ESCHATOLOGY                                                     
                 (c) Copyright 1994 by William G. Most

Will You Die?:   A familiar saying tells us: "Two things are certain: death 
and taxes." But really only one is certain. We do not mean to cross off 
taxes - they are really certain. But it is not certain that any given 
person alive today will ever die. How can that be? Does not Scripture say, 
"It is appointed for all men to die, and after death the judgment" (Heb. 
9:27). Yes, it does say that. But general statements normally leave room 
for exceptions. For example, Romans 5:12 teaches that all contract original 
sin. But we know by definition of the Church that that it is not true of 
the Blessed Virgin Mary.

     We need to explain. In his First Epistle to Thessalonica, which is 
probably the first part of the entire New Testament to be written, coming 
from 51 A.D., Paul had to answer a problem that bothered many of his 
people. They were saying in effect: Would it not be too bad if I would die 
before Christ returns at the end? Then others would get to see Him before I 
would." Paul answers the question in 1 Thes 4:13ff. He explains what the 
scene will be like: "We don't want you to be ignorant, brothers, about 
those who sleep, so you may not be grieved like the rest who do not have 
hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose, so also God will lead 
with Him those who fell asleep through Jesus. For we say this to you in the 
word of the Lord [namely], that we the living, who are left for the coming 
of the Lord, will NOT get ahead of those who have slept. For the Lord 
Himself with a command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the 
trumpet of God will come down from the sky, and the dead in Christ will 
rise first. Then we the living, who are left, will be snatched together 
with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we will be 
with the Lord always."

     Many of the people then expected the end and the return of Christ 
soon. This sort of thing really has happened in every age, and is happening 
even today. But the great question is: Did Jesus Himself err on this 
matter? 2) Did Paul err on this matter?

     We are certain that Jesus was not in error, in spite of many claims, 
because of the teaching of the Church (incidentally, the new catechism, 
##471-74 - but cf. #606 - on this matter, is not very clear, one would 
hardly find out from it what the Church teaches). The Church teaches that 
His human soul, from the first instant of conception, saw the vision of 
God, in which all knowledge is present. For official texts and other data 
cf. Wm. Most, The Consciousness of Christ, Christendom College Press, 
1980). Already in Hebrews 10:7 (cited by new catechism in #606) we read 
that on entering into the world at conception He said: "Behold, I come to 
do your will, O God."

     The idea that St. Paul was in error is based chiefly on this passage 
of 1 Thes. That conviction is so strong in many that they insist he could 
not have written Second Thessalonians, because there, in chapter 2, he 
speaks clearly against the idea that the end is soon. However, the ancient 
witnesses who say Paul wrote 1 
Thes and 2 Thes are about equally strong. And the arguments from the text of 
1 Thes itself are worthless. For when Paul says, "we the living", he is only 
speaking as many a teacher speaks, in making something concrete and vivid. 
For example, in explaining Phil 2:13 I often speak as follows: Paul in 2 
Cor. 3:5 said I do not have the ability to get a good thought on my own. In 
Phil 2:13 he says I cannot even make a good decision of will, or carry it 
out, on my own. How does this work? God first sends me an actual grace, 
which puts into my mind the good idea, and makes me favorable to it, though 
not yet is there a decision...." And so on. To speak thus in the first 
person would not lead a normal listener to think I am talking about myself. 
It is just a way of making things clear and concrete. Similarly Paul here.

     So some not very sharp scholars think in spite of this that Paul HAS 
TO mean he expects to be alive at the end, in spite of the ancient 
witnesses saying he also wrote Second Thessalonians, and in spite of the 
fact that his language does not have to imply at all that he expected to be 
alive at the end.

     We gather then: Those who are alive when Christ returns at the end 
will never die at all. - Some manuscripts of 1 Cor. 15:51-52 express this 
same truth, though still other manuscripts, apparently finding the idea 
strange, change it to mean all will die and then rise.

Rapture:   In passing, many Protestants take this passage of 1 Thes to mean 
there will be a rapture, i.e., that at some moment, perhaps very soon, 
Christ will snatch all the good people out of the earth, and they will then 
reign with Him on earth for 1000 years (cf. Apocalypse/Revelation 20). Of 
course this would mean that some would be taken out of a car they are 
driving, so it would go wild and kill others. But all those not raptured 
would be bad people, and so that would be all right. They note that this 
text speaks of meeting Christ in the air, while the Gospel picture of the 
Last Judgment, in Mt. 25:31-46, pictures the judgment as taking place on 
the earth. So, they reason, there must be two different events. 

     But the reasoning does not hold. They ignore the partially apocalyptic 
genre in the two passages, which indicates we must not press details. 
(Apocalyptic is a bizarre pattern of writing found in Hebrew literature 
starting in full form about 2nd century B.C., running 3 or 4 centuries. It 
presents visions and revelations in bizarre imagery and colors. The 
original readers knew they had to reduce that imagery much to get the 
strict sense).

     We see apocalyptic touches in the fact that Christ comes down from the 
sky with a command, with the voice of an archangel and a trumpet. Now of 
course He could make it strictly that way - but considering the genre, the 
pattern of writing, we have no reason to suppose it is such a thing. 

     The last judgment scene pictures the Judge seated on earth, with all 
persons of all ages of history before Him. But the globe would probably not 
have even standing room for such a multitude. And for sure, not many could 
see the Judge because of the crowd and the distance. So there is last 
Judgment, but it will take a different form, which we will discuss later 
on.

     To return to the exemption from death - many early Christians did 
understand this text of Paul correctly, and so were eager for the end, so 
they could escape death. This appears in the words we have left from the 
earliest liturgy: maranatha. this is Aramaic, and if divided as maran atha, 
it means: The Lord has come. Divided Marana tha, it means: Come O Lord. 
(Manuscripts of that day did not divide words, hence the question of 
division). From context we know they meant it the second way. And even 
today in the verse after the second elevation we often pray: "Dying you 
destroyed our death, rising you restored our life. Lord Jesus come in 
glory". - We are praying for the end!

Pagan ideas on Survival after death:   If we recall, in the passage we 
looked at from St. Paul's First Thessalonians, he said he did not want them 
to be like those "who have no hope." What did he mean? He might have meant 
that some are not sure of survival - though belief in it was very 
widespread in ancient times. Or he might mean that the situation of being a 
pagan in itself provides no assurance of immortality. Or he might mean they 
do not know the glorious goal God has made open to us and to all.

     At any rate, it is sad to read the writings of such great philosophers 
as Plato who try bravely but pathetically to prove to themselves that there 
is life after death. To illustrate, Plato in his dialogue called Phaedo, 
gives several arguments to try to prove survival. It is interesting to 
review them. First, he says the world is made up out of opposites, such as 
hot and cold, wet and dry. One comes from the other. So life must come from 
death. - But this argument is worthless. We note especially that vagueness 
of the words "comes from". Dry does not come from wetness, not at all. It 
may, but need not, follow after wetness. Secondly he thinks that we had a 
previous life and tries to prove that by the fact that when questioned at 
length, people will sometimes give good answers on matters in mathematics, 
geometry or philosophy. So, says Plato, since they did not learn these 
things in the present life, they must have learned them in a previous life. 
But: if there was a previous life, he insists, there will be a next life. - 
Again, we say: that too is tragic. His proof of a previous life is no good. 
And even if it were, having had a previous life would not prove we would 
have still another life. Thirdly he claims the soul is more like something 
divine, and so cannot be dissipated. This in the view of some commentators, 
is edging close to the truth that our soul is spiritual, and so has no 
parts, and so cannot come apart. But it is not at all clear if Plato meant 
this. So at this point in the discussion, Plato has one of his associates 
say: This is hard and inconclusive. I wish some god would come and just 
give us the answer. But that did not happen for Plato, though it has 
happened for us, as we know. After a confused interlude, the argument 
resumes, saying that no form combines with an opposite form, e.g., life is 
the form opposite to death. So if death tries to approach the living soul, 
death would have to retreat. Again the argument is sadly worthless.

     Besides all this, Socrates, whom Plato claims to follow - and does to 
some extent - at the end of his trial in the Athenian court, after which he 
was condemned to death, addressed those jurors who had voted to acquit him. 
He said he saw two possibilities: Either death is like a long undisturbed 
sleep - which he says would be a blessing - or it is passage to a better 
place. But the long undisturbed sleep would be simply annihilation. 
Socrates did not really face up to it. Let us imagine that somewhere up 
ahead of me there is a cutoff point. When I reach that point, I just stop 
existing. After long ages will I make it back to existence? No. I simply am 
not. Really, that is the ultimate terror, complete nonexistence. John 
Milton, the great English poet, in his Paradise Lost imagines Satan finding 
himself in hell after losing the battle with Michael the Archangel. He 
looks about, and says: At least, I still exist.

     Aristotle, an even greater philosopher, spoke in such a confused 
manner about survival that many scholars today think he denied survival, 
while others think he affirmed it. Especially: one train of thought he 
presented would lead surely to a denial of survival.

     And so it is with so many other great minds. They simply could not 
find a solid proof for survival. So St. Paul said: They have no hope.

     Many pagan religions did hold for survival, but did not have any solid 
proof at all for their whole set of beliefs. Really, there is only one 
religion in all centuries and all lands that can provide a solidly reasoned 
proof that God sent a messenger, Christ, who proved he was sent, by 
miracles worked in a framework where there is a tie between the miracle and 
the claim, e.g., when he cured the paralytic to prove he had forgiven the 
man's sins. That he gathered a small group, the Twelve, told them to 
continue his teaching, and promised God would protect that teaching: 
"He who hears you, hears me." But no other religion, sect or whatever has 
ever made a solidly reasoned proof for its own teaching in general, or its 
belief in survival in particular.

     The general beliefs of Greeks and Romans did include survival, but it 
was a drab bare existence in Hades, a sort of underground cave, with hardly 
any light or anything else. Homer pictured Achilles, a great warrior killed 
in the Trojan war, as appearing to a friend after his death and saying; It 
is better to be the slave of a poor man on earth than to be a king among 
the dead.

     And we could go on and on, reporting on the tragic state of pagan 
thought. But we are much more blessed.

Development of Old Testament teaching on Survival:   In spite of many 
denials, it is entirely certain that the people of the Old Testament did 
know of survival after death. Our Lord Himself in replying to the imaginary 
case proposed by the Sadducees, of a woman who had seven husbands, not only 
said there would be no marriage in the next life, but added that God "is 
the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. He is not the God of the dead 
but of the living." The erroneous belief of some about early Jewish beliefs 
on survival comes from the conviction that the ancient Hebrews had a merely 
unitary concept of a human being: we consist of a body with the breath of 
life: no mention of a soul. It is likely that the ancient Hebrews did have 
some such a concept. And that could readily lead to saying: the body 
decays, the breath goes into the air - nothing is left. 

     But yet we know that the Hebrews held tenaciously to a belief in 
necromancy, divination by the dead. This was prohibited several times in 
the Old Testament (Lv. 19:31; 20:6; Dt. 18:10-11) yet they held on to it. 

     In holding on to a survival in spite of a unitary concept,
they were following correct theological method. In divine matters, we are 
apt at times to meet two conclusions, which seem to clash head on. We 
recheck our work, but they are still at hand. Then we must refrain from 
forcing either conclusion. We must hold to both, hoping that someone one 
sometime will find out how to reconcile the seeming opposites. So they seem 
to have had a concept of a unitary nature of man, but they also held for 
necromancy, which implies the dead survive.

     They did not know how to put these two things together until the time 
of Antiochus IV, Epiphanes (l75-64), yet they held on. Then, God led them 
by means of two things to see the truth. On the one hand, the terrible 
deaths of some of the martyrs under Antiochus forced them to see that at 
least in such cases they could not say that God would make all right before 
the end of the life of a person. (They had bravely tried to hold on to such 
things, e.g., in Psalm 73, which said in effect: I was distressed at the 
prosperity of the wicked until I came into the sanctuary and saw what an 
end they came to). At about the same time they came into contact with Greek 
thought which helped them to see there are two parts in a human, body and 
soul. (The Greek notions were not entirely correct - Plato held that the 
body is not a part of a man, just a prison; Aristotle held that the body is 
only the first matter, the soul the substantial form: He seemed at least 
unclear about whether or how the form could survive by itself after the 
dissolution of the body). Even though the Greek ideas were not fully 
correct, yet they would start the Jews thinking in the right direction. As 
a result, starting at about this time many of the Jews came to clearly 
understand survival. Others denied it, yet most of the Jews did accept it. 
Already before the time of Christ, the Pharisees and their followers 
clearly held afterlife: St. Paul proclaimed Himself such, cf. Acts 23:6.

     (Antiochus named himself Epiphanes, "a god who appears" to men. The 
Jews among themselves called him instead Epimanes: insane).

     Finally, Wisdom 3:1-8 clearly speaks of survival. Daniel 12:2-3 taught 
a resurrection, probably for all.

     And of course, the fullest and clearest revelation on immortality 
comes from Christ Himself. And it is also from Him that comes the clearest 
revelation of unending hell.

Philosophical proof of survival:   We really have no need of a merely 
reasoned proof of survival: the revelation of Jesus Christ tells us with 
wonderful clarity. Yet it is still worthwhile to give a rational proof of 
immortality.

