Catholic quasi-universalism

Some remarks by Pope Francis, widely reported in the press, have alarmed many Christians in and out of the Catholic Church. It seemed like he was endorsing universalism, the idea that, somehow, everyone gets saved in the end. He did not quite say that.

Instead, Francis was echoing a certain strain in Catholic thought that is not quite universalism. The view was given a clear explanation by Avery Cardinal Dulles, in his article "The Population of Hell." It has since been given a popular treatment by YouTube's Father Barron, in his video "Is Hell Crowded or Empty?"





Read the article and watch the film for fuller particulars. My short synopsis is that here is a way to assert that we may not say for certain who is not saved, and may at least hope that all will be saved, even non-Christians, and even those non-Christians who decline the gospel. It begins by saying that anyone might be saved, and proceeds from there to the idea that everyone could be--holding short of saying everyone will be. This differs from universalism, which flatly declares that all are saved, no ifs, ands or we-may-hopes. It is in any case very different from a commonly held Catholic opinion of many years ago, that only Catholics were saved.

I don't think that either idea is right, but the new idea is at least more promising than the old one if what you are looking for is cooperation with the separated churches. Pope Francis is not speaking heretically, by the standards of his church; he is repeating a fashionable idea, one now in some vogue among intellectual Catholics. He is doing it at a time when eccumenical outreach has come to be seen as a part of the Catholic portfolio of responsibilities, a viewpoint the previous pope did a good deal to promote.

The quasi-universalist stance the pope is advancing seems to me to have some inherent problems. I have difficulty squaring even this lite beer form of universalism with the words of Jesus, but I suppose the Catholics who subscribe to the idea could say that is my opinion, this is theirs. I see a further problem with the matter, though hardly a greater one. It is easy for the human heart to conflate hope with faith, though of course they are separate things. Hope must not become the evidence of things not seen, for that way lies madness. Once you say that God, in light of what he has revealed, the way of salvation that he has placed before mankind, could conceivably save everyone somehow, it is a short step to saying that he should, and from there, it is easy to conclude that he will. But to conclude that exceeds any warrant we have in revealed truth. I suppose Catholics are scrupulous to avoid errors of the kind, but it is an inviting error that needs to be watched out for. There is a very human tendency in us all to more easily believe things we would like to be true.

In any case, it is good for inter-church cooperation if the Catholics are reminded not to think that the Baptists are going to hell of necessity. If now even the leading Catholic embraces the quasi-universalist view, it is probably going to encourage the rank and file to view their fellow Christians in a good light.