‘Catholic Answers’: God Can Choose to Save Atheists!

Never mind that “without faith, it is impossible to please God” (Heb 11:6)…

Catholic Answers: God Can Choose to Save Atheists!

The California-based non-profit organization Catholic Answers, which aims to explain and defend the Vatican II religion in full communion with ‘Pope’ Francis, is becoming a parody of itself.

One of the many things published on the Catholic Answers web site is a brief post with the intriguing title, “Can atheists be saved just by acting charitably?” The truly Catholic answer would have been fairly simple — something along the lines of, “Of course not; for ‘without faith it is impossible to please God’ (Heb 11:6).” Being purveyors of the Vatican II religion, however, the incorrectly-named Catholic Answers came to a different conclusion. See for yourself:

Question:

Someone told me that atheists could be saved if they acted charitably, but I said that apart from God’s saving works, man cannot save himself.

Answer:

While you are correct that man cannot save himself, God can choose to save someone who is unable in conscience to believe God exists but lives as best he can according to the knowledge he does have. Gaudium et Spes states about atheism:

Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation . . . To the extent that they [believers] neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion. (19)

This implies that the culpability for atheism is not necessarily entirely the individual’s. To the extent that belief in God has been made impossible for him by others, there may be some mitigation of his culpability for unbelief. Ultimately we must trust that even he is not beyond the reach of God’s mercy if he strives to live morally (cf. Lumen Gentium 16). The second great commandment is love of neighbor (Matt. 22:39) and Christ said of those who serve others, even if they do not explicitly do it for Christ’s sake:

Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?” And the King will answer them, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Matt. 25:37-40).

Thus far the abysmal stance of Catholic Answers.

No doubt, the idea that an atheist — the ultimate kind of unbeliever, since he denies not just God’s revelation but the very existence of God Himself — can be saved is right in line with the thinking of ‘Pope’ Francis, who a few years back said to a crowd that he had just told a little boy his deceased atheist father made it to heaven because he was a “good” man.

Such an answer the unbelieving world likes to hear. It is considered politically correct and non-offensive, and it gives the appearance of magnanimity, compassion, love, and mercy. It is not at all, however, an answer in line with the Roman Catholic Faith. In fact, it plainly contradicts divine revelation, as we will see momentarily, and it is therefore neither magnanimous, nor compassionate, nor loving, nor merciful.

A Non-Catholic Answer

The first indicator that the ‘Catholic answer’ given is not in fact a Catholic answer is that the only ‘evidence’ that is brought up in support of it consists in two references to the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) — naturally! — as well as one quotation from Sacred Scripture which does not even address the topic of unbelief.

Yet, it is not as if there were no Bible passages that speak about unbelief, faith, and salvation which Catholic Answers could have quoted from — quite the contrary. Here are just a few:

Behold, he that is unbelieving, his soul shall not be right in himself: but the just shall live in his faith. (Hab 2:4)

He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned. (Mk 16:16)

He that believeth in [the Son of God] is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Jn 3:18)

Therefore I said to you, that you shall die in your sins. For if you believe not that I am he, you shall die in your sin. (Jn 8:24)

But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him. (Heb 11:6)

For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; not of works, that no man may glory. (Eph 2:8-9)

Why is this scriptural testimony not factored into the response given by Catholic Answers?

Instead, appeal is made to Matthew 25:37-40, but it is misleading. Let’s take a closer look at what Our Lord said:

And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.

(Matthew 25:31-40)

Here we can see that the ones who are admitted to heaven for their acts of mercy are “the just” (or “the righteous”, as in the translation used by Catholic Answers), who refer to the King of kings as their “Lord”. This can hardly include atheists, who have no supernatural righteousness because they are lacking sanctifying grace, which cannot be had without faith; nor would atheists presumably address the Son of Man as “Lord”.

At the very least, the Matthew 25 passage cannot be used as evidence for the possible salvation of atheists without begging the question, that is, without assuming as true the very issue under dispute (namely, whether atheists can be among “the just” who are approved by God and admitted to heaven).

Thus, Catholic Answers’ Matthew 25 argument is a non-starter.

