Which religions lead to eternal life?
A survey from the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has some interesting numbers on how Catholics view other religions. A substantial majority (62 percent) of white Catholics answered “yes” to the question of whether Islam can lead to eternal life, a figure well above the national average of 52 percent.
The poll shows that just 11 percent of white Catholics consider their faith the only path to salvation – and the numbers are pretty much the same for weekly Mass-goers and other Catholics.
What are Catholics expected to believe?
This is how the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith addressed the issue when it critiqued the Rev. Jacques Dupuis’ theology of religious pluralism:
It is consistent with Catholic doctrine to hold that the seeds of truth and goodness that exist in other religions are a certain participation in truths contained in the revelation of or in Jesus Christ. However, it is erroneous to hold that such elements of truth and goodness, or some of them, do not derive ultimately from the source-mediation of Jesus Christ.
Hello All,
The Pew polls to which Paul directs us are interesting, I think. But does anyone know why the sample populations were specifically arranged according to ethnicity as well as faith tradition? I was puzzled to see so many references to “White Catholics”, “White Evangelicals” and “Black Protestants”, on the one hand, and little or no references to “Catholics” in general or categories like “Asian Protestants”. I don’t mean to be snarky here. I’m just wondering, is there any good reason for the Pew polls to focus on these particular combinations of faith and ethnicity?
My sense is that the question of whether Islam (or any other non-Christian religion) “can lead to eternal life” becomes conflated for many Catholics with the question of whether Muslims (or other adherents of non-Christian religions) can go to heaven. I think it is perfectly acceptable for a Catholic to answer “yes” to the latter question. However, the idea that the non-Christian religion itself leads to eternal life doesn’t seem consistent with the “the unicity and salvific universality of the mystery of Jesus Christ and the Church.”
Question for any and all: Are these about the same percentages that most Catholics would have applied to various forms of Protestantism in the 1950s?
I wonder if the increasing number of mixed marriages (i.e., spouses of different faiths) affected the survey. A person in such a marriage doesn’t want to think that his or her spouse won’t have eternal life or that the two won’t be together again after death. Perhaps the findings as to actions v. beliefs were also influenced by the mixed marriage phenomenon.
I thought it interesting that the percentages are remarkably the same for whether Hindus, Muslims, or people of no religious faith will experience eternal life. I have to think that some of the findings as to Hindus (who are polytheistic) and Muslims (who are monotheistic) are the result of a relevant lack of knowledge about the tenets of these religions and their non-Judaeo-Christian origins.
Peter,
I looked at the landscape survey, and now I cannot even tell you what the terms white and black mean. Pew classifies protestant religious groups as evangelical, mainline, or historic black. Given that, adding racial identifiers seems even more puzzling. Presumably, black evangelicals and black mainline protestants are included in the black protestant numbers, but I do not know if white historic black protestants are recategorized as mainline or evangelical, or just dropped.
Yes, 2% of the historic black churches members are white. Maybe they, like Asians and other ethnic groups are small enough to ignore for this particular report, which is basically a new analysis of their Religious Landscape Survey released a year ago.
“relevant lack of knowledge” should be “relative lack of knowledge.”
A word re the Pew categories: They are broken out that way in order to make the survey results more intelligible. If you take “Catholics” as a whole, you will get a certain number, but what that doesn’t tell you is how differently Latino Catholics and “White” Catholics vote. (yes, I–and Pew–know that most Latinos can be considered white, but it’s necessary shorthand, to achieve emphasize a broader understanding. White ar essentially Anglo, Euro Catholics.) If we limited ourselves o just “Catholic,” it would not adequately explain the differences of do justice to each community.
For the same reason they break out frequent atenders and less-frequent and so on. It simply provides a more accurate picture.
Similarly, if you just had one category of “Evangelicals,” well, most African-Americans would be considered Evangelical or Pentecostal. And their views would be completely subsumed into the dominant white Evangelical cohort, which is the culturally and politically group that largely fuels the religious right.
Yes, these are large categories that overlook small grups. It is exceedingly difficult and cost-prohibitive to get valid data on the smallest groups. Hence Jews and Muslims are often left out because there is no statistically valid sample, even in a survey of 35,000 people.
That said, I doubt there are many white people attending historically black churches who, when asked, would identify themselves as black or another race. That seems so odd as to be a statistical anomly at most.
PS: Catholic polling groups, like CARA, do the same thing, so it’s hard to see that their is any secular blindness or bias here. Bottom line is the reality that for many believers, cultural, racial, economic, and social factors can have as great an influence on their theological views as the latest motu proprio.
When Jesus was asked how to love one’s neighbor (which is necessary for eternal life) he used the example of a Samaritan as an ideal. The Samaritan was definitely outside the faith, a foreigner. We are such creatures of the Church of Dogma that we term everything into a set of beliefs instead of a set of actions which Jesus did. The Samaritan was the one who gained eternal life, not the priest or levite.
In no way did Jesus mess around with “subsist in” gyrations. Remember the expert in the law asked Jesus what must do to gain eternal life.
Amazing how we are so indoctrinated that we even phrase the questions incorrectly. N’est-ce pas?
So it is not what religions but actions, thank you.
Hello Cathleen and William (and All),
“Question for any and all: Are these about the same percentages that most Catholics would have applied to various forms of Protestantism in the 1950s?”
I had the very same question, Cathleen. I suspect the data you and I would like to see don’t exist. There’s a stereotype that American Catholics before Vatican II were mostly like Mel Gibson is today, that is, they believed that anyone who is not a faithful Roman Catholic is very likely to suffer hell after death. But while I suspect the stereotype is true, I think we have no proof.