     We will give it in a humorous, yet fully solid form. Here it is: I 
have a nice dog. He is neither tall nor low; neither long nor short, 
neither sharp-nosed nor pug-nosed, neither with long hair nor no hair, 
neither black nor brown or white or spotted. Have you seen my dog? All 
those who are listening really have such a dog. Whenever we see a live dog, 
we mentally take from it everything individual - the sort of things we 
mentioned. We have left, just plain dog. This is not a confused image, or 
image of any kind. It is a mental concept of just dog. -- But next, we will 
hire the world's greatest artist. We will let him pick his medium to work 
in: carving wood, casting bronze, carving marble, oil paints on canvas - or 
whatever. We will pay him any price he asks. But would he please made us an 
image of our dog. What would we get? Nothing at all. No material can hold 
my concept of dog. Therefore that part of me which does hold it is not 
material, it is instead spiritual. A spirit of course has no parts, so it 
cannot come apart, unless of course the Creator should want to annihilate 
it - He does not do that. So we are immortal.

     We did this with the concept of dog. We could have used a concept of 
goodness, truth, justice, beauty etc. It would still be true, even more 
forcefully true.

     Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and others would have given an arm and a 
leg to know what we have just seen. Tragically, they did not have it. Nor 
did they have the revelation of Christ. We should be so grateful for what 
God has given us in this matter as well as in other things.

What is it like to die?:
     We now live in time. God is in eternity. When we die do we go to 
eternity? We never stop existing. But if we take the word eternity in the 
strict sense, we do not go to eternity. That applies only to God Himself.

     Eternity is the kind of duration in which there is no change of any 
kind possible. So there is no past, and no future. We say: God made the 
world - a statement about the past. But to His eye, the day of creation is 
present. For He cannot change. To move from present to past or vice versa 
is a change. But He has no past at all. Of course we cannot get that into 
our dim minds - for even the most brilliant mind cannot understand 
everything about God, who is infinite. Similarly we say that Christ will 
return at the end - a statement about future. But to His eye, again, it is 
present, not future. So eternity is the simultaneous possession of fullest 
being, of fullest life. Again, if we ask: Does He foresee what I will do 
tomorrow? Yes, except that to Him it is not future, but present, even 
though it surely seems future to me.

     If we ask how He sees what I will decide at, for example, ten AM 
tomorrow, we could ask about passive or active knowledge. We know so many 
things passively: we take in information, we acquire something we did not 
have before. But He cannot change, cannot acquire, cannot take in. So He 
does not know in this passive way.

     To know something actively is to know the way a blind man knows. He 
knows a chair is moving because he is pushing it. Of course we cannot make 
God so limited. So He does not know in the active way either.

     What then? Really, we must say that He is above and beyond all our 
classifications and categories: We cannot say He was, or He will be. He 
simply IS. So at the burning bush He once said to Moses: "I am who am" 
(Exodus 3:14). We call this aspect of God transcendence, being above and 
beyond all our categories and classifications.

     Time:   As we said, we live in time. Time is the kind of duration in 
which all kinds of change are possible, and actually do happen. There can 
even be substantial, deep change. For example. I eat a piece of beef. It 
loses what we might call cow form, takes on my form. There is a really deep 
kind of change, a kind we call substantial change.

     But there is another kind of change that goes on all the time. Ahead 
of me is a moment I call future. But quickly it changes to present, then 
changes to past. It is restless, unending change. Actually, I am full of 
change, and surrounded by change. I am full of the change of metabolism, 
the process in which every cell in my body is constantly being torn down 
and built up again. I am surrounded by change, for I live on a planet that 
constantly turns on its axis, and constantly goes around the sun.

     No wonder then that the great Greek philosopher, Aristotle, said 
(Physics 4.11): "Time is a measure of change, on a scale of before and 
after."

     This of course does not explain everything about time, but it does 
help. For example, it does not at all explain how it is that time picks up 
speed. If I think of how long a school year was when I was in second grade, 
and compare that time to the past year, I see a tremendous difference. As 
we said, time picks up speed. Some have said that at age 7 a year is l/7 of 
my life. Now it is 1/70th. That is true, but it does not really explain the 
constant pickup of speed. Yet we know it is true. And this of course, on 
the side, leads us to another thought: this life is really very short, very 
fleeting. So we obviously should make it our great concern to take care of 
what comes after this life. So St. Paul told the Philippians (3:7-8): "The 
things that used to be gain to me, I now consider loss. Really I have come 
to consider everything as loss in the light of the tremendous knowledge of 
Our Lord Jesus Christ, for whose sake I have taken the loss of all things, 
and consider them as rubbish, so I may gain Christ." St. Paul does not mean 
that the things of this world are junk. Not at all. He knows that God, when 
He made each thing, as we read in Genesis 1, said it was good. We know too 
that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity took on a created nature, 
in the incarnation, and use created things - hence a marvelous dignity for 
created things.

     But there are two ways of looking at created things, on a relative 
scale, or on an absolute scale. On the absolute scale, looking at them as 
we just said, in themselves, they are very good, for God made them good. 
But on the relative scale, in comparison to the things of eternity, they 
are so much rubbish. Saints have sometimes spoken of scorning the world, 
having contempt for it. They mean that in the way we have been explaining, 
that in 
comparison to eternity, nothing of this world seems worth anything.

     Aevum:   Death means leaving time. We said, we do not go into eternity 
in the strict sense. Yes, we will always exist and live, but we mean that 
we do not become such that we have had no past - we have had that for 
certain. We go into a kind of duration for which there is no English word. 
In Latin it is called aevum. The usual English for that would be age - but 
that translation does not help. So we attempt to describe it.

     It is a kind of duration that will never end. In it there is no deep 
change, or substantial change possible at all. This applies to most things. 
But is it the very nature of things that makes this apply also to a 
spiritual will so that after death our wills cannot change? We know that 
they cannot, as a matter of fact. Or does that impossibility of change come 
from positive decree of God? The Church has not told us. But we do know for 
certain that in whatever way, our time for changing is over when we cross 
the line into aevum. Hence whatever attitude of will towards God a soul 
takes across the line into aevum is permanent. So that both heaven and hell 
are and must be permanent, except that there may be a stopover, as it were, 
in purgatory, before reaching the full blown life in aevum.

      But accidental, shallow change, is possible though it does not go on 
constantly, like the restless succession of future - present - past we 
described. No, there is a great rest from all that. Yet there is possible a 
different kind of change, as we said, that takes place in purgatory. We 
will speak about that presently.

     But we wanted to know what it is like to die. We can find out many 
things by using theology, philosophy, and psychology. We are going to do 
that.

     At death, I leave this restless constant change that we call time. For 
my contact with that change is the body, which I then lose, until the 
resurrection restores it - then it will be in glorified, wonderful form. To 
lose contact with the constant change is what it means to live out of time.

     Do the lights as it were go out then, when I die? Far from it. They go 
on, with a brilliance I never knew before. Here is the reason. My 
intelligence now consists of two parts: first, the material brain. That is 
marvelous device, having perhaps a hundred billions of neurons and a 
hundred trillions of connections or synapses, all operating on both 
electricity and chemical neurotransmitters. The second component is the 
power, natural to a spirit (my soul is a spirit) to know. That power is 
enormous, far more brilliant than any genius of this world. But - in the 
present life, that power of the spiritual intelligence is held down, 
limited by the material brain. That material brain is a marvel, but yet it 
is very poor compared to the spiritual power of knowing. In the present 
life the two are tied together so that if something happens to the material 
brain, for example, an accident that damages my head, the spiritual 
intellect will not function.
But at death that connection is snipped. Then the power of the spiritual 
intelligence which was held down before is no longer restrained. It bursts 
forth, and I know what God is like in a way I have never known before. For 
I do carry across the line with me the data I gained in the present life on 
what God is like. But then I will understand those things in a way I never 
could in this life. This is true even if I do not at once reach the 
beatific vision of God, which is heaven. I may need a stopover, as it were, 
in purgatory - unless, heaven forbid, there should be eternal hell!

     Furthermore, my understanding of God here is held down by my five 
senses, which constantly bring in the distracting information on everything 
about me, telling me that this is the really real world, there is nothing 
else. But then all that tumult will be stilled, and I will know the truth.

     Then, knowing God more than ever, even before reaching the vision of 
Him, I will most intensely desire Him. If I have left this world with my 
will basically in accord with His, then at least eventually I will get to 
see Him. If my will is basically opposed to His will - then there is hell. 
Much more on this later.

Near death experiences:   While there have been some reports from earlier 
times, in the past 15 years reports on near death experiences have 
multiplied. Irresponsible tabloids sometimes report such things claiming 
they are proof of survival after death.

     A careful investigation of the medical records of 58 patients who had 
such experiences, reported in the British medical journal Lancet (Nov. 10, 
1990. vol. 336. pp. 1175-77) clearly rules out such a notion that they prove 
survival after death, if indeed any proof is needed. For if a person were 
really dead, if the soul had really separated from the body, no medical 
means could recall that soul. But this investigation, by J.E. Owens, Ph.D., 
E.W. Cook, M.A., and I. Stevenson, M.D. found that out of the 58 patients 
who had such experiences, medical records showed 30 patients were not 
medically near death, even though the patients commonly thought they were.
     

     The experiences reported were as follows: enhanced perception of light 
occurred in 75% of 28 patients really near death, but in only 12 or 40% of 
those not near death. The experience of going through a tunnel was found in 
only 46% of 46 patients, of whom 12 had been near death, while 9 had not (a 
non-significant difference). Enhanced cognitive function was found in 62% 
of patients who were actually near death, but 81% of those not actually 
near death reported no cognitive enhancement. Some reported diminished 
cognitive enhancement: 62% reported no diminished cognitive function, but 
25% reported less control over thoughts. 

     As to emotions, 81% reported positive emotions, independently of 
whether or not they were actually near death. But we note that reports of 
many positive emotions was significantly related to the experience of 
enhanced light: Among 30 patients reporting enhanced light, 17 (57%) also 
reported positive emotions. As to negative emotions, 75% reported an 
absence of these. The most common negative emotion was indifference. Out of 
both those near and those not near death, 68% reported the feeling of 
having left the body and seeing it from above. Was there a sort of life 
review in memory? Some such memories were reported in 27% of 22 patients 
who were near death, and in 4 (17%) of 23 patients not actually near death. 
Most patients reported only a few memories.

     Maurice S. Rawlings, M.D., a Cardiologist, in a book, to Hell and Back 
(Nelson, Nashville, 1993) gives many interesting reports. He reports pp. 39-
40) what he calls a typical good clinical death experience (in contrast to 
the "hellish" type): the person seems to himself to leave the body, and to 
have a stronger sense of awareness and euphoria, often sees the likeness of 
himself left behind. So, looking down he may recall details of the room, 
but cannot communicate with the living. Not always can the man recall 
events in the room (p.72). He discovers another world, sometimes going into 
it directly, sometimes through a tunnel. Then he may encounter a "being of 
light" and may - this does not always happen - have a review of his life. 
There may be a reunion with relatives or friends who have died before in a 
world that is wonderfully beautiful. But there is a barrier, such as fence, 
a wall, a river which he cannot pass. If he tries to pass, he is returned 
to his body, sometimes with the idea that it was not yet his time. In the 
pleasant cases, the person often wishes he had not returned to his body; in 
the hellish cases he is relieved to get back. Dr. Rawlings asserts that 
perhaps half of all persons have hellish experiences (p.73)

     Dr. Rawlings does not report anything like a scene in which the soul 
is judged. Thus, even souls that are very sinful seem to be welcomed by the 
light (p.61). Further, experiences such as described have been found to 
happen in other faiths and cultures (pp. 61, 62, 72). Men of other faiths 
may see the light at the end of the tunnel. Hindus may seem to see Yamdoot, 
the death spirit. But the figure of light never identifies itself as 
Brahama, Vishnu, Shiva, Krishna, Buddha, Allah, Matreya or any other deity 
(compare Rawlings' words on p.79).

     Rawlings also reports that in some cases measurements of oxygen in the 
brain of these patients show no deprivation of oxygen (pp. 94, 136).

     He further tells (pp. 132-33) of an experimenter, Robert Monroe, who 
worked with Dr. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross, who Rawlings says has been involved 
in spiritism (pp. 86, 106, 152, 157).  Rawlings says Monroe used what he 
calls a sort of time machine, with cables and sound equipment running 
through the house from a central command, and a geodesic chamber of 
pyramidal glass.  Monroe claims he went instantly, by this means, from 
Charlottesville to Stanford University where there was an assembly of 
parapsychologists present.  Monroe then returned to Charlottesville, and 
made a phone call to California, and was able to correctly describe what he 
saw there.  Dr.  Rawlings clearly thinks spirits, evil, were involved in this 
sort of thing.  He thinks they are involved in some other experiences.  On 
p. 138 Rawlings says some have seemed to themselves to meet Jesus, but later 
found it was a counterfeit of Jesus. 

     Elizabeth Kubler-Ross in an article "Death does not exist" (Co-
Evolution Quarterly no.  14.  Summer 1977, reprinted from The Wholistic 
Health Handbook, Berkeley Holistic Health Center, And/or Press, Berkeley, 
CA 1978) says that if you have loved someone who has died, then if you have 
such an experience, you are likely to see that person.  She tells of a 
twelve your old girl who told her father of such a beautiful experience she 
did not want to come back.  She had seen her brother.  Said she did not have 
a brother.  Then her father told her three months before she was born she 
did have a brother, who died.  Dr.  Ross says that so many see Jesus, but 
only if they are Christian.  A Jew would not see Him.  She speaks of a 
decision, not precisely a judgment, in which the soul judges itself and 
reviews every action of life and makes its own heaven or hell. 

