Pope Francis assures atheists: You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven [John 8]

Times of India ^ | 12/26/2015 | Michael Day

[vladimir998]

ebb tide, again you are posting to me instead of talking ONLY to the person you are actually talking to. You seem to have a fixation.

[BlatherNaut]

Thanks for posting the link to that casuistical letter to Scalfari. Had no idea before reading it that “truth is a relationship!”.

[Mrs. Don-o]

First, presenting as a quote what somebody did NOT say, is always a falsehood, and if one knew that, it is a lie. It is likewise a defamation if the false quote reflected badly on the person being quoted.

So my point remains.

Second, Pope Francis can be accused of ambiguity in his published letter, but not an outright denial of dogma.(We might express frustration that he often fails to put his statements into the kind of clear declarative sentences needed for either doctrine or heresy; but grammatical incoherence is a separate issue.) Simply copying what you posted, here's what he said:

"(1)The mercy of God has no limits if one turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart; (2) the question for one who doesn't believe in God lies in obeying one's conscience. (3) Sin, also for those who don't have faith, exists when one goes against one's conscience."

(1) Is true.

(2) Is a question. Indicated by the words, "The question ... lies in ..."

(3) Is true.

Does Pope Francis actually delineate the answer to this question at #2? He does not --- owing to the ambiguity of his statement. He says "the question.... lies in obeying one's conscience," but it does not state that the "answer" lies in obeying one's conscience.

At this point, I can imagine irate people waving their hands in the air and saying, "But he must have meant 'the answer is', who would be so obtuse not to realize that?"

Still, 'question' and 'answer' are not synonyms. This remark of Pope Francis' does not --- as far as I can see --- give us any further definition; neither does he try to illustrate what he means and what he does not mean, using examples or casuistry.

Saying that the 'answer' lies in obeying one's conscience, would be true --- even in the case of a false conscience --- if the defects in the conscience were not the fault of the person, i.e. not the product of malice, pride, sloth, lack of moral diligence, etc. Say your parents taught you that Christianity is both bogus and wicked. Say you are not old enough or mature/experienced enough to seriously suspect that your parents might have been wrong.

You are still objecively in the wrong. This error of yours is objectively gravely harmful to you and to others (as you perhaps influence them in an anti-Christian direction). But you have not committed a (subjectively) damnable sin by following your (erroneous) conscience, because you lacked the requisite knowledge.

This falls under the category of "invincible ignorance." All Catholic moral teaching recognizes that only voluntary and free acts are imputable.

But that's beside the point. The point is that Pope Francis doesn't get into fine definition or legitimate casuistry, he just makes an unsatisfactorily ambiguous statement. It fails as clear teaching, but it's not heresy, which is something both unambiguous and deliberate.

To say that this is heresy is incorrect. To say "The Pope has no business being so ambiguous; he sows sows dangerous confusion when he says this kind of thing" --- well, as far as I can see, that would be true.

[ebb tide]

Saying that the 'answer' lies in obeying one's conscience, would be true --- even in the case of a false conscience --- if the defects in the conscience were not the fault of the person, ..

But Bergoglio refused to tell a Lutheran woman, who was married to a Catholic, that she was forbidden to receive Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.

Instead, he told her to follow her "conscience", knowing full well the consequences of a false conscience: sacrilege.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I believe Pope Francis blew a "teachable moment" here, when he ought to have asked the woman to discern whether God is calling her to full Communion with the Catholic Church.

If she has a "sincere" Catholic belief in the Eucharist, she ought to ask to be received into the Catholic Church. My parish received a retired Lutheran pastor via RCIA last Easter. She is delighted to be Catholic.<> If the woman has NOT a Catholic belief n the Eucharist, she ought not to receive. It would be a violation of both the Lutheran and the Catholic understanding of the Blessed Sacrament.

[ebb tide]

He didn’t just “blow a teachable moment”, he taught wrong!

[Mrs. Don-o]

He certainly blew his obligation to instruct her conscience. “Instructing the ignorant” is a Spiritual Work of Mercy.

[ebb tide]

I appear to be living in your mind, rent free.

Get used to it.

[ebb tide]

He certainly blew his obligation to instruct her conscience. "Instructing the ignorant" is a Spiritual Work of Mercy.

Ignorants instructing other ignorants is rarely successful.

[ebb tide]

I was responding to a post that you had addressed to me.

What’s your problem?

[vladimir998]

“I appear to be living in your mind, rent free.”

If you’re posting to me even when I have not posted to you, then I’m living rent free in your head.

Get used to it.

[BlatherNaut]

"(1)The mercy of God has no limits if one turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart; (2) the question for one who doesn't believe in God lies in obeying one's conscience. (3) Sin, also for those who don't have faith, exists when one goes against one's conscience."

(1) Is true

(2) and (3) Together imply a relativism in conflict with objective truth, i.e. that obeying "one's conscience" (no matter how ill-formed) is sufficient to avoid "sin".

But that's beside the point. The point is that Pope Francis doesn't get into fine definition or legitimate casuistry

The statement you have parsed (while ignoring its larger context, i.e. that it is a public statement directed to a militant public atheist and his fellow travelers) is a clear example of casuistry by omission. It implies to the reader that personal conscience (even a conscience that leads one to reject God) is "sufficient to avoid sin". But is not the decision to reject God a sin against Charity?

