symphaty, neither from him nor his parents.

We all understand that.  In fact, I specifically mentioned his parents' disdain for the Nazis in this thread.  Anyone who has read this far must have encountered it.

Moreover, people don't necessarily have anything against all Nazis.  There was a very famous member of the NSDAP named Oskar Schindler that has a tree planted in his name on the Avenue of the Righteous in Jerusalem.  Pretty impressive for someone who was a Nazi, a philanderer, and an exploiter of child labor.

As for myself, one of my most treasured possessions is a small piece of furniture wooden furniture made in France before the Terror and given to my mother long ago by a former Hitlerjugend.  That it once belonged to a Hitler Youth is among the least interesting of its attributes. 

You people read far too much in between the lines.  I don't know who is sillier, those who think that Pope Francis suddenly said, "Oh, and by the way now all dogs go to heaven" or those who feel the need to defend Ratzinger's honor. 

I still think Ratzinger's a very interesting fellow, but I'm not going to argue any more about it.  Also, I don't disagree with the point you and anvi made about Francis.  Never did.  Never claimed to.

[DC Al Fine]

Being in Hitler Jugend in 1941 was not a sign of Nazi symphaty, neither from him nor his parents.

We all understand that.  In fact, I specifically mentioned his parents' disdain for the Nazis in this thread.  Anyone who has read this far must have encountered it.

Moreover, people don't necessarily have anything against all Nazis.  There was a very famous member of the NSDAP named Oskar Schindler that has a tree planted in his name on the Avenue of the Righteous in Jerusalem.  Pretty impressive for someone who was a Nazi, a philanderer, and an exploiter of child labor.

Regardless of your intentions, you keep using inflammatory terms to describe Benedict XVI. People are going to react, especially if you make such statements in such a casual manner. "Nazi Pope" gets the blood boiling.

[politicus]

Large part of my family is Catholic and I worked at a Jesuit school, so I know my way around the various factions in the Church - especially the reformist ones (which are of course dominant in Denmark).

Most of my family was catholic too.  Got an uncle who's a priest.  He even smokes French cigarettes.  I also taught in a private school, albeit a Jewish one and not a Catholic one, but it was heavily attended religious scholars of all stripes.  Not sure that gives me (or you) any inside info on the workings of the Vatican.  Certainly it's nothing to brag about.  But what do I know, I haven't been to mass in 20 years, and only then on the occasion of my mother's requiem mass.

Certainly not bragging and obviously not claiming any inside knowledge about the Vatican, but you used a very condescending tone implying that I had no knowledge of the subject apart from what I got from this forum:

"Also, you do understand that "reformer" means something totally different among the College of Cardinals than it means at the US Election Atlas Forum, right?"  

So lose the arrogance and stop being so callous (as in saying "some Nazis are popular, just look at Schindler") or calling Benedict a "Hitler Youth Pope".

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Thanks for the bone, Frankie.  Are we going to stop telling AIDS-ravaged Sub-Sahara that condoms are the devil, or have they finally gotten beyond that?  Francis has not said much of anything definitive on that pressing matter, but it's good to know that this new Pope is open to changing the Catholic Church into something beyond their dogmatic past.  

[7,052,770]

Just for the record, the Church has had female altar boys for decades at least.  Not sure what you were getting at there.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Being in Hitler Jugend in 1941 was not a sign of Nazi symphaty, neither from him nor his parents.

We all understand that.  In fact, I specifically mentioned his parents' disdain for the Nazis in this thread.  Anyone who has read this far must have encountered it.

Moreover, people don't necessarily have anything against all Nazis.  There was a very famous member of the NSDAP named Oskar Schindler that has a tree planted in his name on the Avenue of the Righteous in Jerusalem.  Pretty impressive for someone who was a Nazi, a philanderer, and an exploiter of child labor.

As for myself, one of my most treasured possessions is a small piece of furniture wooden furniture made in France before the Terror and given to my mother long ago by a former Hitlerjugend.  That it once belonged to a Hitler Youth is among the least interesting of its attributes.  

You people read far too much in between the lines.  I don't know who is sillier, those who think that Pope Francis suddenly said, "Oh, and by the way now all dogs go to heaven" or those who feel the need to defend Ratzinger's honor.  

I still think Ratzinger's a very interesting fellow, but I'm not going to argue any more about it.  Also, I don't disagree with the point you and anvi made about Francis.  Never did.  Never claimed to.

You just haven't really succeeded in making a point why being a member of the Hitler Youth makes someone "interesting" in the first place.  Helmut Kohl was in the Hitler Youth. Jürgen Habermas was in the Hitler Youth. Joseph Ratzinger was in the Hitler Youth. Everybody was in the Hitler Youth.