     Most researchers have suggested one of three interpretations of these 
experiences: transcendental, physiological, and psychological.  The authors 
of the article in Lancet, Owens, Cook, and Stevenson see some support for 
each view.  The psychological proposal gets some support from those who were 
not actually near death: their experiences seem to have been precipitated 
by the belief that they were near death.  The physiological interpretation 
is helped by the fact that certain features occurred significantly more 
among patients who were really near death than among those who were not.  
This includes chiefly experiences of enhanced light and enhanced cognitive 
powers.  Most striking was the experience of enhanced light, going along 
with strongly positive emotions during the experience.  Just one item from 
the survey would help the transcendental interpretation: patients who were 
really near death reported more enhanced cognitive function at that time.  
Dr.  Rawlings seems to think evil spirits are involved, noting that even 
those who know themselves to be sinners are welcomed by the light - and 
that in some cases, a figure first thought to be Jesus, turned out not to 
be Him at all. 

     What about religious color in these experiences? The studies just 
reviewed would not support a religious interpretation.  But another study 
"Distressing Near-Death Experiences" by Bruce Greyson M. D.  and Evans Bush, 
M. A.  in Psychiatry (vol.  55, Feb.  1992, pp. 95-110) brings in just a few 
instances with something like a religious aspect.  The study was based on 50 
accounts sent to the authors. 

     Only one example reported in the Psychiatry article had any religious 
color.  It was that of a Jewish woman after an auto accident.  She thought 
she was in a circle of light, and looked down on the scene of the accident, 
saw herself trapped and unconscious.  She felt a hand touch her, and even 
though she was Jewish, she thought it was Jesus.  She never wanted to leave 
him and that place.  But he led her from a side of bliss to a side of 
misery.  He made her look, and she found it ugly and disgusting.  People were 
blackened and sweaty, groaning in pain, chained to their spots.  She saw her 
two boys plus a girl which was not hers calling, "Mommie".  She cried she 
did not want to leave Jesus but knew she had to leave.  Several years later 
she had a baby, and says she knew it would be the little girl she saw in 
her experience. 

     As to distressing experiences there seem to be three quite different 
types of distressing experiences: (1) those in which the phenomenology is 
much like the peaceful near-death experiences, but which still are 
interpreted by the person as unpleasant; (2) a sense of nonexistence or 
eternal void, which tells the patient that everything they thought was real 
is only an illusion, a cruel joke; (3) seeming to see hellish landscapes 
and things.  Sometimes these change in their course to peaceful experiences.  
A Gallup poll in 1982 estimated that only 1% of near-death experiencers 
reported a sense of hell or torment.  Dr.  Rawlings seems to think that to 
get hellish reports, an interview right after revival is required.  

     The contrast between the views of Ross and the others mentioned here 
remind one of an article by A.  Kellehear, "Culture, biology and the near-
death experience.  A reappraisal" in Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 
181 (3): 148-56. 1993.  It says that life review and the tunnel sensation 
appear to be culture-bound phenomena, largely confined to societies where 
historical religions are dominant. 

     What conclusions can we reach? All is tentative: 

     1) The persons in question are surely not dead, for medicine could not 
bring back a departed soul; further many have had these experiences when 
they were not even near death, even though they thought they were.  

     2) They nearly always lack any religious color, and there seems to be 
acceptance by the light of even those who know themselves to be great 
sinners.  

     3) Perhaps half have peaceful experiences, and many at least lose 
their fear of death.  In the peaceful experiences there is nothing to hint 
at the existence of purgatory.  Could we suppose about half of all the 
persons were to go direct to heaven without purgatory? 

     4) Dr.  Rawlings suspects evil spirits, who may wish to put into a soul 
a false sense of security.  On the other hand, that theory would find it 
hard to account for the hellish experiences, unless we would suppose that 
evil spirits are being deliberately confusing, which is quite possible.  St.  
Paul in 2 Cor 11:14 says that Satan transforms himself at times into an 
angel of light.  It does not mean, of course, that he becomes an angel of 
light, but that he takes on that appearance to deceive people.  He can even 
promote some really good things, provided that in the long run, he hopes 
for more evil than good.  He was doing that in St.  Paul's day, in our day 
she is still doing it today, in quite a variety of things.  

     A book, by Betty J.  Eadie.  Embraced by the Light (Gold Leaf Press, 
Placersville, CA 1992) with a foreword by Melvin Morse, M. D. , claims Eadie 
saw three Guardian angels looking like monks.  She claims to have learned 
that we pre-existed before our earthly life, and were present at creation, 
and that we would get further spiritual growth from coming to earth, but 
birth is a forgetting of our former life.  She thought Jesus was a being 
separate from God, and that there is no one true church.  This sounds much 
like the fancies of the ancient Greek Plato and Origen, who accepted much 
of Plato's ideas.  For certain, the ideas are false, for we have full proof 
from our apologetics that these things are not so.  Evil spirits today are 
for certain trying to promote indifferentism: all churches are the same. 

     The experiences however would seem to come from either suggestion 
based on reading, or from evil spirits.  Dr.  Morse asserted he had 
identified the part of the brain involved in her experience.  This is quite 
possible.  For different parts of the brain are involved in different 
activities, and some have been identified.  But to find a certain area in 
the brain is active does not prove what the source of the activation was: 
it could be a good spirit, and evil spirit, or even just autosuggestion.  
Dr.  Rawlings, on pp. 137-39 tells of a woman, Johanna Michaelson, who 
cultivated altered states of mind.  She obtained two spirit guides, Sarah 
and Jesus.  They at first had a holy radiance.  But one day the beautiful 
figures changed into horrible faces.  It seems, what she thought was Jesus 
was really the face of Satan.  Both good and evil spirits have, as part of 
their merely natural powers, the ability to work on our interior and 
exterior senses.  They can readily give impressions, which can activate 
certain parts of the brain. 

     Further, different conditions in the brain can serve as the somatic 
resonance to different conditions.  Science News of April 16, 1994, pp. 248-
49 reported that PET scans of persons with autism showed that normal 
persons have a cooler anterior singulate compared to the active anterior 
singulate of the withdrawn person.  The brain portions involved seem to be 
the somatic resonance to the mental conditions.  Further, Science News of 
August 20,1983, pp. 122-25 reports a chemist from Argonne laboratories took 
hair samples of violent criminals, found strong correlation between certain 
highs and lows in trace elements and violent behavior.  It does not mean 
they had no free will.  It does mean their somatic resonance could strongly 
predispose them in an evil direction.  Cf.  Discover magazine, August, 1992, 
pp. 11-12 for similar results.  

     (As to somatic resonance, it is a term from modern psychology.  Since 
we are made of matter and spirit, body and soul, and the two are so closely 
joined as to be one person, therefore if I have a condition on either of 
the two sides, there should be a parallel condition on the other side: a 
resonance.  When the resonance is on the bodily side - most usual - it is 
labeled somatic resonance).  

     Dr.  Rawlings reports (p. 157) that Dr.  Kubler-Ross has gone into 
spiritism and says she has spirit guides, and has even recorded their 
voices on audio-tape.  We can see the implications for the authenticity of 
messages to Betty Eadie. 
 
     Morse wanted to conclude that Eadie's experiences were real, not 
hallucinations.  But that conclusion will not hold.  As we said, it is 
possible to identify the portions of the brain whose activity that serves 
as somatic resonance to kinds of thought and feelings.  This tells us 
nothing of the cause the provoked the reactions in the brain. 

     5) It could be that some experiences are basically natural phenomena, 
but that evil spirits could enter at least after a start.  We might compare 
some cases of extra sensory perception.  One investigator of ESP, Harold 
Sherman, who had studied ESP, seemed to have found principles for making a 
person more sensitive to ESP.  But then after some time in experiments, his 
reports seemed to indicate an evil spirit had entered in the later phases.  

     When we say they could be basically natural phenomena, at least at the 
start, we are thinking of the remark of St.  Thomas (I. 12. 11. c. ): "The more 
our soul is withdrawn from corporal things, the more it is capable of 
abstract things.  Hence in dreams and states removed from the senses of the 
body, divine revelations are perceived the more, along with foresight of 
future things." Cf.  Genesis 49: 1-27. 

     (Rawlings himself (pp. 132,244) holds for the simplistic Lutheran 
system, of once taking Jesus as your personal Savior, and then being 
secure.  This of course is false). 

Probation ends with death:   This is certain since at once after death 
comes the particular judgment, which decides the eternal fate of the soul.  
This same fact rules out any room for reincarnation. 

     Second general Council of Lyons, 1274.  DS 856-57:
"Those souls who after receiving sacred Baptism have incurred no stain of 
sin, and also those who after contracting a stain have been cleansed, 
whether still in their body or not, are received into heaven at once.  But 
the souls that departed in mortal sin or with only original sin, go 
straight into hell, to be punished with different punishments."

     Benedict XII, Constitution, Benedictus Deus, Jan 29, 1336, DS 1000: 
". . . we define that according to the usual ordinance of God the souls of all 
holy persons who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, in which there was nothing to be cleansed,. . .  right after 
their death and the cleansing mentioned in those who needed it, even before 
the resumption of their bodies and the general judgment, after the passion 
and death of our Lord Jesus Christ saw and see the divine essence with an 
intuitive and face to face vision, with no creature in between. . . ."

     COMMENTS: 1) Immediate vision after judgment and purification: Pope 
John XXII, as we see from the introduction of DS 990, in a sermon at 
Avignon had said that there was a delay in the vision before the 
resurrection.  This was done only in a sermon, and so was not dogmatically 
definitive.  The same Pope retracted this in DS 990.  Then his successor, 
Benedict XII, formally defined as above.  The view that there was a delay 
was found in many, not nearly all, of the Fathers, as we shall see below. 

     2) The case of Emperor Trajan:   We note the definition says heaven or 
hell happen "according to the usual ordinance of God." So room was 
explicitly given for God to do something different at times, outside of His 
general ordinances.  In a doubtful work of St.  John Damascene, De iis qui in 
fide dormierunt (PG 95. 247-78) we read that by the prayers of St.  Gregory 
the Great, the Roman Emperor Trajan was brought back to life after being in 
hell.  As we indicated, the story is doubtful and found in a doubtful work 
of St.  John Damascene.  St.  Thomas does not mention it in his Summa but in 
an earlier Commentary on the Sentences he wrote (in 4 d.  q. 2.  a. 2.  qc 1 ad 
5): "as to the matter of Trajan, it could be probably thought in the 
following way: that by the prayers of Blessed Gregory, he [Trajan] was 
restored to life and there attained grace, by which he had remission of 
sins, and so immunity from punishment."

     3) Prayer for salvation of those who have died:   The item of #2 above 
is highly dubious.  However we could reasonably make a speculation about 
something that is different, yet having some resemblance.  We know that in 
defining the Immaculate Conception, Pope Pius IX said that that grace was 
given her, "in view of the [anticipated] merits of Christ Jesus." Of 
course, God, for whom everything is present, could readily count the merits 
of Christ for her even though those merits had not yet been obtained.  Hence 
we could ask: Could it also be that in the case of someone who lived a bad 
life, relatives by their prayers and penances, offered even after his 
death, might obtain that a special grace would have been given to that soul 
before death? Really, the old text of the Requiem Mass often prayed for the 
salvation of the one already dead.  We could explain this as a sort of 
dramatization, and compare it to the old ritual of the ordination of a 
priest, in which, after receiving all the powers of priesthood, at the end 
he comes up to hear the words: Receive the power to forgive sins.  But he 
already has received that power.  It could be that the text may be 
understood in the sense we just explained as a possibility: that God might 
have taken into account by anticipation prayers that would be offered after 
the actual death of someone. 
     4) Unbaptized infants who die:   The text of the Council of Lyons 
cited above speaks of those who die in original sin going to hell.  The 
Latin word used is infernum, which means the realm of the dead, and need 
not mean the hell of the damned.  As to the word poena, often translated as 
punishment, in Latin it need not mean the positive infliction of suffering, 
but could stand for only the loss or deprivation of some good.  If 
unbaptized infants are deprived of the vision of God, that is a poena, but 
would not have to involve any suffering.  We are certain of this from the 
teaching of Pope Pius IX, in Quanto conficiamur moerore, August 10, 1863: 
"God. . . in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to 
be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of 
voluntary fault." Of course, the infants do not have any voluntary fault.  
Hence they cannot be in the hell of the damned.  Tragically, Leonard Feeney 
cited this text of Pius IX, and, in effect, ridiculed it and charged Pius 
IX with the heresy of Pelagianism, saying (in Thomas M.  Sennott, They 
Fought the Good Fight, Catholic Treasures, Monrovia CA.  1987, pp. 305-06): 
"To say that God would never permit anyone to be punished eternally unless 
he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is nothing short of 
Pelagianism. . . .  If God cannot punish eternally a human being who has not 
incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then, for example can He punish 
eternally babies who die unbaptized?" The teaching of Pius IX agrees with 
the teaching of St.  Thomas in De malo q. 5 a. 3 ad 4: "The infants are 
separated from God perpetually, in regard to the loss of glory, which they 
do not know, but not in regard to participation in natural goods, which 
they do know. . . .  That which they have through nature, they possess without 
pain." So when the Synod of Pistoia taught that the idea of St.  Thomas was 
"a Pelagian fable", Pius IX, in 1794, condemned that teaching of Pistoia: 
DS 2626.  

