Conflicting Interpretations of Lumen Gentium 16

Fr. Gerald O’Collins, S.J., has recently claimed that Ralph Martin “egregiously misrepresents Vatican II’s teaching {in LG 16}.”¹ How so? What exactly does LG 16 state, according to O’Collins? Here’s the crux of O’Collins’ charge against what he calls Martin’s “chilling thesis”:

Martin simply moves beyond what Vatican II states here {LG 16}, when he claims an impossibility, and maintains that very often people who have never heard the gospel cannot be saved. If they live deprived of the conditions under which they can be saved, that means that they will not be saved, and will finish up damned for all eternity. If they cannot be saved, they will not, in fact, be saved. This is a frightening thesis, tantamount to the extreme Augustinian view that God creates a massa damnata: the majority of the human race are simply predestined to hell.²

To discuss O’Collins’ interpretation, and Martin’s criticism, of the received interpretation of LG 16, we should have the text in question before us. I follow Martin’s identification of each paragraph of LG 16 as a, b, and c.

(a) Those who have not yet received the gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Rom 9:4-5): in view of the divine choice, they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Rom 11:29-36). But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us, they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day. Nor is God remote from those who, in shadows and images, seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and as Savior wills that all men be saved (cf. 1 Tim 2:4).

(b) Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ, or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those, too, may achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall Divine Providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without his grace, strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is considered by the Church to be a preparation for the Gospel, and given by him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.

(c) But very often {at saepius} men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the world rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Wherefore, to promote the glory of God, and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature” (Mark 16:16), the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.³

The concluding paragraph of LG 13 is the context for understanding this text. It states:

All men are called to belong to the new People of God … This characteristic of universality, which adorns the People of God, is a gift from the Lord himself. By reason of it, the Catholic Church strives energetically and constantly to bring all humanity, with all its riches, back to Christ its Head, in the unity of his Spirit … All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the People of God, a unity which is harbinger of the universal peace it promotes. And there belong to it ,or are related to it, in various ways, the Catholic faithful as well as all who believe in Christ, and, indeed, the whole of mankind. For all men are called to salvation by the grace of God (emphasis added).

The main presupposition here is that faith, baptism, and the Church are necessary for salvation. This is explicitly stated in LG 14. This is followed in LG 15 by the distinction between (1) those that fully belong to the Church, (2) those that are united in some sense with her in a real way, and (3) those that are related to her in various ways. Now, in general, we can say that the text of LG 16a deals with the closeness of those who do not belong to the Church, but who are in varying degrees related or oriented to her. For example, there exists a salvation historical continuity between Judaism and Christianity, having a “common spiritual patrimony,”⁴ as the Council put it, or there is agreement between Christianity and Islam’s monotheistic faith, and the theology of creation it entails, and so forth. Furthermore, 16b addresses the question regarding the conditions on how salvation might be possible for those who have not heard the Gospel, the unevangelized, through no fault of their own; and 16c addresses the matter of why “very often” those conditions are not met.

Turning now to O’Collins, he claims that LG 16 gives a “positive account of four groups who have, nor or have not, yet accepted the Gospel, and been baptized: (a) Jews, (b) Muslims, (c) followers of other faiths and philosophies, and (d) those who, through no fault of their own, have not yet reached an explicit knowledge of God.” He continues, LG 16 “speaks positively of the Jews and Muslims as included in ‘God’s project of salvation.’” Then {it} looks at the followers of other faiths and philosophies who, “through no fault of their own, knew neither the Gospel, nor the Church.” If, “under the influence of grace,” they try to do God’s will as they know it through their conscience, “they can attain eternal salvation.” As regards the fourth group, those who through no fault of their own, have not yet reached even “an explicit knowledge of God,” but “with the help of divine grace” strive to lead an upright life, “divine providence’ does “not deny them the helps necessary for salvation.”⁵O’Collins concludes his exposition of LG 16:

After expounding in this positive way the possibility of salvation for various non-Christian groups (who together remain the majority of human beings), [LG 16] insists on the need to evangelize the world. In doing so, it invokes St. Paul’s teaching in Romans (about the universal prevalence of sin) and echoes what he wrote about those who grieve because they lack Christian hope (1 Thess 4:13), Christians should do their very best to bring all these “others” the goodness, which can help them to serve the Creator, and die in the hope of sharing in Christ’s resurrection.⁶

