I have read in the decrees of Trent that for the catechumen who has Catholic faith in his heart and sanctifying grace in his soul and having made a “vow” to receive the Church’s Sacrament of water Baptism, if he should die without water Baptism “nothing more is required” for his salvation. That to me is a precise but very restrictive definition of what might be considered baptism of desire, although Trent chose not to name it baptism of desire. What is your thought on my above statement on Trent and BOD?

The tribunal of Christ the Just Judge can only analogously be compared to any earthly tribunal, but to use this analogy, I would have to say that lacking faith and baptism are not at all the equivalent of jay walking, as jay walking would be more like a venial sin. Original Sin (which cannot be forgiven without 1) sacramental Baptism or 2) faith with perfect charity and contrition) is enough to damn one to hell, i.e., the deprivation of the Beatific Vision. That is Catholic orthodoxy. To deny it is Pelagianism, perhaps the dominant religion of our day.

I do not accept the salvific nature of Baptism of Desire and of Blood (without the sacrament), but I know how very common these theological opinions are. The Church having never censured them, they can be understood in an orthodox sense (as St. Thomas understood them), and I have no beef with those who advance these notions. What I would never grant — and almost everyone else does — is that supernatural faith, hope, and charity can be dispensed with. Supernatural faith is what Christ revealed, the Catholic Faith. It is indispensable for salvation.

The Church’s definitions in this regard are very exclusive. You make the point that we cannot know something unless it is contained in revelation (or, I have to add, if the Church proposes it definitively as closely related to revelation). Correct. The Church has told us, in an infallible definition that neither Jews, heretics, schismatics, or pagans can be saved unless they are united to the Church before they die. That is no mere claim that “Catholicism is the way to heaven.” It positively rules out other ways, and completely so.

The various dilemmas one faces when looking at this issue seem to me best answered by God’s providence. He who knows hearts (internal/external fora are both known to God) and knows the graces he gives to each, and who sees all time in the simultaneous instant of His eternal now, will not leave anyone abandoned who seeks Him. This does not mean that He will make exceptions to what He has revealed. It means that his providential dispensation for each of the predestined (yes, Catholics believe in predestination) will be perfectly reconcilable with what He has revealed.

I personally hope that Robert E. Lee saved his soul, yet I know that he could not if he met his judge as an Anglican, i.e., one separated from the Church by schism and heresy. Lee was baptized, believed in the Trinity and the Incarnation. If, moments after he closed his eyes to the world but before death, he had a perfect act of contrition — a supernatural act which is the direct result of actual grace — he could have died a Catholic in sanctifying grace and saved his soul.

Of course, with Catholic priests and others going around saying that people can be saved in all these alternative ways, and not only in the one way God revealed, those who make such perfect acts of contrition on their deathbed must be rarer and rarer.

I hope these thoughts help. You can read more on it here:

http://www.catholicism.org/eens.html

However, I do wonder about your position about speculation beyond this. Surely God is not bound by the visible requirements he has puts on man?

I find the need to qualify every statement on the salvific necessity of the Church with a sort of apologetic, “but, we may have hope,” to be weak and to not be the mission of the Church which is not to speculate on what is not revealed, but to proclaim what is Revealed.

After all, most cases of jay-walking will not be prosecuted…yet the law is the law, and the purpose of the public officials is to publically proclaim that jay-walking is a crime punishable in such a way…not to wink and nudge and say, “yeah, technically, but don’t worry because most of the time you won’t get caught, and even if you do the cop will usually let it slide.” Nor is it morally right to presume such treatment in our own actions. Nevertheless, it is a reality that the authorities (especially merciful ones) do often loose their own requirements, in the private, subjective, individual cases…even if publically and objectively it is an exception. It also shows that just because something is Exceptional to the rule, does not mean it is necessisarily rare or uncommon…I’d bet that cases of jay-walking, even seen by cop, that are prosecuted are less than those not prosecuted. And yet the law stays the same and we must not act in a way that presumes leniency.