A Mistaken Appeal to Conscience

Next, what do we make of the claim, advanced rather nonchalantly by Catholic Answers, that some people are “unable in conscience to believe God exists”? By “in conscience” the author obviously means “in good conscience”, but such a scenario is impossible. God’s very own written revelation tells us as much:

But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: But have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world. With whose beauty, if they, being delighted, took them to be gods: let them know how much the Lord of them is more beautiful than they: for the first author of beauty made all those things. Or if they admired their power and their effects, let them understand by them, that he that made them, is mightier than they: For by the greatness of the beauty, and of the creature, the creator of them may be seen, so as to be known thereby. But yet as to these they are less to be blamed. For they perhaps err, seeking God, and desirous to find him. For being conversant among his works, they search: and they are persuaded that the things are good which are seen. But then again they are not to be pardoned. For if they were able to know so much as to make a judgment of the world: how did they not more easily find out the Lord thereof?

(Wisdom 13:1-9)

Although the sacred author here speaks of unbelieving idolaters, the same natural evidence for the one true God that refutes the idolater also refutes the atheist: “For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable” (Rom 1:2o).

In line with divine revelation, the First Vatican Council hurls an anathema at those who deny that the existence of God can be known by reason alone (listen up, ‘Abp.’ Georg Gänswein): “If anyone shall have said that the one true God, our Creator and our Lord, cannot be known with certitude by those things which have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema” (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius; Denz. 1806).

The scandalous actions of believers may perhaps reduce culpability on the part of the atheist, but they definitely do not take that culpability away. The notion of belief in God having been “made impossible for him by others” cannot be admitted — it is false. At the end of the day, the atheist is still at fault, he is still to be blamed for refusing to admit what is evident to his reason informed by his senses.

“Ultimately we must trust that even he is not beyond the reach of God’s mercy if he strives to live morally…” — but must we? Frankly, it depends on how we understand “the reach of God’s mercy” as well as the “striv[ing] to live morally”, formulations that are unclear without further elaboration.

If by that we mean simply that God could, out of His mercy, miraculously enlighten such a man or send him an angel or a missionary, then that is certainly true. But this would mean that the unbeliever is converted from his atheism and becomes a Catholic — and that’s obviously not what is meant when someone asks if an atheist can be saved. The question, rather, concerns the salvation of an atheist precisely as an atheist, that is, one who dies in his atheism.

Salvation by Trying to Be Good?

But what about the stipulation that the atheist under consideration “strives to live morally”?

First, in the Holy Gospel the moral law is summed up in two commandments, and the greater of the two is the one even the most ‘moral’ of atheists permanently sins against:

Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets.

(Matthew 22:38-40)

Does the atheist love the Lord God with his whole heart, soul, and mind? Of course not — he denies that the Lord God whom he is commanded to love even exists. Consequently, he also denies his obligation to love Him.

Secondly, considering that salvation is not by natural works but by grace that elevates both faith and works to a supernatural level, it is clear that while striving to live morally may show good will, it cannot save, since even keeping the moral law — rather than just striving to (cf. Jas 2:10) — would not save without grace:

Can. 1. If anyone shall say that man can be justified before God by his own works which are done either by his own natural powers, or through the teaching of the Law, and without divine grace through Christ Jesus: let him be anathema.

Can. 2. If anyone shall say that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this only, that man may more easily be able to live justly and merit eternal life, as if by free will without grace he were able to do both, though with difficulty and hardship: let him be anathema.

Can. 3. If anyone shall say that without the anticipatory inspiration of the Holy Spirit and without His assistance man can believe, hope, and love or be repentant, as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be conferred upon him: let him be anathema.

(Council of Trent, Session VI; Denz. 811-813.)

Catholic Answers writes that the atheist who ‘cannot’ believe but is to be saved must live “as best he can according to the knowledge he does have”. However, we have already seen that the atheist does have knowledge of God from the existence of the created world and is therefore “without excuse”. Now, even if we were to concede, for the sake of argument, that the atheist can be innocently ignorant of the existence of God, it makes little sense to say that he can be saved if he lives to the best of his ability according to what he does know — simply because nobody actually does that. That’s because we’re all sinners, being afflicted with the consequences of original sin, chiefly concupiscence (the tendency to sin). That’s why we need a Redeemer:

For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins, through the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time; that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ. Where is then thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.