Pared down for my purpose here, I want to make several points regarding O’Collins’ interpretation:

(1) The concluding sentence of LG 13 asserts that “all men are called to salvation by the grace of God.”⁷ So, yes, O’Collins is right that “God has freely called all men and women to the supernatural destiny of eternal life,”⁸ as he says elsewhere, or as he also puts it regarding Jews and Muslims, that they, too, are included in God’s project of salvation. But the grace referred to here is God’s prevenient grace through Jesus Christ, mediated by the Holy Spirit, a preparatory grace, one that not only enables, but also convicts, calls, and illumines man—but not without man’s free response, and hence, the possibility of his rejection or resistance of that grace.⁹ The predisposing grace to which LG 13 is referring comes from Christ and the Spirit, and is such that it is offered to all men for salvation. But that doesn’t say anything about this offer’s saving efficacy and finality. “God calls men to be participants in his grace; by what means, and with what effect, is not here stated.”¹⁰ Pace O’Collins, this grace does not bypass the matter of whether it is consciously accepted or rejected, because man must freely assent to, and cooperate with, that grace in order to be justified in faith and sanctified in charity.¹¹ So, yes, O’Collins is right that all men are included in “God’s project of salvation.” The New Testament makes it quite clear that God’s will and desire is that all men should be saved, and come to a knowledge of the truth (2 Pet 3.9). Therefore, in this connection, we can understand that God draws all men to himself by the work of the Spirit through prevenient grace that is mediated by the Holy Spirit. Thus, in the words of Gaudium et spes §22: “For since Christ died for all, and since all men are, in fact, called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God alone, in the paschal mystery.” Doesn’t this statement best fit a position appropriately dubbed opaque exclusivism?¹² Exclusivist because the saving work of Christ is ontologically and causally necessary for the salvation of human beings. But opaque, since the realization of the possibility of salvation of the invincibly ignorant, to which the prevenient grace of God is mediated by the Holy Spirit, is left to God alone.

(2) O’Collins fails to recognize the general significance of invincible ignorance. In other words, rather than seeing that invincible ignorance is repeated twice in LG 16 because it applies to both theists and non-theists, that is, Jews and Moslems, as well as religious seekers in general, O’Collins puts the invincibly ignorant person in a separate category of its own, distinguishing this category from Jews, Moslems, other believers in God, and even the irreligious. In LG 16, however, theists—Jews and Moslems—are referred to as those “who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church,” and non-theists are “those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God.” In sum, invincible ignorance pertains, therefore, to those in (a), (b), and (c) who have a lack in their theism, namely, being without Christ and the Church, and those who have a greater lack in their non-theism, namely, those without God. O’Collins misses out on this important application of invincible ignorance under certain conditions because he assumes that the incomplete and inadequate knowledge Jews and Moslems have as theists, and others as religious seekers, is such that their knowledge of God is not only in some sense revelatory of God’s general revelation, but also possesses “saving efficacy.”¹³

(3) O’Collins pays no systematic theological attention to the doctrinal teaching, correctly identified by Martin and Gavin D’Costa, as integral to Vatican II’s teaching regarding the Church and non-Christian religions. That is, says D’Costa, “sin and Satan have a strong grip over people who have not accepted Christ manifested in the objective reality of the non-Christian religions and cultures. Objectively, as a whole, they are in error, despite the many truths to be found in them. The only response to sin is to preach Christ, who redeems the sins of the world. This teaching does not take back what has been said about the positive elements that act as a preparation for Christ, but contextualizes these elements within the dramatic framework of the history of salvation.”¹⁴ In this light, we can surely understand why Martin holds that the “main teaching in LG 16” is that “‘very often’ the possibility of people being saved without hearing the gospel is not realized.”¹⁵ His thesis is: “If one ignores, or glosses over, LG 16c, one cannot possibly give a balanced judgment about the teaching of the Council on the status of non-Christians.”¹⁶

