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

[TJ in Oregon]

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

The reason why this was clarified was that people have been misinterpreting it to mean salvation without Christ, which is decidedly not what he said. Why did he send someone else to clarify it? I suppose he's a busy man. Leaders of large organizations often send spokesmen to say things for them. It's also particularly difficult for the Pope because he has to worry about putting everything in a gazillion different languages.

As a general rule, every time the pope says something that sounds like it might be "contraversial" I like to wait a couple days before reacting. Half the time it's mistranslated or taken out of context anyway.

[angus]

Scott, before I get in over my head--I'm not a religious scholar and I don't claim to be one.  Like I said earlier I really wished supersoulty still posts here--I felt it was important to clarify what Francis really said.  Back when I first started posting here Gustav used to call me "Mr. I-can-read-Italian-and-I-like-showing-off" but that's not exactly true.  My Italian is very rusty.   I'm actually Mr. I-wish-I-could-read-Italian-Much-Better.  No matter, I read it well enough to know that Francis didn't say anyting about atheists going to heaven, and there are enough bona fide translations out there anyway that you can read it in English.  I think Huffington understands that as well.  (By the way, she reads Greek!  How cool is that?)  You know as well as I do that people like President George and King George and Pope George have spokesmen.  That's what guys named George have, and by "guys named George" you do know that I don't mean "guys named George" I assume.  (I assume that you also know that his real name is Jorge, which is George in Spanish.)  Anyway, the point is that he said, basically, that everyone is redeemed.  Take it for what it's worth, not a cent more.  The Rosica clarification is to be expected.  Despite Politicus' sentient comments about the new Argentine pope acting like a real priest, George Bergoglio not having a press secretary would be like George Bush not having a press secretary.  Do you get this weird every time Jay Carney walks out to explain to reporters what President Obama meant?  Of course you don't.

As for all that recruiting business, I'll let religious scholars speak to that.  I really don't know how a church goes about recruiting new members.  My point wasn't to pass judgement on whether it's a good or a bad technique, but don't overlook the fact that the popes were kingmakers and kingbreakers for hundreds of years, so the political power built on some fairly simple assumptions (and a shitload of effective fundraising) can't be dismissed outright. 

[7,052,770]

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

The reason why this was clarified was that people have been misinterpreting it to mean salvation without Christ, which is decidedly not what he said. Why did he send someone else to clarify it? I suppose he's a busy man. Leaders of large organizations often send spokesmen to say things for them. It's also particularly difficult for the Pope because he has to worry about putting everything in a gazillion different languages.

As a general rule, every time the pope says something that sounds like it might be "contraversial" I like to wait a couple days before reacting. Half the time it's mistranslated or taken out of context anyway.

If Muslims and Jews can go to Heaven,  clearly atheists can too.  The pope agrees or he wouldn't have said he would meet the good-doing atheists again in Heaven.

[Blue3]

The Catholic Catechism does say that non-Catholicans theoretically CAN go to heaven... they just don't make any guarantees, saying the Catholic way is what they believe to be the only guaranteed way (obviously).

[DemPGH]

One of the interesting and to me subtle differences between my Protestant and Catholic acquaintances is that the Protestants are always much surer of their salvation. "I accept Jesus as my savior - I know I'm going to heaven." That was also very Protestant in my experiences in Methodist and non-demoninational churches as a kid. That was a core belief. But Catholic folks who I have met are always far less certain, so again, this thing could be the eons old "works" or "belief" issue. As a Jesuit, I am naturally presuming that Francis would elevate works above mere belief.

It's all very strange to me. How can anyone know, assuming Christianity is the "right" religion?- and that's very far from assumed.

[angus]

One of the interesting and to me subtle differences between my Protestant and Catholic acquaintances is that the Protestants are always much surer of their salvation. "I accept Jesus as my savior - I know I'm going to heaven." That was also very Protestant in my experiences in Methodist and non-demoninational churches as a kid. That was a core belief. But Catholic folks who I have met are always far less certain, so again, this thing could be the eons old "works" or "belief" issue. As a Jesuit, I am naturally presuming that Francis would elevate works above mere belief.

It's all very strange to me. How can anyone know, assuming Christianity is the "right" religion?- and that's very far from assumed.

...as religions go, Christianity seems pretty low maintenance.  You simply have to accept a creed.  Islam is like that too.  In those religions no one is drawing blood or demanding that your first born male child be thrown into a volcano. 

Anyway, I think you hit upon the whole point of Protestantism.  If Jesus Christ, Inc., had never evolved into a political organization, then Protestantism would not have evolved.  Also, you're speaking of a certain brand of Protestantism when you talk that born again language.  There are other brands.  Calvinism, for example, speaks of the Elect.  (Baptists are the uniquely American version of Calvinists, in my understanding.)  In calvinism, you say "I know I'm saved" because you think that if you say it enough, it will be true.  That's not to be confused with the Evangelical sort of Protestantism, starting with Luther.  In that tradition, you know you're "saved" simply because you know you're saved.  There are several brands of that religion here as well.  I think Methodism is an offshoot.  (Wesley was into Free Will as opposed to predestination.)

