Did Pope Francis recently say that atheists can get to heaven by "good works"? Or was he talking about something else entirely?

Color me annoyed.

The press has been going nuts about remarks concerning atheists that Pope Francis made at one of his daily homilies.

As usual, the press is hyping the remarks as if they are earthshaking, unprecedented, and in contrast to mean ol’ Pope Emeritus Benedict.

I know this will come as a shock, but . . . they’re getting the story wrong.

Here’s the story . . .

 

Daily Homilies

Let’s start with the context in which Pope Francis made the remarks: One of his homilies at daily Mass, celebrated in St. Martha’s House (where he lives).

Pope Francis is in the habit of saying daily Mass for the people at St. Martha’s House and invited guests, and when he does so he gives an off-the-cuff homily (rather than reading from a prepared text).

This is actually something new.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI did not do this. They did not celebrate daily Mass as publicly as Pope Francis, and they did not have daily homilies published in this way. Instead, they occasionally delivered prepared homilies at public Masses on special occasions, and only these were published. As a result, if you look at the Vatican web site, there are surprisingly few homilies listed in their sections!

As a result, the Vatican web people aren’t scaled up for this volume of homilies, and–MADDENINGLY–you can’t find complete texts of Pope Francis’s daily ones on the site.

They, apparently, aren’t running these homilies through “the usual process,” which involves transcribing what the pope says in off-the-cuff remarks, showing him the transcript so that he can revise it if needed, and then translating and publishing them.

As a result, we’re not getting complete transcripts of these homilies, only partial ones, such as those carried by Vatican Radio.

And that, right there, is a problem. It drives me nuts, because these homilies contain interesting information, but I hesitate to comment on anything for which I don’t have a complete text.

As they say, a text without a context is a pretext. Without seeing the full text, we run the risk of misunderstanding.

 

The Homily in Question

On Wednesday, Pope Francis gave a homily based on the Gospel reading of the day (Mark 9:38-40), in which the disciples have told a man to stop casting out demons in Jesus’ name because he doesn’t follow along with them.

Then, according to Vatican Radio’s maddeningly incomplete and poorly edited transcript of the homily:

The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ​​possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.”

“This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation.”

Pope Francis first applies this principle to non-Catholics in general, engaging in dialogue with an imaginary interlocutor:

“‘But, Father, this [person] is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must! Because he has this commandment within him. . . .

“Instead,” the Pope continued, “the Lord has created us in His image and likeness, and has given us this commandment in the depths of our heart: do good and do not do evil”:

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone!

So far so good: Christ redeemed all of us, making it possible for every human to be saved.

 

What About Atheists?

Now we get to the subject of atheists, as the imaginary interlocutor asks:

“‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good.”

Here is where “the usual process” might be helpful in clarifying the pope’s thought. Everyone, when speaking off-the-cuff, encounters occasions where things could be further clarified, and this may be one of them.

We can be called children of God in several senses. One of them is merely be being created as rational beings made in God’s image. Another is by becoming Christian. Another sense (used in the Old Testament) is connected with righteous behavior. And there can be other senses as well.

Here Pope Francis may be envisioning a sense in which we can be called children of God because Christ redeemed us, even apart from embracing that redemption by becoming Christian.

This, however, was not what caught the press’s eye.

Pope Francis continued:

“And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good.”

Nothing particularly controversial here.

But then comes this, as the imaginary interlocutor says:

“‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”

 

Where Is “There”?

The press latched onto this, taking the phrase “we will meet one another there” as a reference to heaven.

They then inferred that the pope was saying that if atheists merely “do good” then they will go to heaven.

This, in turn, alarmed some in the Protestant community, who thought that the pope was saying that atheists can get to heaven by “good works.”

We can deal with the possibility of salvation for atheists in another post, but first we need to ask a question . . .

 

Was Pope Francis Even Talking About Heaven?

If so, you wouldn’t know it from the transcript of what he said.

Let’s back up a bit. Remember, Pope Francis was just talking about the duty to do good:

“And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace.”

