I Don’t Think I Agree With This

HEREZA STORY ABOUT AN EVANGELICAL RADIO HOST LOSING HIS JOB.

The reason he lost his job?

When a caller asked, he entertained the question of whether Pope John Paul II is in heaven and said it is not certain but is a matter between him as "an individual and the Creator."

Now, I always hesitate to comment on such matters when I haven’t heard the original because there can be many nuances that have been dropped out (like an ultra-snotty attitude being displayed at a sensitive moment), but assuming matters are as the press report indicates, should this guy have lost his job?

Of course he overlaid the discussion with the common Evangelical notion that one must be "born again" in an event distinct from baptism and then said that whether John Paul II was born again was a matter between him and God, but stripping the erroneous theological overlay away, it amounts to this: John Paul II’s salvation is not a cetainty and depends on the state of his soul at death, which is something nobody on earth today can say with infallible certainty.

Y’know who else says that?

The Catholic Church.

Until such time as John Paul II becomes a canonized saint, that’s exactly what the Catholic Church would propose to the faithful regarding his soul (minus the born-again-apart-from-baptism stuff). Individual chuchmen, including individual members of the Magisterium, might propose something different, but that’s what Church teaching would say.

So if those were the grounds on which he was fired, I’m just kinda cool towards firing the gent.

There might be other grounds on which to fire him (e.g., he’s teaching all kinds of false doctrine or he talked about John Paul II in an ultra-snotty way at a sensitive moment), but merely questioning the salvation of an individual (who the Church has not yet proclaimed to be in heaven)–that just don’t do it for me.

I thus appreciate the ecumenical sentiment of the station’s general manager, who said:

"WORD-FM needs to function in this city in support of the entire church — that means everybody — and not focus on denominational issues."

But however much reason there may be to confidently hope for the salvation of John Paul II (and there’s a whole boatload of reasons to do so; in fact I wouldn’t oppose the next pope proclaiming him a saint on the spot), I don’t see firing somebody because he simply said that it’s not 100% guaranteed that John Paul II is in heaven.

As of this moment, that’s the position of the Catholic Church.

Now, if you want to fire somebody because they’re saying that one must be born again in an event apart from baptism and that’s pushing a denominational issue on the Christian community as a whole, feel free.

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

26 thoughts on “I Don’t Think I Agree With This”

  1. Jimmy, what about Blesseds? Does beatification signify that someone is in Heaven with certainty? If so, what about someone who is called Servant of God?
    I’m not trying to be picky, I’m honestly curious. It’s hard to believe a Servant of God could have suffered perdition. But maybe the Church remains open to the possibility they are in Purgaory?

  4. Call me old school, but I prefer the older style apologetics and religious controversy (minus the wars of religion).
    I suspect that’s true of many people today. For example, Catholics love to praise G.K. Chesteron, who endlessy attacked Calvinists and even said that England should have a holiday to celebrate when the Puritans left. If Chesterton had written in a mamby pamby, we’re-all-saying-the same-thing-just-using-different-language style, I bet he would have long since been forgotten.

  5. A retired bishop usually celebrates Mass at my parish, and he did so on the Sunday following the Holy Father’s death.
    In the homily, he addressed this very question.
    His first point was that the soul of the Pope possibly went straight to Heaven – but that it was also possible that he went to purgatory, and that it is not for us to know.
    Further, he reminded us that it was not impossible that the Pope went to Hell. Of course this was not meant as a serious possibility – as the bishop said, if John Paul II was found so lacking, the rest of us might as well get up and turn over the keys of the church!
    Given that, I find it very sad if this man lost his job on this point. Again, we don’t know all the facts of the case.
    Based on my reading I imagine most people in North America will be astounded that a bishop would mention Hell at all, let alone raising the possibility that the Pope might be there. 8^) (I live in Canada)

  6. No way he should have been fired just for saying what is reported in the media. Could have been that his termination was a long time coming, though, and his supporters are just putting this forward as a reason.

  7. Jimmy, I agree with you 100%.
    And even if John Paul II were canonized, I wouldn’t be upset if the Evangelical Protestant in question made the same comments. I don’t expect his beliefs to conform to mine.

  8. “I don’t see firing somebody because he simply said that it’s not 100% guaranteed that John Paul II is in heaven.”
    I seriously doubt that’s all there was to it. He spent the ENTIRE WEEK after the pope’s death talking about Catholic doctrine, never once referring to the Catechism or having a Catholic apologist on the air (though on previous shows he’d had Protestant apologists on).
    BTW, I’ve been tracking this story since it broke. Check it out here.

  9. Bye, Bye, Marty

    Update: Catholic aplogist Jimmy Akin has thrown his cowboy hat into the ring saying, “I don’t see firing somebody because he simply said that it’s not 100% guaranteed that John Paul II is in heaven…Now, if you want to fire somebody because they’re …

  11. So did Ratzinger make a doctrinal error when he said, “We can be sure that our beloved Pope is standing today at the window of the Father’s house, that he sees us and blesses us”? Mama mia!
    This debate is about as useful as discussing how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Before the days of the canonization process, the shouts of “Santo Subito!” carried with them a higher air of authority. Now, after a century and a half of rationalization–to use M. Weber’s word–we find ourselves discussing whether John Paul II himself is in heaven. Please.