     Vatican II, in the Decree on Ecumenism #6 taught: ". . . if 
anything. . . even in the way of expressing doctrine - which is to be 
carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith - has been expressed less 
accurately, at an opportune time it should be rightly and duly restored." 
Paul VI agreed, and in Mysterium fidei Sept.  3, 1965, 23-24.  AAS 57,758, 
said we must still not say the old language was false, only that it could 
be improved.  Surely that is the case with the language of such texts as the 
Council of Lyons. 

     The new Catechism of the Catholic Church, in # 1261, after carefully 
explaining that those who without fault do not find the Church, can still 
be saved, quoted the words of Christ (Mk 10:14) "Let the little children 
come to me, and do not prevent them," added: "[this] permits us to have 
hope that there is a way to salvation for infants who die without Baptism."

     Many theological attempts have been made in our time to find such a 
way.  Let us offer something a bit new here: First, as St.  Thomas said 
(III. 68. 2. c): "His [God's] hands are not tied by [or: to] the Sacraments". 

     Theologians commonly hold that God provided for the salvation of those 
who died before Christ in some way.  Girls of course were not circumcised, 
cf.  III. 70. 4. c): "By circumcision there was given to boys the power to come 
to glory." It was enough to belong to the people of God.  In a similar way, 
says (1 Cor 7:14) that the unbelieving mate in a marriage of a Christian 
and a pagan is consecrated or made holy through union with the Christian 
who does come under the Covenant: "Otherwise your children would be 
unclean, but as it is, they are holy" So they are holy precisely by 
belonging to a family with even one party Christian.  Paul does not at this 
point mention Baptism as the reason for their status - he speaks of the 
mere fact that they belong to a family with one Christian parent.  (The word 
holy seems to reflect Hebrew qadosh which does not mean high moral 
perfection, but coming under the covenant).  Similarly the Jews believed 
that merely belonging to the People of God insured their salvation, unless 
they positively ruled themselves out by the gravest sins: cf.  Genesis 
Rabbah 48. 7: "In the world to come, Abraham will sit on the doormat of 
Gehinnom and will not allow a circumcised Jew to enter." and Sanhedrin 
10. 1: "All Israel has a share in the age to come." The latter text adds 
that there are three groups who do not have a share: those who deny the 
resurrection, those who deny the Law is from heaven, and Epicureans (Cf.  
E. P.  Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism pp. 147-82). 

     St.  Paul insists in Romans 3:28-20 that if God had not provided for 
those who did not know the Law, He would not be their God.  So He must have 
provided, and He did it through the means of faith.  Could we argue that if 
God makes no provision for unbaptized infants, He would not act as their 
God? It seems yes. 

     Further, St.  Paul insists many times over (Romans 5:15-17) that the 
redemption is superabundant, more so than the fall.  But since God did 
provide for infants before Christ, if He did not do so after Christ, the 
redemption would not be superabundant, it would be a hellish liability for 
infants and millions of others.  Really, Feeney and those of his followers 
who insist that God sends unbaptized babies to hell - along with countless 
millions of others who never had a chance to hear of the Church - they make 
God incredibly harsh, even a monster.  God is not a monster, a God of that 
description could not exist as a God at all.  So logically Feenyism calls 
for atheism.  And in the parable of the talents (Lk 19:22) when the one 
servant told his master he hid the talent since he knew the master was 
harsh, the Master replied that he would judge the servant according to his 
own evidence.  Since he thought the master was harsh, He would be harsh.  

     Also, God shows great concern for the objective moral order (cf.  the 
appendix on sedaqah in my commentary on St.  Paul).  There is some reason to 
think He has also great concern for the objective physical order.  Thus in 
the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham explains (Lk 16:24): 
"Remember that you in your lifetime received good things, and Lazarus in 
like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in 
anguish." There was no mention of sins on the part of the rich man or 
virtue in the poor man, just the reversal of the objective physical order.  
Similarly in the series of four woes in the Great Discourse (Luke 6:24-16), 
there is a reversal for those who were rich, for those who were full, for 
those who could laugh, for those who were well spoken of.  There is, again, 
no mention of moral virtue, just of reversal of the objective physical 
order.  Also, in the account of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) the excuse 
of those on the left that they did not know they did not help the Judge is 
not accepted. 

     So could it be then that God decides: These infants according to my 
plan should have had many goods things in life.  They were deprived of all - 
and in the case of abortion, were cut to pieces savagely - so now there 
should be a reversal. 

Delay of the beatific vision before the death of Christ:   The text of 
Benedict XII, cited above, implies that the just who died before Christ, 
who had received, by something like purgatory, the cleansing of all their 
faults, still were not admitted to the beatific vision.  This was taught 
quite explicitly by Innocent III in an Epistle to Humbert, Bishop of Arles 
in 1201 (DS 780) which said that even though circumcision remitted original 
sin, yet, "no one came to the kingdom of heaven, which was closed until the 
death of Christ." The same idea was common in the Fathers of the Church 
even earlier: cf.  Dictionnaire de theologie Catholique,  I. 114.  Cf.  St.  
Thomas, Summa, Suppl.  69. 7. c. 

     If we do not keep this fact in mind, we will make some sad mistakes in 
understanding the Old Testament.  Many have been led to charge that the Old 
Testament knew nothing of survival after death, until the persecution of 
Antiochus Of Syria early in the second century B. C. 

     There were and are many lines in the Old Testament that would be easy 
to misunderstand if one did not know the character of the Limbo of the 
Patriarchs. 

     Thus, Psalm 6:6 said, "In death there is no remembrance of thee, in 
the underworld (Sheol) who can give thee praise?" And Isaiah 38:18-19 
speaks similarly: "For Sheol cannot thank thee, death cannot praise thee; 
those who go down to the pit cannot hope for thy faithfulness." Here we 
meet the same Hebrew word for praise (hallel) that is also found in 1 Chron 
16:4 and 2 Chron 5:13 for the grand liturgical praise of God.  That of 
course did not go on in Sheol, the underworld.  When Isaiah says they cannot 
hope for God's faithfulness, he refers to faithfulness to the covenant, 
which was for earth, not for the afterlife.  Qoheleth 9:10 said: "Whatever 
your hand finds to do, do it strongly, for there is no work or thought of 
knowledge or wisdom in Sheol.  Of course the dead do not work.  As to 
knowledge: they have no natural knowledge of what goes on "under the sun", 
on earth.  Hence Qoheleth 9:6: "They have no more share in all that is done 
under the sun." Of course, they do not return to earthly life in its 
present form.  Really, there are two kinds of statements in Qoheleth.  One 
kind, 2:14; 3:19-21; 9:5-6 and 9:10, seem strange if one did not know the 
second series, plus what we have said about the Limbo of the Patriarchs.  
The second series texts all imply a future judgment: 3:17; 8:12-14; 12:13-
14. 

     Yet there are some remarkable OT texts that seem so very different 
from the drab statements.  The RSV of the disputed text of Job 19:25 has: "I 
know that my Redeemer lives, and at last he will stand upon the earth. . .  
then from my flesh I shall see God." The newer NRSV is much the same in 
sense.  Now 19:25 could not refer to relief in this life, for in 7:6-7 Job 
had said: "My eye will never again see good." Isaiah 25:8 foretells that, 
"He will swallow up death for ever, the Lord will wipe away tears from all 
faces." And again Is 16:29: "Thy dead shall live, their bodies shall rise." 
The original JBC on this verse (I.  p. 277) admitted it does speak explicitly 
of a resurrection.  Both texts of Isaiah belong to the 8th century B. C.  
Psalm 17:15 asserts: "As for me, I will behold your face in righteousness; 
when I awake I will be satisfied with seeing your form." M.  Dahood, in the 
introductions to his three volumes on the Psalms in Anchor Bible proposes 
revising the translations of about 30 Psalm lines, with the help of 
Ugaritic, a related Semitic language.  If accepted, they would show a belief 
in future retribution much earlier than is commonly supposed.  His work, 
however, has not met with much acceptance.  The more usual view is that in 
OT times the Jews did not know of future retribution until about the time 
of the persecution by Antiochus IV of Syria. 

Delay in the Beatific Vision even after Christ:   We saw above that Pope 
Benedict XII defined that those who are just and have been properly 
purified will reach the Beatific Vision right after that.  But in the 
Patristic age there were hesitations, uncertainties, and denials. 

     St.  Justin the Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 5 said that: "The souls of 
the just remain in a better place, the souls of the wicked and evil in a 
worse place, waiting for the time of the [last] judgment." 

     Tertullian, On the Soul 55:   "Heaven is open to no one, as long as 
the earth is still as it is. . . .  For with the passing of the world, the 
kingdom of heaven will be opened." Again, in his work On the Resurrection 
of the Flesh, 43: "No one who goes on pilgrimage from the body at once 
stays with the Lord, except from the prerogative of martyrdom".  

     St.  Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5. 31:   "Souls will go to an invisible 
place, set for them by God, and there will stay until the resurrection." 

     Origen, Homily on Leviticus 7:   "Not even the apostles have yet 
received their joy, even they are waiting so that I may be a sharer in 
their joy." 

     We could cite more texts of the same sort.  But there are not enough of 
the Fathers to make this an official teaching.  Yet there are enough to show 
the situation.  This is not really strange, for at the last supper, Our Lord 
promised the Holy Spirit, (Jn 16:13) who would lead them to all truth.  The 
Church has not understood this to mean new public revelations, but rather 
to mean an ever growing penetration into the things contained at the start 
in the deposit of revelation. 

     The Immaculate Conception is a strong instance, for there are only two 
Scripture texts that could imply it (we mean that without the help of the 
Church we could not be certain of their meaning).  Nor do the Fathers help 
much: the New Eve comparison could have been taken as ground to deduce it, 
by saying that since the first Eve had an immaculate start, the New Eve, 
who was to reverse the damage, should also have an immaculate start.  But no 
Father ever made that deduction.  Many, not all, spoke of her surpassing 
holiness, which again could imply an Immaculate Conception, but would not 
have to do so.  St.  Bernard of Clairvaux around 1100 denied it, and then 
most of the great theologians of the Middle Ages, even St.  Thomas, followed 
suit.  The tide began to turn mostly from the work of Duns Scotus.  After 
that the Popes began to intervene with texts of varying clarity, until by 
about a century and a half before the definition, the whole Church 
peacefully believed the Immaculate Conception.  

Final perseverance:   To hold to the state of grace even to death there is 
need of the special grace of final perseverance.  For, if I look ahead to 
the next time I will have a temptation, and ask: Will God then offer me the 
grace needed to overcome it? The answer is yes.  And it is yes for each 
instance for the rest of my life.  However, for the sustained effort over 
all that time, something added is needed.  We call that the grace of final 
perseverance. 

     There are many grave errors in theology today.  Earlier in this century 
there were other errors, not so numerous, not covering nearly so much 
ground, but some of them extremely bad.  One of them is an error about the 
grace of final perseverance.  It said that God might decide simply not to 
give that grace, even without finding grave sin in a soul.  Then that soul 
would be lost.  This is grossly insulting to God, and a flat contradiction 
of Scripture.  For St.  Paul three times insists that God offers this grace 
to absolutely everyone.  Thus in 1 Thes 5:23-24: "May the God of peace 
Himself make you holy, perfect, and may your spirit, soul and body be kept 
whole, without blame, at the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ.  Faithful is 
the one who calls you: and He will do it." Similarly in 1 Cor 1:8-9: "He 
will also strengthen you until the end, without reproach on the day of Our 
Lord Jesus Christ.  God is faithful, through whom you have been called into 
sharing with His Son, Jesus Christ Our Lord." And in Philippians 1:6: 
"Being confident of this: that He who began a good work in you will bring 
it to completion, until the day of Our Lord Jesus Christ."

Death as punishment for sin:   God had threatened Adam and Eve with death 
if they sinned (Gen 2:17).  So St.  Paul in Romans 5:12 wrote: "Just as 
through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin, death, and so 
death came on all men, inasmuch as all have sinned. . . ." They sinned, and so 
death came upon them, as the threatened punishment.  It was both natural 
death and spiritual death, in that their souls lost the life of grace. 

     Should we say that in us, the descendants of Adam, death is also a 
punishment for original sin?

     To reply we need to recall what Vatican II said, as we quoted it 
above, in the Decree on Ecumenism.  It told us that sometimes early language 
on a doctrine may need improvement.  We do not mean the older language is 
false, but we do mean that it could and should be improved. 

     This is very specially true on the matter of original sin.  Earlier 
language spoke of a stain of sin - a metaphorical term, for the soul, a 
spirit, cannot take on a stain.  It also spoke of a new baby as being in the 
"state of sin".  Those words are true in the analogical sense.  When we apply 
the same words to two things, in senses partly the same, and partly 
different, we have the analogical sense.  If we compare the new baby with an 
adult who has just committed a mortal sin, there is something the same - 
both souls lack grace which they should have - but the baby lacks it 
without any personal fault at all, while the adult lacks it through his own 
grave personal fault. 

     Pope John Paul II in a General audience of Oct.  1, 1986 gave us great 
help on this: "In context, it is evident that original sin in Adam's 
descendants has not the character of personal guilt.  It is the privation of 
sanctifying grace. . . .  It is a 'sin of nature' only analogically comparable 
to 'personal sin. '" A privation is the lack of something that should be 
there.  But as the pope says, there is "not the character of personal 
guilt." Hence if a baby were to die in that state, we saw above from the 
words of St.  Thomas Aquinas, that it would not suffer any positive pain at 
all, since without personal guilt, there is no positive pain.  (If Latin 
poena is used in some texts, it means a loss of a good, not a positive 
infliction of pain, as we saw above). 