“I wonder if the increasing number of mixed marriages (i.e., spouses of different faiths) affected the survey.”
Your explanation sounds quite plausible William, but again I wonder if there’s any significant statistical evidence that would confirm it. I think that without doubt these days cases like Mel Gibson are unusual. (For those who don’t read entertainment headlines like I do once in a while, Mel Gibson is on record as being fearful that his wife, who is Episcopalian, will suffer hell because she has not converted to Roman Catholicism.) I think that without doubt American Catholics these days interact a great deal with nonCatholics, either in marriage or in friendship, and I think that people tend to believe that those close to them are very likely to be saved. Though I can only speak with authority in my own case. There was never a single moment in my life when I believed that only faithful Roman Catholics were likely to be saved. I’m sure I never shared the belief of Mr. Gibson and those who agree with him because when I was a youngster all my friends were Protestants and Mormons, plus my Mom was Dutch Reformed until I was about thirteen.
It would be nice if Mel Gibson would convert to Roman Catholicism.
You all must be tired of my saying New Orleans is different, but its Catholicism is different in some ways from that of many others, especially some of the Irish-American East coast Catholics whom I have known. Yes, i knew that some people here were taught that all non-Catholics go to Hell, but I was not taught that, and i distinctly remember my aunt telling us in the 40s that her son in the Christian Brothers high school was bEing taught that Protestants went to Hell. In other words, that wasthe exception.
By the way, I read a review recently of a book about American Catholics which seems make the common assumption that we all have the same beliefs. In my experience that simply isn’t true. These days I wonder just how much unity of belief there is even among the bishops.
Hello Ann (and All),
“By the way, I read a review recently of a book about American Catholics which seems make the common assumption that we all have the same beliefs. In my experience that simply isn’t true.”
I could not agree with you more emphatically. Indeed, I wonder if it would be easy to identify just what we American Catholics believe in common. And I don’t think this is primarily a matter of American Catholics failing to agree with official Church teaching, although there are admittedly plenty of well-publicized examples where many if not most American Catholics’ beliefs are not in line with official Church teaching. One of the reasons I find I can remain Catholic is that the Church permits a far greater diversity of beliefs than I think many people realize. One example I’ve alluded to in the past is that Catholics may believe that some people are in hell (just not any specific people), but they may also believe that no one is actually in hell. Another example: While I did not mean to make this my bash-Mel Gibson day, Mr. Gibson believes that anyone who is not a faithful Roman Catholic is very likely to suffer hell and he remains in good standing with the Church. I’m also in good standing with the Church and I don’t believe that all the people who aren’t faithful Roman Catholics are unlikely to be saved as a result. One last example: Catholics are permitted to believe in the literal truth of the reports of various Marian apparitions. But Catholics are not required to believe in the literal truth of any reported private revelation.
Why is the Roman Catholic Church the most numerous Christian church? Maybe one reason is that Catholics can have beliefs that are so different from one another yet are still compatible with the Church teaches.
Of course, I expect that a good part of my stay in purgatory will consist of getting my knuckles wrapped by Mother Angelica. Maybe having to put up with me for a while will be part of her time in purgatory if in the end she needs any.
“Why is the Roman Catholic Church the most numerous Christian church? Maybe one reason is that Catholics can have beliefs that are so different from one another yet are still compatible with the Church teaches.”
I would say, Peter, that we make statements such as the above because we have been brought up in the Church of Dogma. We know that the formulation of the Apostle’s Creed is a declaration of disputed points. The Catholic church is most numerous because it does not require change behavior for entry, only baptism. We all know the baptismal sponsors repeat the words because of social or familial obligations. Salvation is in Matt. 25:31-46. Not in belonging to the Catholic Church. Most lapsed Catholics begin on the day of baptism. Sorry, Augustine, Athanasius, Bernard et alii.
We find Christians where we find the Church of the Way, of deeds. Not the church of dogma and the church of liturgy. There is nothing to be gained for the institutional church to foster a chuch of deeds. A church of dogma and liturgy brings home the material survival.
The thought that God might be busy shoveling into the everlasting fires of hell the 2/3 of the human race that adheres to some religion other than Catholicism or no religion at all (not to mention the embryos and fetuses that never see the light of day) is a repugnant and unworthy one.
I’m late to this conversation, but I would like to add my opinion that no just God would damn people to hell simply for choosing [or being born into] the wrong religion. If one were able to cut the Pew survey to take education into account, the percentage of people who believe there is more than one path to salvation/heaven would no doubt increase, probably dramatically. What’s intriguing to me is whether the three monotheistic faiths, while their respective concepts of the one true God are different, could ever agree that there could be multiple paths to salvation/heaven. If they could, would Islamism not cease to exist?
Just a note: the third paragraph of the Vatican II Decree on Ecumenism explicitly stated that means exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church that can aptly lead to salvation. It doesn’t mean everyone avails themselves of them, but then, neither do Catholics. Although the average Catholic has never read this document, it stands in the background of a new vision that has filtered into our community awareness since the Council, more or less. Our whole practice regarding mixed marriages changed as the result of the Council; the marriages didn’t make the change, they affirmed it.
Rita,
I don’t see the rupture that you may be seeing in the document’s teaching or in the practice re. mixed marriages.
A bishop’s permission is still required for a mixed marriage and promises must still be made. Different bishop’s conferences may have additional requirements.
The teaching about salvation indicates that persons saved outside the visible boundaries of the Holy Church are saved despite of not because of the visible structure of their non-Catholic belief system and that the salvation somehow originates in Christ through the graces made avaliable through the Catholic Church. There is but one Church that subsists in the visible Catholic Church.