(Romans 3:23-27)

Original sin is removed from the soul through the sacrament of baptism, but concupiscence is not; it must be fought against and overcome day by day — through prayer, fasting, almsgiving, mortification, and other works of penance and self-denial, made fruitful by God’s grace: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me” (Lk 9:23); “Take up my yoke upon you, and learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart: and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is sweet and my burden light” (Mt 11:29-30). All this is explained in great spiritual depth by Fr. Edward Leen in his masterful work, Why the Cross? (1938).

The reason the Catholic Church has confessionals and not just baptismal fonts is precisely that even those who have received Faith and grace in baptism do not always live in accordance with the knowledge they do have: “For there is no just man upon earth, that doth good, and sinneth not” (Eccl 7:21); “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 Jn 1:8).

In the beautiful sequence Dies Irae, which the Church uses in Masses for the dead, the sinner recalls that before God, even the just are in need of mercy:

What shall I, frail man, be pleading?
Who for me be interceding,
When the just are mercy needing?

Thus it is very misleading to suggest that an atheist can be saved as long as he ‘does the best he can’, which would truly make the dogma of No Salvation Outside the Church into a “meaningless formula”, as Pope Pius XII warned in Humani Generis, n. 27). We were in need of a Savior precisely because our best isn’t good enough — hello!

Pope Pius IX on the Salvation of the Invincibly Ignorant

Perhaps Catholic Answers was trying to tap into a similar but different axiom that does have an orthodox understanding in the Catholic religion, and that is the adage facienti quod in se est, Deus non denegat gratiam, which means, “God does not deny grace to anyone who does what he can”.

In their treatise On Grace, part of the phenomenal Sacrae Theologiae Summa dogmatic theology set from the 1950s, the Spanish Jesuit Fathers Severino González Rivas and Joseph A. de Aldama give a detailed explanation of what this maxim does and does not mean. It can easily be misunderstood in a Semi-Pelagian sense — as if by one’s own power one could merit the grace of justification, which would be a heresy (see Denz. 801) — but that is not how the Church understands it.

We will not provide an excerpt here, as it is rather complex and would require lengthy quotes with sundry definitions; but those who would like to look it up can find it in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, vol. III-B, trans. Kenneth Baker, S.J. [Saddle River, NJ: Keep the Faith, Inc., 2014], n. 108, pp. 79-80.

Instead we will look at a famous passage of Pope Pius IX that is frequently quoted in connection with the question of salvation and invincible ignorance. Although the Supreme Pontiff here does not use the axiom verbatim, he does communicate the same meaning:

Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.

(Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, n. 7; underlining added.)

At first sight, this may not seem much different from Catholic Answers’ upright atheist, but in fact it is quite different.

For one thing, Pius IX says nothing about atheism at all — he speaks of those who are invincibly ignorant merely of Catholicism (not of God’s existence). While it is certainly possible to be ignorant of the Roman Catholic religion, it is not possible to be invincibly ignorant of the existence of God, as we already saw earlier. Hence the Bible calls the atheist a fool: “The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God…” (Psalm 13:1).

Secondly, what often gets ignored or misunderstood in this discussion is Pope Pius IX’s contention that those invincibly ignorant of Catholicism can only be saved “by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace”. What does this mean?

The matter has been expounded with such eloquence and clarity by Englishman John S. Daly that we can do no better than simply to quote his skilled explanation of the matter:

First, who are those whom Pope Pius IX indicates may be saved despite “invincible ignorance” of our most holy religion? Certainly not all those who are invincibly ignorant, for he lays down a number of other stringent requirements also. The individual in question must:

(a) be invincibly ignorant of the Catholic religion;

(b) carefully observe the natural law – i.e. the duty to do good and avoid evil as recognized by the light of reason;

(c) also observe “its precepts” – i.e. all those specific obligations of the natural law which are known to all men who have not stamped out the light of conscience within themselves: the obligation to adore one’s Maker, not to steal or commit murder, to reserve carnal pleasure for its proper place within wedlock and without deliberate frustration of its natural fecundity, always to tell the truth – and many, many other obligations, the existence of which have been known to even uninstructed barbarians and which no one has ever in good conscience denied to exist;

(d) “lead a good and upright life” – i.e. not only observe the minimum standards known to all, but also strive to inform and obey his conscience with regard to his every action; and

(e) be “ready to obey God” – i.e. in addition to doing all that he already knows or believes to be right, he must be disposed to do whatever God should make known to him as His Will.