     So now, to answer the question about death in us as punishment for 
original sin, we work in parallel to the above.  It was a positive 
punishment for Adam and Eve, for their own personal guilt.  But in us it is 
merely a loss, a privation of a gift which God had given Adam and Eve, with 
the intention that they should pass the gift on to their descendants.  The 
gift was freedom from bodily death.  Since we do not inherit that gift, we 
do die.  Death really is natural to a composite being, made of body and 
soul: the two can separate.  So only analogically can death in us be called 
a punishment, just as it is correct to speak of only analogically of the 
state of sin. 

     Of course, we do ratify the sin of Adam by our personal sins, and that 
personal sin does deserve death.  This seems to be the sense of the last 
words of Romans 5:12, cited above: "inasmuch as all have sinned".  Romans 
5:12 does speak of original sin, as the Council of Trent defined (DS 1514).  
But the Council explicitly said we must understand the text of St.  Paul "as 
the Catholic Church spread throughout the world has always understood it." 
It has always understood that in the text as a whole, St.  Paul speaks of 
original sin.  But the sense of the last words in the verse "in as much as 
all have sinned" has been understood very differently by the Eastern 
Fathers, who all understood it as we have just done, as compared to the 
Western Fathers who read in Latin "in quo omnes peccaverunt", which seemed 
to mean "in whom [Adam?] all have sinned.  It would take some strain to take 
it according to the Latin, which does not at all follow St.  Paul's Greek.  
Some have even said that God miraculously enclosed all the wills of all men 
-who did not yet exist - in the will of Adam, so they could all sin 
together! Quite a bizarre notion to suppose God would work such a miracle 
for the same of evil! And a sad reflection on the goodness of God too.  
Similarly it is no compliment to the goodness of God to think He positively 
inflicts pain on the descendants of Adam for Adam's sin in itself.  

     Incidentally, Pope John Paul also clarified the words we often have 
heard, that by original sin, "the mind is darkened and the will weakened".  
The Pope said in a General Audience of Oct.  8, 1986: "However, according to 
the Church's teaching, it is a case of a relative and not an absolute 
deterioration, not intrinsic to the human faculties. . . .  not of a loss of 
their essential capacities even in relation to the knowledge and love of 
God." Adam had had the gift of integrity, better called a coordinating 
gift, which made it easy to keep all the drives of body and soul each in 
its own proper place.  Without such a special gift, they can more easily 
rebel, and so pressure the will, and thereby also make it harder for the 
mind to see the truth.  But as the Pope said, this is a relative loss, 
relative to what we would have had - not an absolute loss, not a loss of 
anything of the basic natural powers of mind and will. 

     Similarly when we hear that original sin is transmitted "by heredity" 
it really means that we have not gained by heredity what God had planned 
for us to inherit. 

     Elsewhere Paul says the equivalent things.  In Romans 5:8-10: "But God 
has proved His love for us, because when we were still sinners, Christ died 
for us.  Therefore, much more now that we have been justified in His blood 
will we be saved through Him from the wrath.  For if, when we were enemies, 
we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, after 
being reconciled, we will be saved by His life." And Romans 8: 32: "He who 
did not spare His own Son, but handed Him over for all of us; How will He 
not give us all things with Him." In other words: Even when we were not yet 
His friends, but enemies, Christ died for us.  After that, after giving His 
Son to a terrible death which earned all graces, how will be ever refuse us 
any grace that we need? But the old theology said: Even when we are 
reconciled, even when Christ as bought and paid for all graces, God might, 
without any grave reason (grave sin) simply decide not to give a soul what 
Christ has earned for that soul, and so that soul will go to hell.  What a 
travesty!

     Further, in Gal 2:20 St.  Paul said that Christ "loved me, and gave 
Himself for me." If we view this in the language of covenant, then we say, 
rightly, that in the covenant, the Father accepted something of infinite 
worth, the infinite value of the death of His Son.  Thereby He obligated 
Himself to offer to humanity as a whole, grace without any limit, since the 
price given by His Son is infinite.  So thee is an infinite objective title 
or claim to grace and forgiveness for our whole race.  But then Gal 2:20 
adds that there is also an infinite objective title even for each 
individual soul.  We ask: Does this hold just for St.  Paul, a very special 
soul, or does it apply to all? Vatican II, On the Church in the Modern 
world, #22 wrote: "Each one of us can say with the Apostle: The Son of God 
loved me, and gave Himself for me." So, with an infinite claim to grace for 
each soul, how could the Father decide even without grave reason, to 
withhold that for which that soul has an infinite title? 

     We must notice that while this special help, the grace of final 
perseverance, is offered to each soul, yet we could resist or reject that 
grace and so be lost.  Hence in Phil 1:10 Paul prays "so that you may chose 
the better things, so as to be pure, and may avoid stumbling until the day 
of Christ." So even though Paul had said in 1:6 of the same Epistle that 
God will bring to complete what He has begun in us, yet we could stumble. 

     An objection could be raised from the definition of the Council of 
Trent (DS 1566): "If anyone says that with absolute and infallible 
certitude he will have that great gift of perseverance to the end, unless 
he has learned this by special revelation, let him be anathema." Part of 
the answer comes from reading what the same Council also taught (DS 1541): 
"God, unless they fail His grace, just as He has begun a good work, will 
complete it, giving both the will and the doing." We notice this text 
incorporates the words of Phil 1:6, "He who began a good work in you, will 
bring it to completion," and also Phil 2:12: It is God who works [produces] 
in you both the will and the doing". ]. 

     Of course, the Council is not contradicting itself.  We can easily put 
together the two statements, one of which says without special revelation 
one cannot have infallible certainty that he will have the grace of final 
perseverance, the other which says: God who began a good work in you will 
bring it to completion." The two fit together in this way: It is one thing 
for God to offer this grace; another thing for a soul to have it.  If it 
rejects it, it will not have it. 

     But especially also, in reading any statement of the Magisterium it is 
essential to note the historical situation in which it was written.  The 
Council of Trent was called to counter the tragic mistakes of Luther.  
Luther thought we could have infallible salvation, if we would, just once, 
take Christ as our personal Savior, that is, gain the confidence that his 
merits apply to us.  This would be infallible because no matter how much one 
might sin, it would make no difference: the merits of Christ would always 
out balance all sins, past, present, and future.  In this vein Luther wrote 
to his great lieutenant, Melanchthon, on August 1, 1521 (Luther's Works, 
American Edition, 48. 282: "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and 
rejoice in Christ even more boldly. . . .  No sin will separate us from the 
Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day." 
Luther knew that St.  Paul in 1 Cor 6;9-10 and Gal 5:5 had given lists of 
the chief great sins, and warned that those who do them would not inherit 
the kingdom.  But Luther claimed that these words would not apply once a 
person had gained faith, the confidence that the merits of Christ applied 
to him.  

     The silly and tragic mistake was in not knowing what St.  Paul meant by 
faith.  Luther thought Paul meant what we have just said, confidence.  But if 
we read all of St.  Paul and keep notes there are three elements in faith: 
If God speaks a truth, we must believe it; if He makes a promise, we must 
be confident; and if He orders us to do something, we must do it.  This Paul 
speaks of as "the obedience of faith", that is, the obedience that faith 
is.  Now faith which includes obedience cannot justify disobedience.  So 
Luther's claim just quoted is outrageous.  And he did not notice the warning 
of Second Peter 3:16 which said, speaking of Paul's Epistles, that "in them 
there are many things hard to understand, which the unlearned and the 
unstable twist, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." 
Luther instead claimed Scripture is entirely clear - in clear contradiction 
of Second Peter.  Actually, a major Protestant reference work, Interpreter's 
Dictionary of the Bible in The Supplement volume, p. 333 described Paul's 
concept of faith just as we did above, and especially explained that Romans 
1:5, the obedience of faith, means the obedience that faith is."

     So we must avoid the two mistakes, that of Luther, and that of older 
theologians who said God might decide not to give a soul a grace which 
Christ paid for by dying, for no grave reason at all: just would not feel 
like giving it!

Infallible salvation:   We just saw that Luther's claim of infallible 
salvation is terribly false.  Is there anything at all similar that is 
sound? Yes, definitely. 

     At the start, we note that our problem concerns a gap: It is certain 
from St.  Paul, as we saw above, that God offers the grace of final 
perseverance to all.  But it is also clear that we could reject it.  Is there 
any way to get over that gap?

      We will draw material from both public and private revelation.  Public 
revelation is that which is contained in Scripture and Tradition.  It was 
completed, finished, when the last Apostle died and the New Testament was 
completed.  There is no more of it until He returns at the end.  However the 
Church, according to the promise given at the Last Supper to send the Holy 
Spirit to lead into all truth, does grow in the depth of its understanding 
of things in public revelation.  In this area, the Church has the promise of 
Christ to protect its teaching. 

     All else is called private.  It is not a good name, since it takes in 
even things like Fatima, which are addressed to the whole world.  In the 
private area the Church does not have that promise of protection on its 
teaching.  So strictly, we are not obliged to believe teachings on things in 
the private area.  Yet if the Bishop of the place of an alleged apparition 
orders that there should be no pilgrimages to the place, we must obey.  It 
is one thing to declare whether it is authentic or not: we need not believe 
that.  Another thing to use legal authority: we must obey that.  And if an 
apparition seems to continue after such a prohibition when the orders of 
the Bishop are being violated, we can be entirely sure that the alleged 
revelations are spurious at least from that time on.  Our Lord, His Mother 
and the Saints will never appear to promote disobedience. 

     The most the Church can do in private revelations is two things: 1) It 
may check and see it does not conflict with public revelation.  If an item 
did conflict, that item would be false, though other things might be all 
right - there can be a mixture in private revelations; 2) It might add that 
the matter seems to deserve human acceptance.  We say this in contrast to 
acceptance on the divine virtue of faith. 

     Many people center their whole spiritual lives about recounting 
private apparitions, and going to the places.  This is not spiritually 
healthy.  Really why go to a place where Our Lady may have appeared, but 
will not appear to us, when in our own church in the tabernacle we have Our 
Lord Himself? If we wait for the Church we will not lack any grace.  Many 
times we are told Our Lord appeared to St.  Margaret Mary One time He told 
her to do certain things.  But her Superior forbade it.  When He came again, 
she asked Him, and He replied: "Therefore not only do I want you to do what 
your Superior commands, but that you should do nothing of all that I order 
without their consent.  I love obedience, and without it no one can please 
me.  (Autobiography #47).  He Himself redeemed the world precisely by 
obedience: cf.  Rom 5:19 and Vatican II, Lumen gentium #3. 

     First something on St.  Margaret Mary.  Pope Benedict XV, in the Decree 
(AAS 12. 503) for the Canonization of St.  Margaret Mary, did a very unusual 
thing.  He wrote: "The Lord Jesus deigned to address his faithful spouse in 
this statement: "I promise you, in the profuse mercy of my Heart, that 
those who for nine continuous months approach the most sacred table on the 
first Fridays, the omnipotent love of my Heart will grant to them the 
benefit of final penitence: they will not die in the state of having 
offended me, nor without the holy Sacraments.  In their last moments, my 
Heart will give them a safe refuge." As we said, the text is very unusual.  
Normally in citing a private revelation, the Popes add some such tag as "it 
is said," to indicate they do not guarantee it.  Of course, even here the 
Pope could not guarantee the private revelation.  Yet he wanted to show most 
unusual approval of it.  And we notice the wording of the great promise: 
"They will not die in the state of having offended me." And it promised not 
just the grace of perseverance, but the grace of final penitence, which is 
more.  So that is more than just the offer of the grace of final 
perseverance: it adds that they will not die outside of grace, but will 
have final penitence.  His omnipotence of course can bring that about in 
spite of our frailty, and He promised to do it.  As to the words about not 
dying "without the holy sacraments," they are to be taken to mean that if 
the soul needs the Sacraments, they will be given.  If there is no need, 
they may or may not be given. 

     There is an account of a very special instance of the working out of 
this promise.  On April 12, 1947 a fallen away Catholic, Bruno Cornacchiola 
who had become bitter against the Church, and even carried a dagger 
inscribed, "Death to the Pope" tried to take his children for an outing at 
Ostia.  He missed the train, and so went instead to a grotto called 
TreFontane.  While there his four year old boy, Gianfranco, was playing 
ball, and the ball rolled into the grotto.  The child went into it, but did 
not come out.  Bruno found him kneeling there, and the boy kept saying: 
Beautiful Lady.  Then his ten year old, Isola, came in, and began to say the 
same thing.  Bruno called his seven year old Carlo to come.  He too began to 
say: Beautiful Lady.  Bruno of course was furious, tried to pick up the 
smallest child.  It felt like marble, he could not lift him.  Bruno screamed: 
"You who are hiding there, come out." Then he became afraid, and called 
out: God save us.  Just then two white transparent hands came from behind 
him, covered his eyes, and removed a film.  So he too saw the beautiful 
Lady, barefoot, in a green mantle and white dress.  She held a gray book and 
said: "I am the Virgin of the Apocalypse.  You are persecuting me. . . .  The 
nine First Fridays which you made before entering on the way of evil have 
saved you, for my Son always keeps His promises." Of course, Bruno was 
converted on the spot.  The Vatican bought the hill and grotto from the 
Trappists, and allowed pilgrimages there. 

     Even without this incident, we know from Pope Benedict that her Son 
always keeps His promises. 