The core claim of Martin regarding the received interpretation of LG 16 is, as Gavin D’Costa summarizes it, “that most council commentaries, with very few exceptions, ignore the last section [16c].”¹⁷ The late Edward Oakes, S.J., too, agrees with Martin. He says, “I think Martin is right when he claims that LG 16c has been slighted in subsequent debate on the possible salvation of non-Christians.”¹⁸ For example, Aloys Grillmeier’s commentary on LG 16 concentrates on 16a and 16b, but does not even mention 16c.¹⁹ There are others, for example, who do mention it, but, says Martin, “it is often in passing, without analysis or extended commentary.”²⁰ The same holds for Walter Kasper,²¹ Henri de Lubac,²² Paul Knitter,²³ Karl Rahner,²⁴ Richard McBrien,²⁵ Karol Wojtyla,²⁶ and Jacques Dupuis.²⁷ Martin argues that the positive affirmations—salvation optimism—about non-Christians are nuanced when considered in light of LG 16c. It says that “rather often” (D’Costa preferred translation), or “very often,” as Martin uses the Latin translation of at saepius by Flannery, men are deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasoning, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator (Rom 1:25). Martin’s chief claim, and D’Costa agrees, is that “this clear teaching of the effects of sin on the world have been ignored or minimized.”

D’Costa adds:

They ignore the restatement of the traditional teaching about the effect of Original Sin. They ignore the first chapter of Romans, which is pessimistic. They ignore the footnote referring to Aquinas {Summa Theologiae, 3, q. 8, a. 3, ad1} which indicates that this salvation {for those who are unbaptized} is only a ‘possibility,’ not a reality. {This possibility is rooted in ‘power of Christ, which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race.’} {That is why} LG 16 ends with the necessity of missionary work, and paragraph 17 develops that theme as an introduction to the decree on missionary activity, Ad Gentes.” Again, against this background we can understand why Martin speaks of the “Council’s main teaching.”²⁸

Here we find the chief difference between Martin’s interpretation, and the received interpretation of LG 16, which O’Collins endorses, namely, a salvation optimism in which one moves “from the possibility {emphasis added} of some being saved without hearing the gospel, to the probability, or even certainty, that all, or almost all, will be saved without hearing the gospel.”²⁹ One must add here that this statement of LG 16c, and indeed the concluding paragraph of LG 16, is rightly taken by Martin, and also D’Costa, as the “natural bridge {that} is now built between Lumen Gentium 16 and 17, the latter which teaches the necessity of mission.”³⁰ I argued in my article review of O’Collins work, on Vatican II and the religions that he is unable to advance a credible theological argument, for the necessity of the Church’s evangelizing mission, despite his protests to the contrary.³¹

The problem with the received interpretation of LG 16 isn’t its claim that “Christ is ontologically and causally exclusive to salvation, but not necessarily epistemologically.”³² This is the position, arguably, of Vatican II’s LG 16, which I call accessibilism, to contrast it with a broad inclusivism, which is O’Collins’ position.³³ The difference between these two interpretations, accessibilism and broad inclusivism, is well put by William Lane Craig: “Genuine inclusivists believe that salvation is not merely accessible to, but is actually accessed by, persons who never hear the gospel. Inclusivism may be broad or narrow, ranging all the way from universalism to narrow particularism.”³⁴ Terrance L. Tiessen helpfully defines “accessibilism:”

Accessiblism asserts that Jesus Christ is exclusively God’s means of salvation, but that there is biblical reason to be hopeful about the possibility of salvation for those who do not hear the gospel. It grants that non-Christians can be saved, but does not regard the religions as God’s designed instruments in their salvation.³⁵

Thus, supporting accessibilism, as the Church does, neither undermines the singular uniqueness of Jesus Christ, namely, that salvation is “proper to him alone, exclusive, universal and absolute,”³⁶ nor diminishes the necessity of the Church’s missionary mandate. These two reasons distinguish accessibilism from a broad inclusivism.

In LG 16, the council addresses the important question regarding the possible fate of the unevangelized who, through no fault of their own—the invincibly ignorant—have failed to respond to the Gospel. Can the inculpably ignorant be saved by Christ apart from the knowledge of Christ? If so, then the knowledge of Christ is not epistemologically necessary to access the saving benefits of Christ’s saving work. But the council did not answer that question in LG 16 without considering the necessary conditions that must be met for the possibility of non-Christians being saved, apart from explicitly acknowledging and responding to Christ and his saving works. The constraints of this article prohibit me from considering those conditions here.³⁷ Suffice it to say that although these conditions “must be fulfilled in order to avoid culpability,” they are, however, as Francis Sullivan correctly notes, not a “cause of salvation.”³⁸ In other words, invincible ignorance of the gospel is a condition of, but not a cause of salvation. For the full and sufficient cause of salvation is Jesus Christ.

