Catholic Exchange

Praying for Atheists

After a three week series on the flaws of atheism, it's not hard for an atheist reader to conclude that I have nothing good to say about atheists and for a certain sort of Christian to conclude that I assume the damnation of atheists.

The truth, of course, is that there is always a difference between an idea and the person that holds it.  I have been arguing these past three weeks against atheism, not predicting the fate of atheists.  This is in keeping with the Catholic habit of mind of opposing the sin, not the sinner.  About the fate of atheists (or of anybody else), the counsel of the Church is always to hope and pray since the judgment of souls is above our pay grade.

That is why I never have a problem with prayer for the souls of atheists.  But I suppose that when I do pray for them (as I prayed sometime back, on my blog, for the soul of atheist Stephen Jay Gould), I guess I shouldn't be surprised when somebody writes and says:

Could you clarify this statement concerning S.J. Gould: "God have mercy on his soul and grant him everlasting life through Christ."

As a Protestant, I believe that if a person doesn't believe in Jesus, then that person is lost. There is no "second chance" after death.

There are two ways of looking at the inconsistencies of atheism and, more importantly, of atheists.  One can complain that atheists are inconsistent and therefore hypocrites (because they affirm enough freedom and moral responsibility in their materialist universe to have enough ammo to use against theists).  But there is, of course, another approach.  We can also rejoice that most atheists are what I call "eupocrites": which is to say they are better and more human than their ugly materialist philosophy.

Eupocrisy is a universal human experience.  We see it, for instance, in the story that Jesus told of the two sons.  The father asked the older son to go work in the Vineyard and he said, "Yes" but didn't go.  The younger son said, "No" but then went.  Jesus asks simply, "Which one did his Father's will?"  And the answer, of course, is that the one who said "No" is the one who obeyed.  In short, it is possible for humans not only to be worse than their best rhetoric, but to be better than their worst rhetoric.  Most atheists fit this bill, which gives me hope that the Holy Spirit may be up to more than they realize in their own hearts.

 That is not to say that real rejection of God is impossible.  It's merely to say that we humans are notoriously bad at knowing not just the hearts of others, but even our own hearts.  An atheist whose philosophy tells him that human life is the product of a ruthless struggle for survival between the fit and the unfit, yet who passionately labors to care for the powerless and victimized is gloriously inconsistent.  And some of us might be forgiven for saying that his heart is listening to other voices than those of Darwin or Herbert Spencer.

Of course, good deeds—whether by atheists or Christians—do not save, Christ does.  But on the other hand, acts of love are evidence of the work of Christ's Spirit in the human soul.  So the Church has never hesitated to pray for "those of good will".  We know where the Church is.  We do not know where it is not.

Catholics, of course, reject the idea of second chances after death for those in mortal sin.  As the Catechism makes clear:  "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire.' The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." (CCC 1035)

However, no one knows who, if anyone, has died in mortal sin.  An atheist's failure to "ask Jesus Christ into his heart as personal Lord and Savior" in a way recognizable to your average Protestant (or his failure to be baptized) is no infallible index in determining whether or not he was open in some mysterious way to the working of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ.  If he was open to the Holy Spirit in some way, then our task is to pray in hope that, with not a few atheists, he may hear with amazement:  "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."

(This piece was first published in the National Catholic Register.)

Comments

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mark, it is heartening to see that you have begun to ameliorate the acerbic flavor left in our mouths regarding the [ inappropriately ] broad category "atheists" which lingers from your Incoherence of Atheism series. Putting aside my previous critique of your "arguments" in that series, I am pleased that you now distinguish an idea from a person, sin from the sinner. God knows it would have been better had you done so sooner, preferably at some point during your mini-series. But, yes, I agree: the Holy Spirit must be working in you to have made such a enlightened qualification of "atheist" especially pertaining to their capacity for the good.

    Your post today is certainly not a direct recanting of your prior position's rather judgmental conclusons but, nonetheless, represents a definite moral improvement. So, yes, the Holy Spirit is working everywhere, and He certainly works outside of the overtly religious institutions as well.

    Besides, thie disticntion you draw between idea and person, betweeen sin and sinner, obviously holds more true for us Christians. Owing to our vast number, the total number of instances where this forgiving and merciful distinction must be made each day for us outnumbers instances for them.

    Once again, Mark, I urge you consider that atheism is primarily a denial and as such imports no particular set of metaphysical or moral beliefs per se. Materialist philosophy is not a priori or necesssarily "ugly". Nor is it hypocritical of materialists to be moral and entertain moral visions or freely to engage in persuasive discussions because their materialist views don't allow such without contradiction.

    I really do wish you would get off this incoherence and metaphysical hangup of yours. Mark, there are many non-believers who are good moral people, I am sure you agree. A friend of mine when asked by her child whether she believed in God said no. The child asked then what do you believe in, and my friend said I believe in love. And this person lives an exemplary life of love for sure.

    Also,Mark,some major contemporary writers that I have mentioned to you previously portray attitudes, dispositions, beliefs, and moral visions that we should hear and be moved by without having to accept wholesale all their claims. There is after all, Mark, the Natural Law, no?

    If you must find a theological reason to look upon some few atheists with a modicum of solidarity or brotherhood, why not invoke them as instances of the Natural Law and examples of the far reaching effects of the Holy Spirit. Their metaphysical claims,for the vast majority of non-believers, can really be put aside.

    If you must argue metaphysics and its allied beliefs ala free will, reason, spirit – your pet topics- please see my entry under "Faith and Life" entitled Matter and Spirit where I explain how we can avoid doing [their} metaphysics and its entrapments as I proffer a better and more scientific view of matter that carries more explanatory and apologetic power. Thanks.  