     Of course, if someone made the nine Fridays intending to start a life 
of sin, and then be rescued at the end, it would not work.  For his 
contrition at the end would not be a real repentance or change of heart, it 
would be preplanned instead.  And from much sin one becomes hardened and so 
no absolution would remove the sins. 

     How would one become hardened? In Mt 6;21 we read: "Where your 
treasure is, there is your heart also." If a man had a box of coins under 
the floor of his house, that would pull his thoughts and heart to it, he 
would love to think of it.  But a person can put his treasure in anything: 
in large meals, in gourmet meals, in sex, in travel, in study, even the 
study of theology.  All these are below God Himself, some lower than others.  
This is one factor.  The second factor: how strongly does a man let himself 
be pulled by these creatures: only as far as imperfection? or occasional 
venial sin? or habitual venial sin? or occasional mortal sin? or habitual 
mortal sin? When one goes far out on the scale and the creatures are far 
below God, the man loses his ability to perceive what grace tries to 
suggest to him that God wants.  He is then blind.  Only an extraordinary 
grace can rescue him then, and it seems such a grace could come not 
routinely, but only if someone else would do extraordinary work in penance 
and prayer for him would it be granted.  

     But if someone makes the nine Fridays in good faith, and later, in 
weakness, falls into sin then: Her Son always keeps His promises. 

     There is also another very remarkable promise which also covers the 
gap we mentioned.  It is reported that on July 16, 1251, Our Lady appeared 
to St.  Simon Stock, Prior of the Carmelites, recently transplanted to 
England and in great difficulties.  He had prayed earnestly to her for help.  
She appeared, holding a Scapular and saying: "This will be a privilege for 
you and all Carmelites, that he who dies in this will not suffer eternal 
fire." The historical evidence for the reality of this vision is very good 
indeed.  Pope Pius XII, on the 700th anniversary of the vision wrote a 
letter to the Major Superiors of Carmelites and said (Neminem profecto 
latet, AAS 42. 390-91): "Not with a light or passing matter are we here 
concerned, but with the obtaining of eternal life itself, which is the 
substance of the Promise of the Most Blessed Virgin which has been handed 
down to us.  We are concerned, namely, with that which is of supreme 
importance to all, and with the manner of achieving it safely."

     The Church enriched the Scapular with many indulgences, showing her 
belief in the vision. 

     We note she said it was a privilege for all Carmelites: it is enough 
for this condition to be enrolled in the Confraternity of Our Lady of Mount 
Carmel. 

     However, the mere physical wearing of the Scapular is not enough.  So 
Pius XII warned: "May it be to them a sign of their Consecration to the 
Most Sacred Heart of the Immaculate Virgin."

     The word consecration can be used in two senses: to entrust ourselves 
to her care, or to live a live really devoted to her.  Pope Leo XIII in 
consecrating the world to the Sacred Heart in 1899 explained: "For we, in 
dedicating ourselves, not only recognize and accept His rule explicitly and 
freely, but we actually testify that if that which we give were ours, we 
would most willingly give it; and we ask Him to graciously accept from us 
that very thing, even though it is already His."

     In other words, that consecration recognizes the rights He already has 
over us as Creator, and as the one who redeemed us from the captivity of 
satan.  But His Mother shares in those titles too, as Pius XII explained in 
a broadcast on Vatican Radio to pilgrims assembled at Fatima on May 13, 
1946: "He, the Son of God, reflects on His heavenly Mother the glory, the 
majesty and the dominion of His kingship.  For, having been associated with 
the King of Martyrs in the unspeakable work of human redemption as Mother 
and Cooperatrix, she remains forever associated to Him with a practically 
unlimited power, in the distribution of the graces which flow from the 
redemption.  Jesus is King throughout all eternity by nature and by right of 
conquest; through Him, with Him, and subordinate to Him, Mary is Queen by 
grace, by Divine Relationship, by right of conquest, and by singular choice 
[of the Father] and her kingdom is as vast as that of her Son and God, 
since nothing is excluded from her dominion."

     He has a claim to our service by two titles: Creator and Redeemer.  She 
has a claim by four titles, which include the parallels to these: He is 
Creator, She is Mother of the Creator; He has a claim "by right of 
conquest," she too has a claim "by right of conquest" that is, by sharing 
in reconquering our race from the captivity of satan. 

     So a real consecration the strong sense means living out the 
implications of this pledge of service.  There are various ways of 
explaining this.  St.  Louis de Montfort did it well in his True Devotion, 
St.  Maximilian Kolbe did it well too in his writings as did Father Neubert.  
A detailed explanation of this, drawn from all the authors mentioned, is to 
be had in Wm.  Most, Our Father's Plan, Chapter 24.  Briefly, it includes the 
spirit of union with her (live in her presence and imitate her virtues); a 
spirit of dependence (in a full consecration we give her the right to 
dispose of everything we have that is disposable); and obedience to her as 
Queen.  We do not think of her queenly power as a finite one, parallel to 
the infinite power of her Son.  No, they always operate together, as a 
unitary principle. 

     Vatican II in chapter 8 of Lumen gentium, gave us a splendid 
theological base for living such a consecration.  It first showed she was 
eternally joined with Him in the eternal decree for the incarnation - for 
all of God's decrees are eternal.  In decreeing the Incarnation of course He 
in the same act decreed the Mother through whom it was to take place.  Then 
the Council went through the Old Testament prophecies that pertain 
specially to her, and then through every one of the mysteries of His life 
and death, and showed at each point how she was His associate even in the 
great sacrifice itself.  As it said in LG #61: "In suffering with Him as He 
died on the cross, she cooperated in the work of the Savior, in an 
altogether singular way, by obedience, faith, hope and burning love, to 
restore supernatural life to souls.  As a result, she is our Mother in the 
order of grace." To bring out all the implications of this rich text would 
take a whole course (cf.  the text for Theology 523 from Notre Dame 
Institute).  After going through all these mysteries, the Council added that 
eternally, after being assumed into Heaven, she is Queen alongside of her 
Son, the Eternal King.  So literally, from eternity to eternity, and at all 
points in between, she is, as Pius XII wrote (Munificentissimus Deus AAS 
42. 768) she is "always sharing His lot." This theological picture does not 
make a fully Marian form of life mandatory - there is a diversity in the 
graces of spiritual attractions - but it does show that objectively, in 
itself, it is the ideal.  For since the Father freely chose to use her at 
all points in His approach to us, the ideal would be to give her a similar 
place in our response to Him. 

     If we do all this, we can be sure that we are satisfying the 
conditions Pius XII spoke of for the Scapular promise.  However, much less 
will probably suffice.  Kilian Lynch, Prior General of the Carmelites of the 
Ancient Observance put it this way: "How much good will is required to gain 
the promise of the scapular? Eternity alone will answer this question, for 
we should be careful not to place limits upon the mercy of her who is the 
refuge of sinners and the Mother of Mercy. . . .  In this age of measurements, 
we should beware of attempting to reduce at least our Blessed Mother's love 
for sinners to fixed formulas" (in: Your Brown Scapular, Westminster, 1950, 
p. 60). 

     We said at the start of this section that we would use both private 
and public revelation.  We now turn, therefore, to the realm of public 
revelation, where the Church does have authority and promise of divine 
protection in its teaching.  Pius XI (Explorata res, Feb.  2, 1923.  AAS 
15. 104) taught: ". . . nor would he incur eternal death whom the Most Blessed 
Virgin assists, especially at his last hour.  This opinion of the Doctors of 
the Church, in harmony with the sentiments of the Christian people, and 
supported by the experience of all times, depends especially on this 
reason: the fact that the Sorrowful Virgin shared in the work of the 
Redemption with Jesus Christ." We spoke above of that sharing, and cited LG 
#61.  We could add a development, given by Pope John Paul II in Redemptoris 
Mater (March 25, 1987.  AAS 79. 382-83.  Vatican Press translation): "How 
great, how heroic, then, is the obedience of faith shown by Mary in the 
face of God's 'unsearchable judgments'! How completely she 'abandons 
herself to God without reserve' offering the full assent of the intellect 
and the will' to Him whose 'ways are inscrutable. . . . ' Through this faith, 
Mary is perfectly united with Christ in his self-emptying. . . .  Through faith 
the Mother shares in the death of her Son, in His redeeming death . . .  as a 
sharing in the sacrifice of Christ - the new Adam -it becomes in a certain 
sense the counterpoise to the disobedience and disbelief embodied in the 
sin of our first parents.  Thus teach the Fathers of the Church and 
especially St.  Irenaeus, quoted by the Constitution Lumen gentium; 'The 
knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience; what the virgin 
Eve bound through her unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed by her faith. '"

     In his Apostolic Exhortation Redemptoris Custos, the same Pope had 
said that he intended to deepen the teaching of Vatican II on her faith.  He 
really did that.  Vatican II had said she "consented' to His death.  That was 
true.  But there is more.  The sense of the text cited above is this: Any 
soul is required to align its will with the will of the Father; and when it 
knows what the Father positively wills, the soul must positively will that 
too.  Now at the time of His death, she knew all too well that the Father 
willed that His Son die, die then, die so horribly.  So she was called on to 
empty herself, to positively will that He die, die then, die so horribly.  
But this went directly contrary to her love which was so great that Pius IX 
in 1854 (Ineffabilis Deus) wrote, speaking of her holiness, which in 
practice is equivalent to love, that it was so great that "none greater 
under God can be thought of, and no one but God can comprehend it." So her 
suffering then was strictly incomprehensible to anyone - even to the 
highest Cherubim - to anyone but God Himself.  This is really sharing in the 
covenant condition of the New Covenant, which was and is obedience.  Her 
obedience, as John Paul II said in the text just cited, was the 
counterpoise to the disobedience of Eve.  The Pope spoke of faith in the 
Pauline sense, which includes three things: belief in what God says, 
confidence in His promises, obedience to His will,  i.e. ,"the obedience of 
faith."

     With such a cooperation, beyond the ability of any existing creature 
to fathom, no wonder that Pius XI could say her power to protect her 
devoted children at the time of death guarantees that one "will not incur 
eternal death." And as we said, this is no longer private revelation, this 
is the Pope interpreting public revelation.  Further, the same basic idea 
was taught by two other Popes: Benedict XV wrote (Apostolic Letter Inter 
Sodalicia, March 22, 1918.  AAS 10, 1918, 182): "There is a most constant 
view among the faithful, proved by long experience, that whoever employs 
the same Virgin as Patron, will not perish forever." Pius XII in his 
Encyclical, Mediator Dei (Nov.  20, 1947.  AAS 29, 1957. 584) spoke similarly: 
"The cult of the Virgin Mother of God which, according to the view of holy 
men, is a sign of 'predestination'."

     It is a general principle in theology that if something is taught 
repeatedly on the ordinary level (less than a definition) that teaching is 
infallible, for the repetition shows the intent to make the teaching 
definitive.  That surely seems to be the case with the teaching we have just 
reviewed. 

     Let us not forget the intercession of St.  Joseph.  At his deathbed 
stood Jesus Himself, who was both His Son and His Judge, along with Our 
Lady, His wife and Queen of Heaven.  No wonder he is called patron of a 
happy death. 

Fear of death:   St.  Francis of Assisi was inclined to poetic expressions.  
He spoke of brother sun, sister moon and other things.  He called his body, 
"brother ass." He meant this: no ass ever goes over to another ass and 
says: Brother ass, you have been around more than I.  Tell me about it.  No, 
brother ass must learn only from his own experience.  And if the experience 
is vigorous, he learns very well, e. g. , if he is facing north and a boot 
moves in swiftly from the south. 

     So we must distinguish between Brother Ass and our soul in the matter 
of fear of death.  Our soul should have calm assurance if we have been 
faithful, especially if we have lived close to our Blessed Mother, so as to 
be able to realize what Pius XI taught, that such a one will not incur 
eternal death.  

     In some deaths, our Father arranges that brother ass causes little or 
no trouble.  I knew a good woman in the parish of St.  Lawrence, Alexandria, 
Va.  who was a humble soul, had worked for a nearby McDonald's as just a 
cleaning woman, yet liked doing that work.  She contracted cancer, and went 
down to skin and bones, about half her normal weight.  Yet her relatives 
told that when the moment of death came her face lit up, and she seemed to 
be seeing something.  After her death they phoned to her brother in South 
America to tell him, but he replied that she had just been there.  And the 
manager of McDonald's had somehow not cleaned up as usual at night, but in 
the morning he found it all cleaned up nicely.  Again, Twin Circle (11-14-
93) told of a small girl who had a party with her friends in the evening 
hours before her death, which she expected that night, celebrating the fact 
that she was going to see Jesus.  To the Doctor it did not seem she was 
going to die.  Yet that very night in her sleep He did come for her. 

     On the other hand for their great spiritual growth, God may cause even 
holy souls to have a difficult time with brother ass.  St.  Francis de Sales, 
in a letter of Oct.  18, 1608 says that when St.  Charles Borromeo was dying 
he had someone bring him a picture of our Lord after His death, "to soften 
the dread of his own death by joining it to that or his Savior." St.  
Therese of Lisieux told that during the last year and a half before her 
death she was afflicted with terrible temptations to despair, to disbelief 
in heaven.  She said the tempter told her: "Look forward to death.  But it 
will give you not what you hope for, but a still darker night, the night of 
annihilation." St.  Therese accepted this suffering even gladly out of love 
of Jesus, and died in peace. 