But the next point is the crucial one. Does the pope teach that those who comply with these conditions are already by that very fact in the way of salvation and that they will, provided they persevere in these admirable dispositions until death, be admitted without further ado to paradise? If so, it must frankly be admitted that he is granting in one sentence what he denies in the next. Indeed he would be making the beatific vision a reward for purely natural virtue containing no necessarily supernatural element. But this is not what the encyclical states at all. It asserts only that such a person “can obtain eternal life,” but only by the intervention of a further factor, referred to in the essential phrase, “by operation of Divine light and grace”. In other words, while the individuals described have by no personal act merited damnation, their salvation yet depends on a further specific divine intervention to raise them from natural virtue to supernatural life.

What is the nature of this Divine intervention? How will “Divine light and grace” operate to achieve the justification and salvation of a person who, despite excellent dispositions, is invincibly ignorant of the revealed faith held by the Catholic Church, outside of which, the pope repeatedly assures us, “no one … can be saved”?

It is evident from the significance of the metaphor, “light”, meaning supernatural faith or knowledge selected, that in some way God would enlighten such an individual as Pope Pius IX has described in order to ensure that he possessed both the requisite knowledge and the requisite actual grace to make the indispensable act of supernatural faith and the other necessary acts (of hope, charity, and, where necessary, perfect contrition) to entitle him to be numbered among the children of the Church, which is an essentially supernatural society, even if he remained in practice invincibly ignorant of almost everything pertaining to the Church herself.

He would therefore be saved just as a dying tribesman would be saved who was met by missionaries so shortly before his death that they had time only to teach him those doctrines necessary for salvation – the existence of God the Creator and Rewarder, the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation and Redemption, Heaven and Hell, the duties of faith, hope, charity and contrition – before baptizing him, without ever mentioning the Church herself because they knew that the catechumen was so disposed as implicitly to accept the whole of Divine revelation and was therefore undoubtedly united to the Church of which he knew nothing explicitly.

(John S. Daly, Michael Davies – An Evaluation, 2nd ed. [Saint-Sauveur de Meilhan: Tradibooks, 2015], pp. 505-507; italics given. The book is available for free download by the kind permission of the author, and it may also be purchased in paperback here. More information about the book is available here.)

Thus, we can say, by way of summary, that Catholic Answers’ argument that “God can choose to save someone who is unable in conscience to believe God exists but lives as best he can according to the knowledge he does have” is sheer nonsense.

The Absolute Necessity of Faith

No, Almighty God cannot simply “choose to” save someone who has no supernatural Faith. That is so, not because God should be lacking in some power or perfection — He is omnipotent, after all — but because supernatural Faith is the very basis upon which any divine life in the soul rests: “The act of faith is a necessary preliminary to other supernatural acts, for we do not tend towards the supernatural, unless we first accept it by belief…” (John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan, Moral Theology, n. 785); “Faith is the beginning of human salvation” (Council of Trent, quoting St. Fulgentius, Session 6, Chapter 8 [Denz. 801]). This supernatural life of the soul is absolutely necessary for being admitted into the Presence of God: “We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is” (1 Jn 3:2).

In his treatise On the Infused Virtues, Fr. de Aldama makes clear:

Justification is the conversion of a man to God as his supernatural end. Therefore a man must first know and acknowledge Him as such. But this takes place by an act of faith in the strict sense. Therefore an act of faith in the strict sense is necessary for justification.

(On the Infused Virtues, n. 169; in Sacrae Theologiae Summa, vol. III-B, p. 342.)

A soul that does not believe cannot have the divine life in it through sanctifying grace; and without this grace, it cannot enjoy the Beatific Vision because it is not supernaturally disposed for seeing God face-to-face. The soul that will enter heaven must have a certain likeness to God, which cannot be had apart from sanctifying grace. That is why even souls who die in the state of sanctifying grace but without having attained perfection (cf. Mt 5:48) must still be purified in purgatory before they can be admitted to heavenly glory: “Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing” (Mt 5:26); “There shall not enter into [the heavenly Jerusalem] any thing defiled…” (Apoc 21:27).