So if everyone does good, we have a path toward peace. That’s the goal.

“If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good.

Note the parallelism between the phrases. Pope Francis is talking about a path “toward peace” and wants us to “meet there” by doing our part and doing good so that we build “that culture of encounter” and “meet one another doing good.”

He’s not talking about heaven at all.

He’s talking about earth.

It’s in that context that he has the imaginary interlocutor say:

‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’

And he replies:

“But do good: we will meet one another there.”

What he’s saying is that even atheists need to do good on earth to build their part of the culture of encounter that promotes peace and allows people to “meet together” in harmony.

At least that’s what appears from a careful reading of the text.

Another translation, found in The Guardian (of all places), better conveys the idea:

“Even them, everyone,” the pope answered, according to Vatican Radio. “We all have the duty to do good,” he said.

Just do good, and we’ll find a meeting point,” the pope said in a hypothetical reply to the hypothetical comment: “But I don’t believe. I’m an atheist.”

 

Text Without Context

Remember that saying I mentioned earlier, that a text without a context is a pretext for misunderstanding?

This is why.

This is exactly why.

And it is why I am so annoyed that we aren’t getting the full text of Pope Francis’s daily homilies.

Of course, even with the context we had at hand, which clearly suggests that Pope Francis wasn’t talking about meeting atheists in heaven but meeting with them in fraternity and peace here on earth, that didn’t stop the press from getting it wrong.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

Wouldn't it be great if scientists invented a device that would let us look into the past and see it with our own eyes? Guess what! They have!

Wouldn’t it be great if scientists invented a device that enabled us to have a clear window into the past–so that we wouldn’t just have to read about the past in books?

Instead, with the new device–let’s call it a Time Window–we could actually see events occurring in the past in real time, with our own eyes?

That would be wicked awesome, wouldn’t it?

The exciting news is that scientists have invented this device!

That’s right! The Time Window is real!

What’s more, they invented it just over 400 years ago, so they’ve had the chance to mature the technology to the point that now it’s really, really good.

For comparison, imagine how good an iPhone would be today if Steve Jobs had invented the first one 400 years ago.

The only problem is that they missed a great marketing opportunity.

Instead of calling it the Time Window ™ they gave it a much more boring name . . . the telescope.

 

How the Time Window Works

The reason that the Time Window–er, telescope–lets us look into the past and see it with our own eyes is that it takes time for light to reach our eyes. The speed of light is not infinite.

Technically, this means that any time you see anything, you are technically witnessing something that happened in the past.

Since light travels so fast, however, if you see someone across the room pick up an iPhone, that happened only the tiniest fraction of a second ago. In fact, you started seeing it while it was still happening. That’s not long enough ago to make it an exciting glimpse into history.

But things get more interesting when you take a telescope at point it at something really distant.

 

By Jove!

For example, back in 1609, Galileo Galilei pointed his telescope at the planet Jove–er, Jupiter–and discovered that by it there were several moons.

Now the thing is, depending on where Earth and Jupiter are in their orbits, Jupiter is between 33 and 54 light minutes away from Earth.

Let’s just say it’s an average of 44 light minutes away for the sake of simplicity.

That means, it takes 44 minutes for the light from Jupiter to reach an astronomer on Earth.

So when Galileo looked at Jupiter through his telescopes and saw its moons, he was seeing where those moons were 44 minutes ago.

He was viewing actual history that occurred 44 minutes in the past!

Woo-hoo!

 

Party Like It’s 1879!

The same thing keeps happening when you look further out.

Back in 2008, scientists used one of their spiffy modern telescopes to capture the light in this image . . .

KEEP READING.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

Since it was proposed by Fr. Georges Lemaître, the Big Bang has been common in discussions of the existence of God.

The reasons are obvious. The Big Bang looks like a plausible beginning for the physical universe. Things that begin need causes. The beginning of the physical universe would need a cause, which would seem to lie outside the physical universe. This coheres well with the Christian claim that God is a non-physical being who created the physical universe.

The argument has been elaborated various ways, but that’s the basic idea.