     For as we have been bringing out, there are two very different parts 
of us, brother ass, and the soul.  The soul can always have peace, the peace 
that no one can take from us.  St.  Francis de Sales in Treatise on the Love 
of God 9. 3 speaks of "the fine point of the soul." There are many levels of 
operations in us, both in body and in spirit.  We might think of a tall 
mountain, 25000 feet high.  On some days the peak will stick up through the 
clouds into serene sunshine, while all the lower slopes are in blackness 
and storm.  So it is possible for there to be serene peace only on the 
highest level, while all the lower parts are in darkness and suffering

     Our Lord Himself suffered terribly in the Garden, and even prayed that 
the chalice might pass.  (Really an incarnation in a palace with no 
suffering or death would have been an infinite reparation.  Yet to show the 
horror of sin, and the immensity of His love, the Father willed, and He 
agreed, to go so dreadfully far).  Yet He at once added: "Not your will but 
mine be done." Pope John Paul II explained this difference in the two 
levels of Jesus beautifully, in commenting on His cry: "My God, why have 
you forsaken me?" In a General Audience of Nov.  30, 1988 he said: "If Jesus 
feels abandoned by the Father, He knows, however, that that is not really 
so.  He Himself said: 'I and the Father are one. ' . . .  dominant in His mind 
Jesus has the clear vision of God and the certainty of His union with the 
Father.  But in the sphere bordering on the senses, and therefore more 
subject to the impressions, emotions and influence of the internal and 
external experiences of pain, Jesus' human soul is reduced to a wasteland, 
and He no longer feels the 'presence of the Father'. . . .  However, Jesus knew 
that by this ultimate phase of His sacrifice, reaching the intimate core of 
His being, He completed the work of reparation which was the purpose of His 
sacrifice for the expiation of sins.  He was really reciting part of Psalm 
22, to show He was then fulfilling it."
 
     Hebrews 5:8 says, "He learned obedience from the things He suffered." 
We distinguish obedience in His human will, which was always perfect, from 
His bodily side.  The same Epistle to the Hebrews in 7:10 said that "On 
entering into the world He said: Behold, I come to do your will O God." But 
it was His lower nature that found it hard to acquiesce, to as it were 
learn to settle down into pain.  If we think of a man who has always been 
very devoted to the will of God, and has never had a severe illness, but 
now falls into one.  His will was and is in accord with God's, but he must 
learn to settle down, must learn obedience from what he suffers. 

     So anxiety is not always a sign of lack of confidence in God.  Jesus 
Himself suffered anxiety all His life long, for as the Church teaches us 
(Cf.  Wm.  Most, The Consciousness of Christ), from the first instant of 
conception, His human soul saw the vision of God in which all knowledge is 
present.  To have a lifetime of anxiety from anticipating so dreadful a 
thing would wear the skin thin, as it were.  In Luke 12:50 He let us see 
inside: "I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened 
until it be accomplished." In John 12:27 while speaking to a crowd not long 
before His death He interjected: "Now my heart is troubled.  What shall I 
say? Father, save me from this hour." Then the long running nightmare 
caught up with Him in the Garden.  When we, chiefly as children, have a 
nightmare in which something dreadful is chasing us, we scream and wake 
ourselves up, and are relieved.  But with Him there was no such escape: it 
was there.  The interior tension was so severe that the capillaries near the 
sweat glands ruptured, and poured out blood through all their openings.  
This is medically known, is very rare, is called hematidrosis. 

     Why such tension? Because it had been running for a lifetime.  But 
more, it was not just the terrible physical suffering, which He knew and 
had known in every horrid detail.  It was the pain of rejection by us, whom 
He loved to such a point as to he willing to go through all that to make 
possible eternal happiness for us.  Romans 5;8 says "God proved His love for 
us." To love is to will good to another for the other's sake.  He willed us 
the practically infinite good of the vision of God.  But if a small obstacle 
will stop a lover trying to bring happiness to the beloved, that love is 
small.  If it takes a large obstacle to stop him, the love is great.  If even 
an immeasurable obstacle cannot stop him - then the love is beyond measure.  
So really, He, God, did prove His love for us. 

     If we made a synthesis of many things all over St.  Paul, it would be 
this: We are saved and made holy if and to the extent that that we are not 
only members of Christ, but like Him.  So if a person suffers anxiety, it 
will not always be true that confidence in God can stop it.  For example, if 
one is waiting for a medical report on whether or not he has cancer, God 
has not promised he will not have cancer.  So anxiety is not a lack of 
confidence in God.  Rather, it is an opening to be more like Christ. 

     The same is to be said of fear of death.  Some fear in advance seems to 
be rather common, even though a difficult transit, such as we described in 
a few cases above, is not so common.  But whatever it may be, our Father in 
heaven has it all tailored to what we can handle, and if we accept it well, 
as likeness to His Son, then the reward is beyond measure, is eternal, 
unending. 

Grief at death of a dear one:   Some saints have shown great influence of 
Stoicism in this matter, or of a poor understanding of the need of 
detachment (cf.  1 Cor 7:29-31 and Mt.  6:21).  St.  Augustine tells vividly of 
his own reaction at the death of his mother (Confessions 9. 12): 

     "I closed her eyes.  And there flowed into my heart an immense grief, 
and it flowed over into tears and at the same time my eyes, by a forceful 
command of my mind, soaked up again this font even to dryness. . . .  for we 
did not think it proper to observe that death with tearful plaints and 
groans, for in this way, the misery of those who die is usually deplored, 
or their total extinction. . . .  in your ears, where none of them heard, I 
reproached the softness of my emotion, and restrained the flow of grief, 
and it yielded to me a bit, but again rushed on by its own force, not as 
far as breaking out into tears, or to a change of facial expression.  And 
because it displeased me greatly that these human things had so much power 
over me. . . and I grieved with another grief over my grief, and was torn by a 
double sadness."

     Later he took a bath, thinking it would relieve his grief.  But the 
next morning: 

     "I gradually brought back my former thoughts of your handmaid, and her 
way of life, devoted to you and holy, sweet and accommodating to us - of 
which I was suddenly deprived.  And it pleased me to weep in your sight over 
her and for her, over me and for me.  And I let go the tears I was holding 
in, so that they might flow forth as much as they willed, putting them as a 
bed beneath my heart, and I rested in them. . . .  And now Lord, I confess to 
you in this writing.  Let him who wishes read, and interpret as he wishes.  
And if he finds it a sin that I wept for my mother for a small part of an 
hour, my mother meanwhile dead to my eyes, who had wept for me for many 
years so I might live to you - let him not laugh, but rather, if he has 
great charity, let him weep for my sins to you, the Father of all the 
brothers of your Christ."

     Augustine's writing is beautiful, but his attitude is regrettable 
(later Augustine saw better, in Epistle 263. 3).  He misunderstood, as was 
said above.  He had not noticed that Our Lord Himself wept at the tomb of 
Lazarus, who was not a relative, just a friend.  He could have restrained 
His tears, but rather He wanted them to flow to teach us that Christianity 
is not Stoicism, does not rule out feelings.  Christianity wants to 
eliminate only feelings such that they can by their power pull a person 
into even a small sin.  But if the feelings instead lead one to follow the 
role and pattern the Father has set for his state of life and for him and 
for all of us, then those feelings are good.  Our Lord Himself not only wept 
for Lazarus, but also, as we learn from Mark 10:16, He even put His arms 
around the children who came to Him for His blessing.  He found them 
attractive, but He, their Creator, had made them that way, so that we may 
like them and care for them.  (St.  Francis de Sales, with his usual 
splendidly balanced judgment, in his Epistle of May 3, 1604 to a married 
woman even wrote, "your husband will love it, if he sees that as your 
devotion increases, you become more warm and affectionate to him. 

     Other holy persons have shared Augustine's misunderstanding.  Clement 
of Alexandria, in his Stromata 6. 8. 71. 2, speaks of Jesus Himself as 
apathes, without feeling.  Cf.  also St.  Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 
10. 23.  

"You can't take it with you." That is only half true.  It is true in the 
sense that we cannot take bank accounts, stocks, bonds and other things 
along.  But we can take what is more important.  in Mt 6:19-21: "Do not store 
up for yourselves treasure on earth, where moths and rust eat away, and 
thieves break in and steal.  But store up treasure in heaven. . . .  where your 
treasure is, there is your heart also." So we can take with us much more 
than any earthly wealth.  St.  Francis of Assisi understood this.  The 
antiphon for the Benedictus for the Divine Office of his Feast, October 4, 
says: "Francis, poor and lowly, enters heaven as a rich man, is honored 
with heavenly hymns."

The Number of those saved:

     We start with Matthew 7:13-14: If we compare this passage with the 
parallel in Luke 13:22-27, Luke's version is much fuller, and includes a 
setting which makes clear the question is about final salvation.  In Matthew 
that seems to be the case, but some have taken it to refer to entering the 
Church - speaking of the difficulties in involved.  Because Luke's version 
is fuller, we will use it for our discussion.  A person asks Jesus point-
blank whether many or few are saved.  (Here the word saved means reaching 
final salvation - often it means entering the Church) 

     It is important to knew that that very question was much discussed 
among the Jews at that time.  We gather this clearly from some of their 
intertestamental writings, that is, works that are not part of Scripture.  
The Fourth Book of Ezra, according to the opinion of the editor of that 
section, B. M.  Metzger (In James H.  Charlesworth, general editor, The Old 
Testament Pseudepigrapha, Doubleday, 1983) comes from late first century 
A. D.  In 8. 1-3: "The Most High made the world for the sake of the many, but 
the world to come for the sake of the few." In 8. 14-16: "There are more who 
perish than those who will be saved." This is the background of the thought 
in 7:46: "It would have been better if the earth had not produced Adam." 
The same thought occurs also in 2 Baruch 48. 42 (dated between 1st and 2nd 
decades of second century, A. D. ) and elsewhere.  These texts of course do 
not mean all rabbis held such ideas - there was no central teaching 
authority in Judaism.  But their gloomy remarks applied to our race in 
general.  As to the Jews, nearly all would be saved.  So Talmud, Sanhedrin 
1. 10 saws :"All Israel has a part in the age to come." It does list a few 
exceptions to that for the very worst kinds of sinners.  Genesis Rabbah 48. 7 
has much the same: "In the world to come, Abraham will sit on the doormat 
of Gehinom and will not allow a circumcised Jew to enter."

     Later, in the Talmud. b. Ber 7a Exodus 33: 12-16 they made an extension 
of the words of Moses to God in Exodus 33:12-16.  In the OT text Moses had 
asked God to go along with His people.  But in the Talmud Moses asks Him not 
to go with any other people.  Far from loving neighbor!: "He [Moses] asked 
that the Shekhinah might not rest over the other peoples of the world, and 
God granted it to him.  In contrast, St.  Paul asked (Rom 3:29):
"Is He the God of the Jews only? No, He is also the God of the gentiles."

     It is against this background that we must look at the passages in 
Luke and probably also Matthew.  First, is it inherently likely Jesus would 
reveal the truth on the matter? Hardly.  To say most are saved could lead to 
laxity.  To say most are lost could easily bring despair. 

     So, what He seems to mean is this: You people think you have it made 
because Abraham is your Father.  But you do not.  Do not rest on that, get 
going and work out your salvation. 

     Further, there were two Scriptural passages whose seeming sense led so 
many Fathers to take pessimistic view.  One is our present passage about the 
narrow way, the other is that of the banquet in Mt 22:1-14 and Luke 14:15-
24.  The version in Matthew ends with "Many are called but few are chosen." 
Jesus seems to have in mind at last primarily the Jews, and not all 
persons.  - The word "many" almost certainly reflects Hebrew rabbim, which 
means the all who are many.  So it means all Jews were invited to the 
messianic kingdom - few were entering.  So the path is narrow. 

     The Fathers of the Church generally took that parable to refer to both 
God's call to be part of the chosen People, and to refer to final 
salvation.  That was unfortunate, for the two are quite different.  One can 
be saved without formally entering the Church, and some who do formally 
enter will not be saved.  

     Are we obliged to accept the Patristic interpretation? No, for there 
is no sign they are passing on a teaching from the beginning.  Rather, they 
are on their own, and telescope two things that greatly need to be kept 
distinct, as we said. 

     The old Congregation of the Index in more recent times condemned two 
writings.  One by P.  Gravina, which held that by far the greater number are 
saved, was condemned on May 22, 1772.  However, some of his arguments were 
foolish and he used apocryphal revelations.  The general idea of the greater 
number of persons saved was also held earlier by Venerable Joseph of St.  
Benedict.  As part of the process to declare him venerable, 40 theologians, 
along with other doctors elsewhere were appointed to examine his writings.  
None objected to his thesis.  On the other hand, on July 30 1708 a work 
under the pen name of Amelincourt - actually it was written by Abbe Olivier 
Debors-Desdoires - which held that most persons are lost, was condemned. 

     From these opposite condemnations and the approval of Venerable Joseph 
we gather that the Church simply does not profess to know whether the saved 
are few or many.  This also confirms our judgment that even though so many 
Fathers are pessimistic, their views do not derive from a tradition handed 
down from the beginning, but from a misinterpretation especially of the 
parable of the banquet. 