Likewise…I’ll admit that, privately, I do have hope that God may save the innocent non-baptized. I do not think it is a matter of Faith, I do not think one “ought to” have hope as if it were obligatory, but I think the Church has always made a distinction between the internal forum and the external forum. Between the objective, visible, public requirements given to the community, and the private, subjective relationship of the soul with God in the case of the individual.

For example, though I do deny that they are part of Public Revelation…theologians have long speculated on hope for baptism of desire, blood, and invincible ignorance as possible unrevealed means God could use to exceptionally save the non-baptized.

And in some ways I find this analogous to the speculation on “perfect contrition”. Confession is the Publically Revealed means of forgiveness of sin, and while the objective requirements ideally correspond to the subjective, nevertheless, perfect contrition has long been hoped for as a source of forgiveness, albeit private and in the internal forum and confession is recognized as still required as soon as possible.

I believe that the increased emphasis on the individual, the subjective, the difference between the private invisible forum and the public visible forum is dangerous. That it is not the job of the public authorities in the Church to speculate on exceptions on God’s part, or to presumptuously say, “yes, these are the requirements…but God will probably waive them for men of good will”…especially since the people who would hear and accept such an apologetically toned statement are assumably Catholics and so the very ones who cannot plead ignorance on such matters.

Will you please, then, clarify your position on EENS for me? Is it an absolute belief that God doesn’t deal with the internal forum different from the external and that hope should not be had at all, not even privately? Or is it simply a belief that we should not publically speculate on private hopes or speak about unrevealed possibilities (for too often they become presumptuous of an exception) at the expense of proclaiming the publically revealed requirements? Is it an absolutely positive belief AGAINST God making any exceptions to his own visible requirements placed on man, or is it more a type of practical agnosticism towards the subject?

I for one really believe that Pope Benedict knows the truth, and I hope that the solution ‘Rome has spoken’ will be heard during his reign…And that Charity will move all hearts of those with the name of Catholic then to submit, despite what anyone has said or wrote before-even Benedict prior to his Papacy. To your knowledge, did then-Card. Ratzinger ever indicate (perhaps privately) a position close to or identical with Fr. Feeney on EENS? I remember that he was personally close to von Balthasar, but that may not be a factor. Anyway, I think your position on my earlier question is the correct and charitable one. God Bless.

Thank you for your kind words.
One of the nice things about being a Catholic — and not a sedevacantist — is that you don’t feel the compulsion to judge who is and who is not a culpable heretic and therefore outside the Church.

The Church is the communion of saints. Whoever is baptized, holds the faith, and is subject to the authority of the Roman Pontiff and the bishops in communion with him, is part of that communion of the saints. I can — and in certain instances, must — judge the objective character of the words and deeds of some of the people ostensibly in that communion; but there are severe limits to this exercise.

Those who culpably reject the faith and/or legitimate hierarchy Christ gave us have put themselves outside the Church. Since I don’t have the gift that Padre Pio had of reading hearts, I don’t vex myself over who is culpable and who isn’t. Instead, I testify to the truth, and pray and work that that truth may be accepted and lived.

Too many traditionalists of the “ugly trad” variety focus on condemning people in the most intrusive, personal way possible. I have noticed that these people are generally totally unsuccessful at winning souls to Christ. The only “converts” they make are the folks who become, like them, “madder than hell,” at the latest scandals in the Church, etc., etc. In short, they don’t convert people, they breed fellow blow hards while contracepting real conversions. On the other hand, those whose approach more savors of evangelical gentleness, alla St. Francis de Sales, get souls. No matter what people say about him, Father Feeney was of this latter sort.

So, I don’t worry about who in “the novus ordo” is culpably rejecting Church teaching. Those God puts in my path — Jesus calls them “my neighbors” — get a dose of the truth.

I hope these comments help. God bless you and may Our Lady watch over you.