(4) In view of the above reasons, I judge that O’Collins completely misrepresents Martin’s position on LG 16. For one thing, Martin explicitly denies O’Collins charge that he holds that it is impossible for men to be saved who have never heard the gospel. Martin says, “The truth is, of course, that God has appointed one way to be saved: faith in the gratuitous gift of salvation offered to us in the person of his Son. And indeed, this one way to salvation, under certain conditions, can be found even apart from explicit faith in Jesus.”³⁹ Again, he says, “As we have seen so far in our study of LG 16, we know it is possible that those who have never heard of him {Jesus} can be saved.”⁴⁰ I think that Martin is countering the salvation optimism of theologians, such as O’Collins, not by rejecting the possibility that those who have never heard the gospel may be saved, but rather by calling “for a balance, which he finds in the text of LG 16.” He explains: “It is a balance that avoids the extremes of presuming everyone who has not heard the gospel is lost, or the other extreme, that of presuming that everyone who has not heard the gospel is saved and therefore there is no need for evangelization.”⁴¹ As Martin states early in his book, “The Church definitely teaches that it is possible for non-Christians to be saved without hearing the gospel of coming to explicit faith in Christ.” Still, “There is a certain tension between the call to evangelize and the acknowledgment that conversion to Christ and the Church is not absolutely necessary in order to be saved.”⁴² What, then, asks Martin, is the Council’s teaching regarding one important question: “What are the necessary conditions for, and actual limitations on, the possibility of non-Christians being saved without coming to explicit faith in Christ, and membership in the Catholic Church?”⁴³ It would not be an exaggeration to say that Martin spends almost ninety pages considering the development of the final conciliar text, its most significant commentaries, the received interpretation of LG 16, the doctrinal development of its major claim, and its biblical foundations in Romans 1-2, and Mark 16, in light of recent biblical scholarship. All of this dialectical argument is overlooked by O’Collins. In particular, Martin gives a detailed exposition of the necessary conditions under which the invincibly ignorant may be saved.

1. That non-Christians be not culpable for their ignorance of the gospel.
2. That non-Christians seek God with a sincere heart.
3. That non-Christians try to live their life in conformity with what they know of God’s will {through general revelation}. This is commonly spoken of as following the natural law, or the light of conscience. It is important to note, as the Council does, in order to avoid a Pelagian interpretation, that this is possible only because people are “moved by grace.”
4. That non-Christians welcome or receive whatever “good or truth” they live amidst—referring possibly to elements of their non-Christian religions or cultures, which may refract to some degree the light that enlightens every man (John 1:9). These positive elements are intended to be “preparation for the gospel.” One could understand this to mean either a preparation for the actual hearing of the gospel, or preparation for, perhaps, some communication of God by interior illumination.⁴⁴

These very specific conditions as such are ignored by O’Collins. By contrast, Martin examines them very closely because they spell out the necessary conditions under which the possibility, not the probability, that those who have never heard of Jesus Christ may be saved.⁴⁵ The Second Vatican Council addresses the important question regarding the fate of the unevangelized, namely, those who through no fault of their own—the invincibly ignorant—have failed to respond to the Gospel. Can the inculpably ignorant be saved by Christ apart from the knowledge of Christ? If so, then, the knowledge of Christ is not epistemically necessary to access the saving benefits of Christ’s saving work, albeit that Christ’s atoning work is “ontologically and causally exclusive to salvation.”⁴⁶ But the council did not answer that question without stipulating the necessary conditions that must be met for the possibility of non-Christians being saved apart from explicitly acknowledging and responding to Christ and his saving works. Now, even with this consideration in view we do not yet have the full picture.