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Mark, I've never known you to be acerbic and always appreciate your balanced approach.

    You always give me food for reflection. God bless you!Smile

  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Excellent piece!

    Thanks, Mark.

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    However, no one knows who, if anyone, has died in mortal sin.  An atheist's failure to "ask Jesus Christ into his heart as personal Lord and Savior" in a way recognizable to your average Protestant (or his failure to be baptized) is no infallible index in determining whether or not he was open in some mysterious way to the working of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ.  If he was open to the Holy Spirit in some way, then our task is to pray in hope that, with not a few atheists, he may hear with amazement:  "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."

     

    of course people have died in mortal sin.  the devil and the demons are not in hell all by themself.

    what did our Blessed Mother mean when she said at Fatima:

     

    Most souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh. 

    it is okay to say many souls are in hell. 

    our early church fathers would always speak of this, 

    for example:

    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra:

    “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Denz. 714)

     atheists will not get to heaven unless they come into the catholic church before they die.

  5. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    …thanks, Father Feeney.

  6. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    hey protect the rock,

    i guess if pope Eugene were still alive today, you would say "thanks fr. feeney to him too.  man, that takes nerve.

    i guess Pope Eugene is too conservative for you.  or better yet, you are one of those people who after you read what he wrote says:

    well he didn't mean exactly that..

     

    i guess he didn't mean this either:

    Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in eternity… But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ…the Son of God is God and man…– This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. i guess there is exceptions to this also..

  7. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I guess…

    But isn't it sobering to realize when Jesus teaches about the last judgment in Matthew 25 that the condemned (goats) are surprised when they are condemned because they think they are going to be saved and the saved (sheep) are surprised when they are saved because they think they are going to be condemned.

    Judging is God's business.  Loving is our business.

    I guess you'd agree?

  8. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    aamartin353: Dispositions, attitudes, and sentiments have moral worth. They reveal the heart which we know is important. And the tongue and pen 9 keyboard) are in the heart's service.Thus when I read how certain folks have  – what shall I say, an onerous aura about them – and are characterized in writing as " railing on…have weird rules..ignore the evidence…egaged in unconscious slight of hand…do nothing.all day but lecture and write….get angry at theists" ( taken from Parts I and II " Incoherence of Atheism") I am offended. and concerned. You don't like my locution"acerbic." ? Pick another word then. Todays entry is a an attempt at assuaging these very un -Christian epthets and dispositions… I hope.   

  9. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    protect the rock,

    we are allowed to judge people's sins.  and yes, we love the sinner and that is why we must tell them that they need to change their ways.

    did John the Baptist not judge herod when he was calling him an adulterer. and also when he called the pharisees "you brood of vipers"

    if you love people than you do everything you can to get them into the catholic church so that they don't go to hell.

     

  10. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    LWALL: Where can I find your entry under "Faith and Life" entitled Matter and Spirit? Can you post a link to it? Thanks!

    –Michael

  11. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To magalabastro : Click on the blue tab " Forums">>>> Faith and Life>>>" Matter and Spirit". 

  12. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    To Mark: Believe me, Mark, I do not enjoy picking out what I see as  weaknesses in some of your posts. However, certain ones can't go unredressed. In your post today, you still wave the banner of atheist inconsistency….this time " gloriously inconsistent", you say,for atheists believing that life is a survival struggle yet who also "passionately labors to care for the powerless..etc". It is not inconsistent since "matter" – see my post "Matter and Spirit" under Faith and Life – encodes neuro- synaptically all sorts of neurocomputaional frameworsks that virtually guarantee an array of perceptions and associated motor/emotive responses that seek human social flourishing. Thus to subsume social flourishing as type of survival – including sentiments, perceptions, moral computational neural frameworks, and motor/capacities to act in our brains – under the broader category of survival of the fittest instinct – is not contradictory but rather demonstrates the atheist's morality-as-evolution thesis. David Hume precociuously argued the same,namely, that moral sentiments are natural, a "product" of our total living biology. Not until about ten years ago has the science that proves Hume and others appeared on the scene.There is now a tremendous amount of accepted and  advancing research taking place that substantiates that Yes, "matter" is capable of feelings including moral and social feelings. No inconsistency in viewing evolution- as- survival of the fittest if the category " fittest" includes the evolution and retention of social flourishing neural frameworks broadly encoded across cultures. I recommend Paul Churchland for an intro. Thanks.      

  13. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Your articles about atheists are very good.  At least to me, because I am not knowlegeable about theology and I learned alot from your four articles on this subject.  The only thing I might add is that I think evangelization is important, to people outside of our church.  We share our passion for Jesus Christ with each other really well.  I just wish we were equally good at sharing our faith with other people outside of the church, like the early Christians were. 

  14. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    laurak: Agree. Evagngelization outside the church is our vocation as laity. I too wish for more organized ways to evangelize, a formal arm and organization of the Church which would equip us at the parish level to go out, to be sent. So many objections to the Church revolve around people's imtellectual concerns about doctrine, esecially the papacy,  Catholics own lack of understanding of the faith, misconceptions about Holy Scripture, bad press…we need to be prepared to meet these impediments and, most of all, we need to grow in knowledge of Scripture and doctrine ourselves. Do u attend any adult ed programs? Read eg apologetics books which are many and quite good…what are u doing to make yourself ready to bring His Word? We all need to ask ourselves these questions, no?

Leave a Reply