It would be a big deal if Ratzinger had somehow evaded membership in the Hitler Youth. Now that would be somewhat "interesting".

[angus]

Large part of my family is Catholic and I worked at a Jesuit school, so I know my way around the various factions in the Church - especially the reformist ones (which are of course dominant in Denmark).

Most of my family was catholic too.  Got an uncle who's a priest.  He even smokes French cigarettes.  I also taught in a private school, albeit a Jewish one and not a Catholic one, but it was heavily attended religious scholars of all stripes.  Not sure that gives me (or you) any inside info on the workings of the Vatican.  Certainly it's nothing to brag about.  But what do I know, I haven't been to mass in 20 years, and only then on the occasion of my mother's requiem mass.

Certainly not bragging and obviously not claiming any inside knowledge about the Vatican, but you used a very condescending tone implying that I had no knowledge of the subject apart from what I got from this forum:

"Also, you do understand that "reformer" means something totally different among the College of Cardinals than it means at the US Election Atlas Forum, right?"  

So lose the arrogance and stop being such a prick (as in saying "some Nazis are popular, just look at Schindler") or calling Benedict a "Hitler Youth Pope".

The posts herein inspired a condescending tone, and as other posters have pointed out the statement by Francis has been misconstrued.  As for your inferences, do not misinterpret them as implications on my part.  I accept that you have thought about this.

As for Mr. Ratzinger, I only referred to him as the Hitler youth guy.  I never once made a judgement about that.  Others have attributed statements to me that I simply have not made.

You are also misquoting me.  I never said that some Nazis are popular.  Of course if I'd wanted to make such a statement, I'd have far better examples than Oskar Schindler.  Many Nazis were in fact very popular.  Some remain so.

You want me to argue against a strawman that you have created, and I will not do it.  What I will do is stand by my post:  I simply find Ratzinger a more interesting man than Francis.  You're free to find Francis more interesting if you want to, but I don't.  I will refer to him as Ratzinger because I think his influence subsumes his papacy.  Or at least it transcends it.  He was a well-respected academic whose writings helped inform church policy long before he became Benedict.  His academic career was very well established even by the time John Paul II became pope, and I gave some examples of this earlier.  Moreover, he was also called reformer just like John Paul II was and just like Francis is.  It seems de rigeur now for the press to label all newly-elected popes "something of a reformer."  In Ratzinger's case, he was reforming long before he was elected pope.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's almost like saying that it's "fascinating" that Richard Nixon served in the U.S. military during World War II.

Don't kid yourself, man.  Nothing is as interesting as a Nazi pope.  Well, except maybe a Jewish pope.  I don't really see that happening, though.

I could have sworn Peter was Jewish.

More seriously, are there any statistics on the numbers of ethnic Jews today who practice other religions?

[angus]

It's almost like saying that it's "fascinating" that Richard Nixon served in the U.S. military during World War II.

Don't kid yourself, man.  Nothing is as interesting as a Nazi pope.  Well, except maybe a Jewish pope.  I don't really see that happening, though.

I could have sworn Peter was Jewish.

More seriously, are there any statistics on the numbers of ethnic Jews today who practice other religions?

Yeah, that's the urban legend (not the part about there being a peter, and not about him not being a goy, and not about him being acquainted with Jesus, and not about Jesus saying something about rocks, but the part about him being the "first pope.")  At what point does the Bishop of Rome become more important than other bishops?  I don't think that happens suddenly when Peter shows up in Rome.  I think it's about 500 years after Jesus' death, at least.  Matter of fact, there's some serious debate about whether Peter ever really went to Rome--chastise, chastise, chastise!  I can feel the heat of the fried spam hitting me already.  Probably I shouldn't have even brought it up--but anyway, I don't think the word pope (or actually the Greek version of that word) was used until circa AD400.  Certainly, since popes have really been politicians, and since the Church evolved into a political organization, they have all been goyyim. 

But only one was ever in the Hitlerjugend! 

As for the serious question, I don't know.  How many ethnic Jews practice Judaism, for that matter?

[memphis]

Just for the record, the Church has had female altar boys for decades at least.  Not sure what you were getting at there.

Lolwut? Anyhow, I guess it's a nice statement and all but I don't see what difference it makes. It's not like all the non-Catholics are breathing a sigh of relief now that the Pope has made his feelings known. I think when you're dead, you're dead and that's the end regardless of what you believed before you died. I don't expect the theists to care much.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Getting back to the original topic...

Francis is already taking heat for this.  Basically, the conservative Christians' strategy is to walk back everything he said by "clarifying" it instead of directly criticizing him for it... because apparently, the Pope is too incompetent to speak for himself.