We shall only have the full picture of what Vatican II teaches when we bring into focus the reason why these conditions are “very often” not met, and they are very often not met, despite the fact that that God has provided sufficient grace—his prevenient grace mediated by the Holy Spirit—to all men for salvation because of sin and Satan’s effects on the lives of human beings. Undoubtedly, this is the most important aspect of Martin’s interpretation of LG 16. It helps us to understand that there is no reason to be optimistic, according to LG 16c, about the salvation of the invincibly ignorant. Indeed, says Martin, we need to consider “the pervasive scriptural testimony … to the deeply ingrained tendency of a fallen race to resist interior illumination and/or the explicit preaching of the gospel, because they prefer, as Scripture says, the darkness to the light.”⁴⁷ In other words, “The Council clearly acknowledges the possibility that those who have never heard the gospel may, under certain conditions, be saved. But it immediately goes on to state that ‘very often’ (at saepius) these conditions are not met, and that the salvation of non-Christians who do not meet these conditions, is significantly tied to the gospel being effectively preached to them.”⁴⁸ LG 16c cites Romans 1:21, 25 in biblical support of its claim that, although God has made known to all men his existence, his eternal power and divine nature, in and through the things he has made, confronting all men with the light of general revelation, they stifle and nullify, obliterate, even if not totally, its testimony by their active contrary will. This contrary will is, according to Romans, “the natural condition of the human heart after the Fall,” namely, “self-seeking, rebellious, and prone to deception, idolatry, and immorality.”⁴⁹

Now, unlike O’Collins, other scholars took seriously Martin’s challenge of the received interpretation, for example, Gavin D’Costa, the late Edward Oakes, S.J., Stephan B. Bevans, S.V.D., and Roger P. Schroeder, S.V.D. Still, that doesn’t mean that they didn’t raise some criticisms of Martin’s interpretation. Oakes, for one, alleges that Martin’s interpretation of LG 16c wrongly takes its “reliance on Rom. 1:21, 25 as demonstrating that the majority of the unevangelized will go to hell.”⁵⁰ But Martin disagrees with this interpretation of his book, which was also made by the then Father Robert Barron.⁵¹ Pace Oakes and Barron, his rejoinder is clear:

I am not speculating or offering any opinion in the book about the relative numbers of the saved and lost. I am not claiming to know that there are more people in hell than heaven, or vice versa. I am not claiming hell is ‘densely populated’ although it very well may be. I think Fr. Barron’s column gives the impression by the way comments are juxtaposed that I am arguing for a position on how many are, or will be, in hell. I’m not. All I am claiming, with Vatican II, is that “very often” people find themselves in a perilous situation regarding salvation, and we can’t presume they will be saved without coming to explicit faith, repentance, and baptism.⁵²

Another objection has been raised to Martin’s interpretation of LG 16. Well-known Catholic missiologists of the Catholic Theological Union, Stephan B. Bevans and Roger P. Schroeder, in their joint article review of Martin’s book, describe his book as “one of the most significant books on mission to appear in 2012.” They add, “Ralph Martin’s book is a powerful one, and a timely reminder in many ways of human sinfulness, and the healing power of the Gospel. It is clearly, passionately, and honestly written. It is a book that deserves to be read by missiologists and mission practitioners” (95). These commendations are a far cry from the harsh charge of O’Collins that Martin “egregiously misrepresents Vatican II’s teaching.”⁵³ Still, they raise the question whether “Martin has exaggerated somewhat the influence that Romans 1 has on LG 16c.”⁵⁴ They raise this question because the Council fathers only refer in a note to Rom 1: 21, 25, rather than the entire passage, namely, Rom 1:18-32. Is that significant? Are they suggesting that referring to the entire passage means that greater weight is attached to man’s sinful condition, and its inhibiting influence on responding to God’s grace? If that is what they are suggesting, it does not seem right.

Elsewhere in Gaudium et Spes 13, the Council Fathers refer in a note to Rom 1:21-25; they also speak here of man as being “held in the bondage of sin” (John 8:34). “For sin has diminished man, blocking his path to fulfillment.” Furthermore, these ecclesiologists also claim that since LG 16c only cites Mark 16:15, “Preach the gospel to every creature,” and not the subsequent verse 16: “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned,” Martin’s reading of LG 16c, in light Mark 16:16, may have influenced him to give “a too negative reading of a passage {16c} that serves as a transition to paragraph 17, on the church’s missionary work.” But their objection is not persuasive. In fact, it is undercut since AG 5 cites both verses, Mark 16: 15-16, and that is precisely in the context explaining the Church’s Great Commission (Mt 28:19f). In sum, as D’Costa urges, “That ‘rather often’ {of LG 16c} suggests a salvation pessimism that was accepted by the Fathers and is not part of a neo-Augustinian plot after council. Martin argues that we are not interpreting the council rightly without this severe warning kept in view.”⁵⁵

Enough has been said for now in refuting O’Collins’ charge against Martin’s interpretation of LG 16.