I don't think you can lump all protestants together, even though it's both convenient and fashionable.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I would agree that Catholics are not the only ones who are redeemed (and I certainly believe they are redeemed), but I must disagree with Pope Francis on this one.  The Bible is pretty clear that salvation is by faith and not by works, so even someone who does good but is an atheist will still be lost because they refuse to recognize Jesus as their Savior and the Son of God.  As King Solomon said, there is a way that seems right to a man, but it ends in death.

[barfbag]

This falls in line with Pelagius but I have to agree. God is above religion and a good work is a good work based on intent rather than the necessity of being of God. Or are all good works of God in one way or another?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

God's mercy has no limits, says pope in 2,500-word letter to Italian newspaper answering questions from non-believer

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

God's mercy has no limits, says pope in 2,500-word letter to Italian newspaper answering questions from non-believer

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately many liberals, both religious and irreligious, will focus on the "God's mercy has no limits" part of that statement and ignore the "if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart".  I'm a Universalst in the sense that all have access to God's mercy, but not in the sense that all will ultimately take advantage of it.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

God's mercy has no limits, says pope in 2,500-word letter to Italian newspaper answering questions from non-believer

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunately many liberals, both religious and irreligious, will focus on the "God's mercy has no limits" part of that statement and ignore the "if He is approached with a sincere and repentant heart".  I'm a Universalst in the sense that all have access to God's mercy, but not in the sense that all will ultimately take advantage of it.

I think, in this context, the Pope is referring to a non-believer's conscience as their 'God.'  God is less concerned about what you do or what you believe than where your heart is when you make decisions.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not really disagreeing with you, but my point was that some tend to view God's mercy as not requiring any effort on one's part to obtain.

(P.S.  When I use the term God, I'm being more generic than any one particular perception of God, be it Elohim, YHWH, Jesus, or even Finagle.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wow. Now, you can't say this doesn't mark a significant doctrinal shift. Very heartening news.

Not really disagreeing with you, but my point was that some tend to view God's mercy as not requiring any effort on one's part to obtain.

This strikes me as a particularly absurd belief to hold. I can't imagine anyone serious about their faith could believe that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not really disagreeing with you, but my point was that some tend to view God's mercy as not requiring any effort on one's part to obtain.

This strikes me as a particularly absurd belief to hold. I can't imagine anyone serious about their faith could believe that.

If you believe in the concepts of good and evil, I'd agree with you, but there are those who deny the relevance of that dichotomy.  If there be no such thing as evil, how could a just and loving God deny anyone mercy and salvation?

[ilikeverin]

Blah dee blah, more Pope being nice shenanigans.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Dayum, son.

[The Mikado]

Again, Catholicism has never been a sola fides faith.  Francis' answer of "Do good things anyway, there's benefits for people of all faiths" is a useful one as far as it goes, but the element of whether or not non-Catholics will be saved is based on the point of doctrine that God is, well, God and will be letting whomever He wants into Heaven and it's not the Pope's job to determine whether someone's condemned or saved.  The Church is still the easiest, best way to get into Heaven, but a good person who follows his moral compass as best he can who lived before Jesus or in a society without Christian presence can still save himself (in contrast to Protestant doctrine of total depravity and the inherent damned nature of non-Christian life).  Basically, there's nothing new here, just a bunch of people that don't know anything about Catholicism freaking out because it doesn't have the same "faith alone saves" rules as Protestantism.

[DC Al Fine]

Again, Catholicism has never been a sola fides faith.  Francis' answer of "Do good things anyway, there's benefits for people of all faiths" is a useful one as far as it goes, but the element of whether or not non-Catholics will be saved is based on the point of doctrine that God is, well, God and will be letting whomever He wants into Heaven and it's not the Pope's job to determine whether someone's condemned or saved.  The Church is still the easiest, best way to get into Heaven, but a good person who follows his moral compass as best he can who lived before Jesus or in a society without Christian presence can still save himself (in contrast to Protestant doctrine of total depravity and the inherent damned nature of non-Christian life).  Basically, there's nothing new here, just a bunch of people that don't know anything about Catholicism freaking out because it doesn't have the same "faith alone saves" rules as Protestantism.

FYI Total Depravity is an almost entirely Calvinist belief. Methodists, Pentecostals, Lutherans etc would get annoyed at having that view attributed to them.

As for the rest of your point, there is a huge difference between not teaching sola fide and teaching some variant of "righteous pagans can attain salvation". Where does the Catholic Church stand on that spectrum?

[TJ in Oregon]

As for the rest of your point, there is a huge difference between not teaching sola fide and teaching some variant of "righteous pagans can attain salvation". Where does the Catholic Church stand on that spectrum?

The Catholic Church teaches that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ and that rejecting Jesus constitutes grave matter (which means you could go to hell for it). However, in order for something to be a mortal sin (in this case by rejecting Jesus or failing to follow Jesus it would potentially be a sin of omission), it must constitute grave matter and be done with full knowledge and complete consent. In this case, many pagans or nonbelievers would not have full knowledge of Christ to see that they are sinning in rejecting him. The definition is clearly abstract and given with the understanding that it's not for us to sit down and try and figure out which nonbelievers have sufficient knowledge to be sinning, and even if we could, does not mean we should avoid giving them more complete knowledge. Basically it comes down to letting God sort it all out since He alone knows the contents of peoples' hearts.