     The early Christian writer, Origen, early second century, in his On 
First Principles 1. 6. 1 (cf.  3. 4-6) wrote: "The end of the world, then, and 
the final consummation will come when everyone will be made subject to 
punishment for his sins. . . .  We think that the goodness of God, through His 
Christ, may bring back all His creatures to one end, and even His enemies 
will be converted and made subject.  For Scripture says: 'The Lord said to 
my Lord, Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool." 
So hell will end.  And Origen seems to mean that even the devils will be 
converted and get out of hell.  Origen was influenced by Plato, and seems to 
have held that even heaven would come to an end,  i.e. , hell would empty and 
all go to heaven, but then all would return to the starting point, the 
world of spirits (3. 5. 3).  Origen definitely meant to be orthodox (First 
Principles, Preface 1-2), but was too much influenced by Plato.  Still 
later, St.  Gregory of Nyssa (Catechetical Oration 26) also thought hell 
would come to an end.  In our own day there are some few theologians skating 
perilously close to this unfortunate view of Origen, e. g.  Hans Urs von 
Balthasar in Dare we Hope that All Men be saved?. 

     We mentioned above the misunderstanding of the Jews that they were 
practically all saved.  Part of their trouble was failure to distinguish two 
things: predestination to heaven, and predestination to full membership in 
the People of God.  The parable of the banquet surely referred to only 
predestination to full membership in the people of God.  The Jews tended to 
think - and the Fathers too-- that this was the same as predestination to 
heaven.  Of course the two are different.  As we said above, to have full 
membership in the Church or People of God is a great help towards final 
salvation, but does not assure it.  Conversely, lack of full membership does 
not mean certain eternal loss.  (We spoke of full membership, since there is 
a lesser, though substantial membership, which suffices for salvation, 
though its help is less rich than that of full membership). 

What chance is there for Protestants and pagans to be saved?

     Protestants at least in general follow the tragic mistake of Luther, 
who wrote to his lieutenant Melanchton on August 1, 1521 (American Edition, 
Luther's Works, vol.  48, p. 282): "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe 
and rejoice in Christ even more boldly. . . .  No sin will separate us from the 
Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day." 
The root of this error was his mistake on justification by faith.  He did no 
research to determine what St.  Paul meant by faith, he merely jumped to the 
conclusion it meant: confidence that the merits of Christ apply to me.  
After doing that once in a lifetime, he can commit fornication and murder a 
thousand times a day, with impunity.  But by the word faith St.  Paul really 
meant: 1) Believe the truth God speaks; 2) have confidence in His promises; 
3) obey his commands, as in Romans 1:5, "the obedience of faith" = the 
obedience that faith is - this interpretation of faith is also found in the 
protestant reference work, Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 
Supplement, p. 333. 

     Hence a great problem about the salvation of Protestants.  For if a 
Protestant sins mortally and thinks he need do nothing about it, just 
believe it is all right, that mistaken belief will not remit a mortal sin.  
Nor could he reach the state of grace in the first place in that way unless 
of course he received baptism as a sacrament, not just as a testimony to 
his "faith."

     First even with that mistaken notion it is possible for someone, 
protestant, or other, even pagan, to reach justification,  i.e. , the state 
of grace.  St.  Justin Martyr, c 145 A. D.  in his Apology 1. 46 said that in 
the past some who were considered atheists were really Christians, since 
they followed the divine Word, the Logos.  He adds, in Apology 2. 10, that 
the Logos is within each person.  He also said that Socrates was such a 
person, and so was Christian.  How explain this?

     A spirit does not take up space: it is present wherever it causes an 
effect.  What is the effect here?: Romans 2:14-16 says that the gentiles who 
do not have the law [revealed religion] do by nature the things of the law: 
they show the work of the law written on their hearts - and according to 
their response, conscience will accuse or defend them at the judgment.  So 
the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of Christ writes on their hearts,  i.e. , 
makes known to them interiorly what they should do.  (It is defined, DS 800, 
that all works done by the Three Persons outside the Divine Nature itself 
are common to all three).  Socrates read what the Spirit of Christ wrote on 
his heart, 1) he believed it; 2) he had confidence in it; 3) He obeyed -- 
these are the three parts of faith as St.  Paul teaches, as we saw above.  So 
Socrates was justified, received grace, by faith.  So also for all others 
who fill these requirements, even if a person would say he does not believe 
in God, if he in practice fills these three, he is not an atheist, and does 
follow the Spirit of Christ.  But further, we learn from Romans 8:9 that if 
someone has and follows the Spirit of Christ, he belongs to Christ.  But in 
Paul's terms, that means he is a member of Christ, and a member of the 
Mystical Body, which is the Church. 

     Suppose someone justified in this way commits a mortal sin.  Surely he 
can regain grace by perfect contrition.  But if he does not know explicitly 
about that, what? We add a SPECULATION here.  God is identified with each 
attribute, e. g. , He IS love.  So He also is mercy, is justice etc.  So each 
attribute is identified with the other.  So if someone comes to see that 
what he has done is wrong, against goodness or holiness in itself, or 
objective goodness, this seems to appeal to that attribute of God, which is 
identified with God who is love.  Therefore he could regain grace.  In 
Ezekiel 18:27-28 God says that if the wicked man turns from his wicked 
deeds he shall live.  There is no mention of perfect contrition, just seeing 
that what he did was wrong, and changing his heart. 

     If a pagan in good faith follows pagan rites, do these contribute to 
his salvation? Pope Gregory XVI, in Mirari vos of Aug.  15, 1832 (DS 2730) 
said that it is "an evil opinion that souls can attain eternal salvation by 
just any profession of faith, if their morals follow the right norm." The 
key word is by.  It means that their false rites are not a means of 
salvation.  Yet, these souls could be saved in spite of such things.  Such is 
the teaching of Pius IX (DS 2866), Vatican II (Lumen gentium #16) and John 
Paul II (Redemptoris missio #10).  The process is what we described above.  
Further, the good will shown by a pagan in following his religion, even 
though the religion as such does not save him, yet God could and would 
accept that good will as part of the fulfillment of the requirement of 
Pauline faith, described above.  Pius XII, in his Mystical Body Encyclical 
(DS 3821 - cf.  DS 3870) said that those who do not formally join the 
visible Church might yet be "ordered to the Church" by "a will of which 
they are not aware" (inscio voto) namely their general desire to do what 
God wills implicitly and objectively includes the desire to enter the 
Church, even though the person is not aware of that implication. 

     Further, it is important to notice that there are two very different 
ways of speaking about the whole economy of salvation.  In one, we spell out 
all the means actually available even to those who do not find the Church, 
and notice that grace is offered them abundantly in anticipation of the 
future merits of Christ.  (Here we need to consider that next section, on 
the "checker board").  The second speaks more of the external realm, namely, 
of the earning of the means we just spoke of.  A strong instance of that is 
found in the Preface IV for Easter:" In him a new age has dawned, the long 
reign of sin is ended, a broken world has been renewed, and man is once 
again made whole." Speaking of a long reign of sin does not imply all were 
hopelessly mired in sin before the coming of Christ.  Again, the words, "a 
new age has dawned and a broken world has been renewed, and man is once 
again made whole" do not mean that now no one sins, that man's weakness is 
all taken away etc.  These words merely mean that the means of these things 
have now been earned by the death of Christ, even though the fruits of His 
sacrifice were offered even before it took place. 

     The words of Our Lord about Judas, "better for him if he had never 
been born" (Mt 26:24) need not indicate final damnation of Judas.  If Judas 
had not been born, he might have died before birth, and then his eternal 
fate would be according to the principles we have considered for unbaptized 
infants - which need not mean hell at all.  Having been born, he might be 
saved, but only after a most terrible purgatory perhaps lasting until the 
end of time.  

     From this instance we can see that the Church never gives negative 
canonization,  i.e. , declaring someone is in hell, even though Dante was so 
presumptuous as to do that. 

A checker board:   Acts 16:6-7 reports that Paul on a missionary trip 
wanted to go into Asia, then into Bithynia.  But the Spirit said no.  Why? 
Let us imagine God looking over a huge checkerboard before time begins to 
roll.  He sees a square for each human of all ages.  But He notes that some 
squares, first class, have the Mass and all other external means of grace.  
A second class has some, not all, of these.  A third class has no external 
means (but God offers grace interiorly or course, for He wills all to be 
saved (1 Tim 2:4). 

     Why the three classes? The founder of a heresy may well be in mortal 
sin.  But later generations growing up in that heresy are hardly guilty.  It 
takes much to even bring a person to see he ought to look into things.  So 
there must inevitably be the three kinds. 

     Then God notices there are various degrees of resistance to His 
graces, leading to sin.  Some are cussed; no matter in what kind of square 
God puts the man, he will surely be lost.  So He does not waste a first 
class square on him.  But others can be saved if they get the right class of 
square.  Some will need all possible helps, as in the first class.  Others 
can do with second or third class.  So God assigns them accordingly.  Thus no 
person is lost because of the type of assignment God has made, who could 
have been saved elsewhere.  

     Many places in Scripture agree with this supposition: 1 Cor 1:25-30; 
Ezek 3:5-7; the book of Jonah; Lk 10:30-37; 17:11-19; Mt 11:21.  Perhaps God 
has a better way of arranging things.  But for certain, no one is lost 
because of the place providentially assigned to him.  In fact people put 
into very poor areas may have a better chance than Americans, for riches 
makes it hard to see spiritual truths: cf.  Wisdom 4:12 on the "witchery of 
paltry things", and the camel going through the needle's eye. 

     Myriad are the means He uses to try to help souls to salvation.  
Besides what we saw above, let us mention some other things. 

     There is such a thing as somatic resonance - a term from modern 
psychology.  Since we are made of body and spirit, and yet the two are so 
closely joined as to add up to one person, the result is that if we have a 
condition on either one of the two sides, there should be a parallel 
condition, called a resonance, on the other side.  For example, a person in 
deep black depression sometimes thinks he is losing or has lost his faith.  
But the bad chemistry of his disease can interfere with the biochemistry 
that should serve as the somatic resonance to his faith.  This does not 
expel faith, but can keep it from functioning normally, so that the person 
thinks he has lose it or is losing it.  

     There are numerous applications of this principle.  Science News of 
Oct.  14, 1989, p. 250 reported men who had committed murder without clear 
premeditation had the lowest levels of the breakdown product [of serotonin] 
known as 5-hydroxyuindoleacetic acid of 5-HIAA.  Science News of April 16, 
1994, pp. 248-49 shows that PET scans of a normal brain processing glucose 
show considerable differences compared to the scan of a brain of a person 
who has trouble relating to others.  And there are numerous other instances.  
Again, Science News of Aug.  20, 1983, pp. 122-25 reports a chemist found 
notable differences in highs and lows of certain trace elements in the hair 
of violent criminals. 

     These things do not deny free will.  But they show that a person may be 
much inclined in an unfortunate direction by abnormal chemistry.  God who so 
greatly wills all to be saved, surely makes good allowance for these 
things. 

     Again, there is a sort of spiral going downward when a soul sins much 
over a period of time.  It grow less and less able to perceive spiritual 
truths.  Suppose we think of a man who has never been drunk before, but 
tonight he becomes very drunk.  The next morning he will have guilt feelings 
- for this was the first time.  There will be a clash between his beliefs 
and his actions.  Something will give in time.  If he continues getting 
drunk, his beliefs will be pulled to match his actions, so that a confirmed 
drunk can hardly understand there is anything wrong with it.  Further moral 
truths may be dimmed in this way.  

     Now we can see both mercy and justice here.  The fact that the man is 
losing light is justice, he has earned that.  But at the same time, what he 
does not understand at the time of acting can lower his culpability.  He may 
lose even the ability to see some doctrinal truths.  Thus Dignity, the group 
that defies the Church on the immorality of homosexuality, published a 
statement before the Pope's appearance in Denver in the summer of 1993 
saying: The Pope is only titular head of the Church, We are the Church. 

     Yes, there is a responsibility taken on at the start of the decline, 
when and if the person sees himself declining, and consents to it.  But at 
the later times of acting, responsibility may be diminished. 

     Further, God wills some obscurity in Scripture, to mercifully be able 
to say: "They know not what they do." How much responsibility is dimmed in 
a given case, only He can judge.  But we can notice the principle.  The 
command of Mt 7:1, "Judge not" refers precisely to judging the interior of 
a person - not to the objective morality of his acts in themselves.  In 
Mark's version, after His enemies charge He casts out devils by the devil, 
then, as all three Synoptics report, Our Lord turned to parables, and told 
the Apostles: To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of 
God, but to the others in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and 
hearing they may not understand.  Now of course He did not deliberately 
blind them - if He had done that, He would not have wept over Jerusalem 
later.  Rather it means that parables are a divinely established means for 
dividing people into two groups.  One group, by living vigorously according 
to what faith says, that the things of this world are worth little compared 
to eternity, will get a little, and then more and more, light.  The other 
group will become more and more blind -- we are speaking again of the two 
spirals, mentioned above, in two directions. 

     But it is not only parables that cause this effect: God wills that 
Scripture in general be difficult.  If we make allowance for differences in 
language, culture, literary genre etc.  in understanding, after all that 
there is still a lot of difficulty not accounted for.  That part is willed 
by God.  St.  Augustine thought God wants it that way, to get us to work 
harder, and so get more.  Pius XII agreed (EB 563).  So again, God has a 
means of mercifully allowing a person to become less responsible as he 
loses light. 

     This difficulty in understanding can come also from the presence in a 
man's mind of a mental framework, that is, a set of established ideas.  For 
example, the Apostles had an firm idea that Jesus was going to restore the 
kingship to Israel - just before the ascension they asked when He would do 
that! (Acts 1:6).  That is why they did not understand His predictions of 
His death and resurrection - such things could not fit with their notion of 
what sort of Messiah He was.  Similarly, since the Old Testament 
predictions, as we shall see fully later, of the gentiles streaming to 
Jerusalem were easily understood to mean that all gentiles would become 
Jews - and not tha