One of its fans was Pope Pius XII, who elaborated a version of it in a speech about this to the Pontifical Academy of the Sciences back in 1951.

It’s basically a version of the Kalaam cosmological argument that uses evidence from modern cosmology to support the premise that the universe had a beginning.

It even resonates with the “Let there be light” moment in Genesis.

I think that there is a proper role for the Big Bang in discussions of God’s existence, but it has to be used with some caution.

Here’s why . . .

 

“Let There Be Light”?

One temptation is to identify the Big Bang not just as the moment of creation but specifically as the creation of light in Genesis 1. That’s problematic because Genesis does not portray the creation of light as the moment the world came into existence. Let’s look at the text:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

In the text, the earth already exists in a formless and empty state, with a deep of waters that has a surface, which the Spirit of God hovers over. Then light gets created.

So Genesis depicts the creation of light happening when the heavens and the earth and its waters already exist. At least that is how the text depicts it. You can argue that this isn’t to be taken literally, but that only makes the same point another way: We shouldn’t be too quick to identify the Big Bang with the creation of light in Genesis. We have to be careful about mapping Genesis onto modern cosmology.

In fact, Pope John Paul II warned specifically against trying to draw scientific conclusions from the creation account in Genesis 1:

Above all, this text has a religious and theological importance. It doesn’t contain significant elements from the point of view of the natural sciences. Research on the origin and development of the individual species in nature does not find in this description any definitive norm or positive contributions of substantial interest [General Audience, Jan. 29, 1986].

 

The Moment of Creation?

There is another thing we need to be careful about, which is identifying the Big Bang as the moment of the physical universe came into existence.

It may well have been. I would love for us to find a way to prove that scientifically.

But we’re not there at present.

KEEP READING.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

This version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week from 6 May 2013 – 19 May 2013 (subscribe hereget as an eBook version for your Kindle, iPod, iPad, Nook, or other eBook reader):

Angelus/Regina Caeli

General Audiences

Homilies

Speeches

Papal Tweets

  • “Am I faithful to Christ in my daily life? Am I able to “show” my faith with respect but also with courage?” @pontifex, 13 May 2013
  • “It is God who gives life. Let us respect and love human life, especially vulnerable life in a mother’s womb.” @pontifex, 15 May 2013
  • “We cannot be part-time Christians! We should seek to live our faith at every moment of every day.” @pontifex, 16 May 2013
  • “Are our lives truly filled with the presence of God? How many things take the place of God in my life each day?” @pontifex, 17 May 2013
  • “We must learn from Mary, and we must imitate her unconditional readiness to receive Christ in her life.” @pontifex, 18 May 2013
  • “The Holy Spirit transforms and renews us, creates harmony and unity, and gives us courage and joy for mission.” @pontifex, 19 May 2013

The eBook version of The Weekly Francis

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

The divinity of the Holy Spirit was infallibly defined at the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, but not everyone accepts the fact that the Holy Spirit is a divine Person–one of the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity.

For example, Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that the Holy Spirit is merely God’s “energy” or “active force.”

In this video, Jimmy Akin shows a simple and surprising way that you can use the Bible to show both that the Holy Spirit is a Person and that he is a divine Person, alongside the Father and the Son.

What Now?

If you like the information I’ve presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.

If you’re not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.

I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.

In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict said about the book of Revelation.

He has a lot of interesting things to say!

If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:

 

Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.

In the meantime, what do you think?

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

Where did the feast of Pentecost come from, what happened on it, and what does it mean for us today? Here are 8 things to know and share . . .

The original day of Pentecost saw dramatic events that are important to the life of the Church.

But where did the feast of Pentecost come from?

How can we understand what happened on it?

And what does it mean for us today?

Here are 8 things to know and share about it . . .

 

1. What does the name “Pentecost” mean?

It comes from the Greek word for “fiftieth” (pentecoste). The reason is that Pentecost is the fiftieth day (Greek, pentecoste hemera) after Easter Sunday (on the Christian calendar).

This name came into use in the late Old Testament period and was inherited by the authors of the New Testament.