  12. Before the days of the canonization process, the shouts of “Santo Subito!” carried with them a higher air of authority.
    Yes, and before the days of the canonization process, the Irish managed to canonize a “mermaid” through that method. Thankfully “her” cult was suppressed.

  13. Ratzinger was not saying, with the authority of a bishop, that we can be sure that John Paul II is in Heaven because it has been revealed to the Church by God. I think he was saying, we can have a very justifiable “human” sureity, because, c’mon, he was a living example of holiness for us all. And maybe he was communicating his personal experience also, which can have great weight, but is not public revelation.

  14. Geoff, I appreciate you addressing my question. But can anyone cite a document or authority that says Blesseds may not be in Heaven, and it is after Canonization that a person is known by the Church with absolute certainty to be in Heaven?
    I don’t doubt the teaching, I just want to see it.

  15. Try the old Catholic Encyclopedia article, which I have linked in my signature. What you’re looking for is towards the bottom, I think.

  16. I always thought that beatified persons were known to be in Heaven, since it is now required that a miracle be attributed to their intercession before they can be called Blessed. The title itself implies that they are sharing in the glory of Heaven.
    The uncertainty arises because canonization is infallible and becomes Church doctrine, while beatification is restricted to the Blessed’s local area or some other group.

  18. Yes, and before the days of the canonization process, the Irish managed to canonize a “mermaid” through that method.
    You can always trust the Irish to put the icing on the cake when it comes to saints. I remember being rather shocked as a child to come across this lovely Irish tale of sainthood. “One day Saint X woke up and found that Saint Y had snuck into his house and stolen his bread. So Good Saint X chased after him, but couldn’t catch up, so then he had the idea to throw a rock at Saint Y’s head, and it landed in the water and now it’s the Island of Something or Other.”

  19. Ratzinger was not saying, with the authority of a bishop, that we can be sure that John Paul II is in Heaven because it has been revealed to the Church by God. I think he was saying, we can have a very justifiable “human” sureity, because, c’mon, he was a living example of holiness for us all. And maybe he was communicating his personal experience also, which can have great weight, but is not public revelation.
    Well, as I am a human being, I am moved by “human” certainty (or as you said, “sureity”), and by my own personal experience as a human being. I understand fullly that one must make the distinction that you made, and that one must safeguard the integrity of canon law and “the process,” so to speak. But if we are not moved into belief by “human certainty,” by our hearts (and by “heart” I don’t just mean “feelings”), then I don’t see how a code or a set of propositions will inspire belief. That’s why I appreciate the spontaneity and faithfulness and humanity of the cries of “Santo Subito!”, and that’s why I think this whole debate is besides the point. The Pope is in heaven.

  20. What do you bigots have against canonized mermaids?!
    Saint Murgen the Mermaid, pray for us!
    Saint Guinefort the Greyhound, pray for us!

  21. I’m from the Pittsburgh area, and I used to listen to WORD FM before Relevant Radio showed up (albeit with a very weak signal) and also got a shortwave to listen to EWTN. WORD had two different afternoon talk hosts in the past who were very good. They theologically disagreed with the Catholic Church but did it in a respectful and reasonable manner. But Marty Minto was different. In general, he would go nonlinear on people who had differing interpretations of things than his. But he had a special stick he saved to beat Catholicism with.
    Now, I didn’t hear him the particular week he got fired. But his past tirades on Catholicism don’t give me much room for hope. The interesting thing is that his producer/call screener is a Catholic and a committed one and apparently got along with Marty although disagreeing theologically. So maybe in private he was more reasonable. But on the air he was quite obnoxious. He also would not give any time to anybody with any credentials to rebut things. The former afternoon host, Don Matzat (spelling?) had Scott Hahn on several times to discuss things. They disagreed, but they did it in a friendly and informative way. Minto would never let anybody like Hahn or Jimmy Akin on his air. For some more info on the topic here’s a link to the article in the local paper:
    http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/pittsburgh/s_323955.html
    Note that it says that this went on for most of the week. However the station and the Catholic producer/callscreener all say that this was only the culmination of a number of issues. Here’s the producer’s blog article about it:
    http://powerballplace.blogspot.com/2005/04/to-listeners.html
    One thing to keep in mind… WORD FM is part of the Salem Radio Network and Pittsburgh is about a 65% Catholic market. Minto had a habit of going nonlinear on Catholic topics. Not a good way win friends and influence advertisers. So, more than listener complaints, it might have been an ongoing problem with advertisers.

  22. Well, Saint Senare (if Google can be trusted) may have historical, even if the stories about her being mermaid were not.
    There appears to have been a Saint Christopher, although I think we are justified in saying that he was neither a dog-headed man nor a giant (in the folkloric, not the very large human, sense).

  23. Blesseds are certainly in heaven even if beatifications are not infallible. One can be certain of many things which are not the subject of an infallible teaching. For example, one can be certain that Australia exists even though the Church has not infallibly taught that Australia exists. To doubt whether a particular blessed is in heaven does not seem very pious to me.

  24. To doubt whether a particular blessed is in heaven does not seem very pious to me.
    How about Simon of Trent?

  25. I do not doubt that Simon of Trent is in heaven and I believe that at least up until the time the public cult was sustained by the Holy See that it would not have been very pious to doubt that he was in heaven. He was not, however, beatified in the strict sense; his beatification was “virtual” or “equivalent.” Nevertheless I believe it to be certain that he is in heaven just as I believe it to be certain that Australia exists.

Comments are closed.