Faith is thus absolutely necessary for salvation; it is required with a necessity of means, not merely with a necessity of precept, since, according to a Holy Office response under Pope Clement XI, even the dogma of the Trinity and the Incarnation are necessary by necessity of means: “…a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not entirely incapacitated, the mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation” (Denz. 1349a).

All the more so, therefore, is Faith in the existence of God necessary by necessity of means.

The difference between a necessity of precept and a necessity of means is crucial and easy to understand: That which is necessary by necessity of precept is required only because of a command, a precept, a law, or a rule. For example: In a particular seminary it is necessary for all seminarians to rise by 5:30 am. That is so simply because the seminary administration decided to establish this rule. The rule could be changed, and it certainly admits of reasonable exceptions (such as for those who are ill). Furthermore, innocent ignorance of the law excuses from its observance. Of such necessity is the reception of Holy Communion for eternal salvation, to use just one example (see Jn 6:54-55).

The necessity of means, on the other hand, is an intrinsic necessity. That which is necessary by necessity of means is required not because an authority made a rule that it be so but because it cannot be obtained without that particular means. For example: To operate a combustion engine, it is necessary that it be powered with gasoline or a similar fuel. Substances like milk, water, or honey won’t do. Here it is irrelevant whether there be ignorance of the means, and whether this ignorance be invincible or not. A man who has lived his whole life on a desert island and does not have the faintest idea what a combustion engine is or how it works may be excused from trying to operate it using coconut milk — but his ignorance, no matter how innocent, will not allow him to operate the engine. That’s because fuel is necessary for it by necessity of means, not merely by necessity of precept, and so the end is not obtained without it — guilt or no guilt.

Now, salvation cannot be obtained without the act of Faith; but this Faith is necessary by necessity of means: “For all adults the act of faith is necessary for salvation as a necessity of means….” (Moral Theology, n. 786).

Instead of referencing the Second Vatican Council in its response, Catholic Answers should have consulted the First Vatican Council instead:

But, since “without faith it is impossible to please God” [Heb 11:6] and to attain to the fellowship of His sons, hence, no one is justified without it; nor will anyone attain eternal life except “he shall persevere unto the end on it” [Mt 10:22; 24:13]. Moreover, in order that we may satisfactorily perform the duty of embracing the true faith and of continuously persevering in it, God, through His only-begotten Son, has instituted the Church, and provided it with clear signs of His institution, so that it can be recognized by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.

(Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Chapter 3; Denz. 1793; underlining added.)

A Non-Catholic Author

It appears that Catholic Answers’ non-Catholic response was first published in 2020 under a slightly different title. Although now it simply identifies “Catholic Answers Staff” as the author, this earlier version of the post shows that it was written by Michelle Arnold.

Arnold worked for Catholic Answers as a staff apologist from 2003-2020. She has been freelancing since and has not been shy in talking about her struggles with the Catholic religion, especially on Patheos. The following articles of hers, all published after quitting Catholic Answers, make clear that the author is a wandering, searching, struggling soul:

• “Why I’m A Pro-Choice, Pro-Life Catholic” (Patheos / Nov. 4, 2020)
• “Are You Still Catholic?” (Patheos / Nov. 7, 2020)
• “Opinion: My Confession of Catholic Doubt and Holding Door Open to Jesus” (Times of San Diego, Jan. 1, 2022)
• “Dark Devotional: The Rise And Fall Of Catholic Apologetics” (Patheos / Jan. 20, 2022)
• “Catholic Answers And The Trouble With Yoga” (Patheos / Oct. 1, 2022)

Tragically, the Vatican II religion has been wrecking souls for over six decades. The damage to Faith the Conciliar Church has done is real, and although many may be inculpably unaware of what has been happening, the fact remains that in order to be saved, they must be in the state of sanctifying grace at the moment of death — by necessity of means, not simply by necessity of precept.

Let us pray, then, for the conversion of sinners and for the salvation of souls.

Image source: composite with elements from Wikipedia (Catholic Answers logo) and Shutterstock (Pretty Vectors)
Licenses: fair use and paid