 

2. What else is this feast known as?

In the Old Testament, it is referred to by several names:

  • The feast of weeks
  • The feast of harvest
  • The day of first-fruits

Today in Jewish circles it is known as Shavu`ot (Hebrew, “weeks”).

It goes by various names in different languages.

In England (and English), it has also been known as “Whitsunday” (white Sunday). This name is presumably derived from the white baptismal garments of those recently baptized.

 

3. What kind of feast was Pentecost in the Old Testament?

KEEP READING.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

In World War II, some people lied to protect Jewish individuals and save their lives. Was this right? Here's some information you might want to be aware of.

Back during World War II, some people lied to save Jewish lives.

More recently, Lila Rose has used undercover tactics to expose Planned Parenthood.

At issue is the question of whether it is every okay to lie, particularly when you’re trying to save lives.

We live in a violent world, and the issue keeps coming up in human history.

Here is some information you might want to be aware of involving Pope Francis.

 

On the One Hand

Before we get to the Pope Francis material, we should note that there is a strong view in the history of Catholic thought that says lying of any kind, for any reason, is always wrong.

This view has been endorsed by some of the biggest names in Catholic theology, including St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas.

There have been other views proposed as well, though they have not been the majority view, and it does not appear that  the Magisterium has infallibly settled the question.

Indeed, the original edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church contained a definition of lying that seemed to endorse a proposal made some decades ago that restricted what countes as a lie to telling a falsehood with the intent to deceive a person who had the right to know the truth.

If this was lying in the technical sense, then it would imply that some cases of lying in the broader, everyday sense (telling a falsehood with the intent to deceive, without specifying whether the deceived person has a right the truth) would not be morally wrong. Some such acts could, potentially, be justified if the person to whom the (broad-sense) lie was told had no right to the truth.

The fact that the original edition of the Catechism included this statement is a notable indicator that the matter has not been infallibly settled, and advocates of the lying-is-always-wrong view should bear in mind that the history of the question is not uniform and does not appear to be infallibly settled.

 

On the Other Hand

Although the original edition of the Catechism seemed to endorse the restricted view of what counted as lying, they changed it.

Now the relevant passage defines lying this way:

To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead someone into error [CCC 2483].

(Remember the “or act” part. It’s going to be important.)

When the Holy See released the changes to the original edition of the Catechism, they did so without commentary, and so Catholic moral theologians have tried to discern the significance of this change.

Was the Holy See endorsing the historical majority view? Or was it simply not wanting to endorse restricted view and defaulting to a more general formulation of the kind one would expect in a catechetical text, leaving the technical questions to the experts to hash out over time, under the guidance of the Magisterium?

Whichever was the case, the publication of this new wording would not constitute an infallible determination of the issue any more than the publication of the original wording of the Catechism did.

Indeed, Cardinal Ratzinger was at pains to explain that the treatment of a subject in the Catechism does not change the weight the Magisterium assigns to a particular teaching.

Whatever weight it had before the publication of the Catechism, that it is the weight it had afterwards.

Read more about that here.

However, advocates of the lying-is-sometimes-not-wrong view should bear in mind that the historical majority position and at least the wording in the current edition of the Catechism is against them.

 

Part of the Problem

Part of the problem here is that we are torn between two powerful intuitions.

On the one hand, we have a powerful intuition–planted in human nature by God himself–that lying is wrong.

That’s a human universal. It appears in every culture. Indeed, cultures could not even form among people who didn’t have the level of mutual trust that the anti-lying ethic is meant to foster.

On the other hand, we also have an intuition that in some cases deceiving another person is not wrong, particularly when that person is an aggressor and the stakes are high.

Thus police officers adopt ruses when trying to catch criminals. Spies do it to serve their nations. Military forces do it to achieve victory on the battlefield.

How precisely these two intuitions–the need to tell the truth and the need to save lives–are to be squared is something too complex to go into here.

I will not be proposing any solutions to this question, and I await further guidance from the Magisterium.

However, I would like to call the reader’s attention to some material that has recently become available in English.