"And we have known, and have believed the charity, which God hath to us. God is charity: and he that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him." 1 John 4:16

"Their inculpable ignorance will not save them; but if they fear God and live up to their conscience, God, in His infinite mercy, will furnish them with the necessary means of salvation, even so as to send, if needed, an angel to instruct them in the Catholic Faith, rather than let them perish through inculpable ignorance." (St. Thomas Aquinas)

One cannot "fear God" while simultaneously rejecting Him.

It fails as clear teaching, but it's not heresy, which is something both unambiguous and deliberate.

Again, the statement you have parsed misleads by omission. When considered alongside other public statements by our Pope (including some which contain strange Scriptural additions and interpretations that apparently contradict the teachings of previous Popes and Tradition) a troubling pattern has emerged, and that being the case, it seems a tad fruitless at this point to be parsing and arguing over individual bits and pieces of his questionable statements.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I agree with you that his statement fails badly by omission.

Let me explain my presupposition in handling Pope Francis' statements.

First, in theology, I advert to Benedict XVI's method, the Hermeneutic of Continuity, which proposes that whenever statements are ambiguous, they should be interpreted in the light of settled Catholic doctrine and the mind of the Church.

This gives us plenty to work on, since, regrettably, Pope Francis' statements are often ambiguous.

Second, in terms of administration and policy, I generally go by Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." (Tagline). The more complete form of this, I'm told, is:

• Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice.
• Never assume stupidity when ignorance will suffice.
• Never assume ignorance when forgivable error will suffice.
• Never assume error when information you hadn't adequately accounted for will suffice

In general, I agree with livius' opinion that Pope Francis is not quite adequate as far as intellectual power is concerned. He doesn't have the systematic reasoning faculties of Benedict XVI, and tends to speak and make decisions impulsively --- off the cuff, all the time --- without grasping larger implications. I may be all wrong about this --- God forgive me --- but it's what I think I'm observing.

Third, in politics, I find him injecting his personal policy preferences into documents which are supposed to be Magisterial (e.g. Laudato Si). This is an abuse of the papal office, because very few people other than hyper Mrs. Don-o types are going to comb through his statements and color-code them as to what is de-fide authentic doctrine ans what is fervent dingbat opinion. His political slant being (broadly) Peronist, is not morally depraved so much as empirically stupid. He should not be talking about stuff that's outside of his competence. Stop. Please. Full stop.

As far as the doctrines of the Faith go, I think he's orthodox, if interpreted prudently according to that first principle, Continuity.

Finally, I always strive (fighting my own habitual sinful tendencies) to avoid Three Mortal Sins of the Internet, which are Rash Judgment, Detraction and Calumny. We owe this to everybody, but especially to the Holy Father, toward whom our attitude should always be filial.

Pope Francis has made some serious mistakes already, which We need to pray, fast, and make sacrifices for him. Maybe we should talk more about that.

And I take these words to heart:

"In a world which all too often is merciless to the sinner and lenient to the sin, we need to cultivate a strong sense of justice, to discern and to do God's will." - Pope Francis

[BlatherNaut]

First, in theology, I advert to Benedict XVI's method, the Hermeneutic of Continuity, which proposes that whenever statements are ambiguous, they should be interpreted in the light of settled Catholic doctrine and the mind of the Church.

The "Hermeneutic of Continuity" was devised by Benedict XVI as a method of identifying "the correct key" to the VII Council's "interpretation and application" -- not as an Input/Output machine through which transparently unorthodox statements and actions by churchmen may be miraculously rendered the opposite.

In general, I agree with livius' opinion that Pope Francis is not quite adequate as far as intellectual power is concerned.

Is he a man lacking in intelligence, or is he a Modernist who is assiduously applying his intellectual powers toward subversive goals? Isn't there sufficient direct and circumstantial evidence at this point to seriously consider the possibility of the latter being the case?

"...4. But since the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called) employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in reality firm and steadfast, it will be of advantage, Venerable Brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one group, and to point out the connexion between them, and thus to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors, and to prescribe remedies for averting the evil..." (Pascendi Dominici Gregis -- Pope Pius X On The Doctrines Of the Modernists)

As far as the doctrines of the Faith go, I think he's orthodox, if interpreted prudently according to that first principle, Continuity.

Only if one considers such things as that ghastly light show on the facade of St. Peter's on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception or his personal interpretations of Scripture that fly in the face of traditional Catholic interpretations, or his benign acceptance of a mockery of a crucifix hammer and sickle "orthodox". And furthermore, his answer to the atheist that was dissected in earlier posts is markedly discontinuous even with the VII document "Gaudium Et Spes" in regard to atheism.:

"...21. In her loyal devotion to God and men, the Church has already repudiated and cannot cease repudiating, sorrowfully but as firmly as possible, those poisonous doctrines and actions which contradict reason and the common experience of humanity, and dethrone man from his native excellence..."

We owe this to everybody, but especially to the Holy Father, toward whom our attitude should always be filial.

"Filial" respect does not demand the imposition of an artificial paradigm (i.e. a misapplication of a "hermeneutic of continuity" dependent upon an arbitrary characterization of "ambiguity" where ambiguity does not exist) in order to whitewash destructive papal statements and actions that are public and scandalous. Such attempts at legerdemain merely compound the damage and confirm false perceptions among many non-Catholics. To defend the indefensible is poor Catholic witness and exceeds the limits of "filial" loyalty.

Pope Francis has made some serious mistakes already, which We need to pray, fast, and make sacrifices for him.

Indeed.