And the Catholic Church, not God, gets to decide who's allowed in Heaven.

[angus]

the Catholic Church, not God, gets to decide who's allowed in Heaven.

This is a fact, but it has very little to do with the pope's statement as you originally posted.

Everything in the original article was valid, and everything that the pope said is pretty traditional rhetoric.  The new article you post says clearly that  "people misunderstood the pope."  This is also the point that I and others have made in this thread.  Have you read Rosica's statement in its entirety?  It's probably good that he made it, and not because of the pope's incompetence, but because of the ignorance of those who have reported on the pope's original statement.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

the Catholic Church, not God, gets to decide who's allowed in Heaven.

This is a fact

I hope this part of your post was meant as a joke.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fail to see why the Pope would need to send someone else to clarify something he said.

[angus]

I fail to see why the Pope would need to send someone else to clarify something he said.

Then you must have lived under a rock all your life.  Maybe you have never heard of Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow.  You must never have watched television news in the United States. Sensationalism sells.  (As does sex, but even the best network news execs have a tough time working that angle in here.)  Comments are taken out of context with regularity.  Well-intentioned, well-educated folks are misquoted and misrepresented constantly.  Even in this very thread I have been deeply and profoundly misrepresented and misquoted.  Several times, in fact.  I sympathesize with this pope precisely because of that (although I still find Ratzinger more "interesting")

this part of your post was meant as a joke.

to the same degree that yours was, I assume.  That's rather like asking whether Father Guido is a joke, isn't it?  Of course we can make it glib, but it underlies a truth.  Your statement had the ring of sarcasm, and one take it at face value and make a similarly sarcastic one, but at the same time, one can easily recognize both our statements as literary fact.  Of course Heaven (and Hell!) are literary constructs.  They come from Sheol and Gehenna, ancient Hebrew ideas.  They were co-opted by Christians, of course--St. Thomas Aquinas, Dante's Paraiso, the echatology of St. Augustine of Hippo, Bonaventure, Luis Molina, etc., etc.  You know the drill.  You're an educated guy.  Yes, the political organization known as The Catholic Church can certainly decide its own ideology.  And why not?  

Anyway, this gets far, far off topic.  Great literature, like the Bible and the works of the scholars and philosophers of catholicism, deserves its own thread.  We're here to talk about the validity of Francis' recent statement.  A scholar walks out and reminds people of what he really said and you snidely interpret that as incompetence on Francis' part?  Who's the joker here?  Not I.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I fail to see why the Pope would need to send someone else to clarify something he said.

Then you must have lived under a rock all your life.  Maybe you have never heard of Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow.  You must never have watched television news in the United States. Sensationalism sells.  (As does sex, but even the best network news execs have a tough time working that angle in here.)  Comments are taken out of context with regularity.  Well-intentioned, well-educated folks are misquoted and misrepresented constantly.  Even in this very thread I have been deeply and profoundly misrepresented and misquoted.  Several times, in fact.  I sympathesize with this pope precisely because of that (although I still find Ratzinger more "interesting")

Maybe it's just me, but I'm far more likely to believe how a comment was meant to be construed when the originator of said comment clarifies it, not one of the people working under them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

to the same degree that yours was, I assume.  That's rather like asking whether Father Guido is a joke, isn't it?  Of course we can make it glib, but it underlies a truth.  Your statement had the ring of sarcasm, and one take it at face value and make a similarly sarcastic one, but at the same time, one recognize both our statements as literary fact.  Of course Heaven (and Hell) are literary constructs.  They come from Sheol and Gehenna, ancient Hebrew ideas.  They were co-opted, St. Thomas Aquinas, Dante's Paraiso, the paradoxes of St. Augustine of Hippo, etc., etc.  You know the drill.  You're an educated guy.  Yes, the political organization known as The Catholic Church can certainly decide its own ideology.  And why not?  Anyway, this gets far, far off topic.  Great literature, like the Bible and the works of the scholars and philosophers of catholicism, deserves its own thread.  We're here to talk about the validity of Francis' recent statement.  A scholar walks out and reminds people of what he really said and you snidely interpret that as incompetence on Francis' part?  Who's the joker here?  Not I.
[/quote]

Yes, I was being sarcastic, but I was a little concerned that you were serious.  If a religion wants its brand to be "join us, or you're going to hell," then I guess that's attractive for some.  It's certainly effective.  But I suppose therein lies the impasse.  I don't believe in excluding people who don't think like I do, and I'm very open about my theology contradicting multitudes of what conservative Christians believe "traditional."  But back to the original point, I don't see why the Pope can't settle the dispute with his own words.  Why do we need a scholar to clear things up when the person whose words caused the alleged misinterpretations is alive and well?