 

The Actions of Church Officials

KEEP READING.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

What do baby names tell us about the reliability of the Gospels?

Suppose, one day, you’re reading a historical account of life in Alaska in the 1920s and one of the main characters in the account is named Sting.

“That’s surprising,” you think.

Suppose that Sting is portrayed as married to a woman named Oprah.

“That’s improbable,” you recognize.

Then you read that Sting has a brother named Spock.

You say to yourself: “Okay. Something is wrong here.”

What is it? And what does all this have to do with the gospels?

You might be surprised, but the names of the figures mentioned in the gospels actually provide evidence that they’re true.

Here’s the story . . .

 

The basic problem

Fundamentally, the problem in our starting example is that the names “Sting,” “Oprah,” and “Spock” do not sound like they come from Alaska in the 1920s.

They sound like the names of pop culture figures from the second half of the 20th century (the 1960s and after, certainly).

There is no way that these names would be plausible in an account of what life was like in Alaska between 1920 and 1929.

Your recognition of this fact shows that you know something about the names that were common at this time–and that you can spot false reports of them.

 

So what about the gospels?

Linguists have devoted a lot of study to the question of how parents choose the names of their babies.

It’s a regular feature of textbooks on linguistics.

There are definite–but usually unnoticed–patterns to how babies are named.

But the actual ways they are named reveal what is on their parents’ minds–or at least what’s going on in their subconsciouses.

Now here’s the thing: Recently scholars have been looking at the frequencies with which names occurred in ancient Jewish sources, both inside and outside of Palestine, in the centuries before and after Christ.

What did they find?

KEEP READING.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

The "Third Secret" of Fatima is the most famous private revelation of the 20th century. Here are 9 things to know and share with friends about it . . .

The apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima are famous for the three-part “secret” they conveyed.

Of these, the “third secret” is the most famous, because it was kept confidential at the Vatican for many years.

Only a few popes and a select few others read it–until the year 2000, when Pope John Paul II published it for the whole world to read.

Here are 9 things to know and share with friends about it . . .

 

NOTE: We’ve already looked at the apparitions at Fatima in general and at the first two parts of the secret. For information on that, you should click here.

 

1) What is the third part of the secret or “third secret”?

Here is what Sr. Lucia wrote:

After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’

And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the holy father’.

Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions.

Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God [The Message of Fatima [MF], “Third Part of the ‘Secret’”].

 

2) What does the secret refer to?

In a letter to John Paul II date May 12, 1982, Sr. Lucia wrote:

“The third part of the secret refers to Our Lady’s words [in the second part of the secret]: ‘If not, [Russia] will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated’ (13-VII-1917)” (MF, Introduction).

In general terms, then, the third part of the secret refers to the twentieth-century conflict between the Church and Communist Russia.

 

3) What does the angel with the flaming sword symbolize?

KEEP READING.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

This version of The Weekly Francis covers material released in the last week from 1 May 2013 – 12 May 2013 (subscribe hereget as an eBook version for your Kindle, iPod, iPad, Nook, or other eBook reader):

Angelus/Regina Caeli

General Audiences

Speeches

Papal Tweets

  • “Let us ask our Lord to help us bear shining witness to his mercy and his love in every area of our Christian lives.” @pontifex, 6 May 2013
  • “Do not be content to live a mediocre Christian life: walk with determination along the path of holiness.” @pontifex, 7 May 2013
  • “I have come that they may have life and have it in abundance, says Jesus. This is where true wealth is found, not in material things!” @pontifex, 8 May 2013
  • “The Holy Spirit brings to our hearts a most precious gift: profound trust in God’s love and mercy.” @pontifex, 9 May 2013
  • “The Holy Spirit helps us to view others with fresh eyes, seeing them always as brothers and sisters in Jesus, to be respected and loved.” @pontifex, 10 May 2013
  • “Let us pray for the many Christians in the world who still suffer persecution and violence. May God grant them the courage of fidelity.” @pontifex, 12 May 2013

The eBook version of The Weekly Francis

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy