CathInfo.com

Fr. Bainvel's work only most barely mentions BOB and explicit BOD, but is principally concerned with the mystery of Implicit BOD. He turns aside from some simplistic explanations put forth by some lesser speculative theologians, exposing their weaknesses, thus clearing the way for him to put forth his own theory. The ideas put down were those of membership in the soul of the Church as though that were some distinct organization from the visible Church, and membership in the visible Church being itself merely commanded by way of precept only. It is of course a matter for theologians to argue as to whether his solution bears any real superiority to those he refuted.

    Is Fr. Bainvel, as evidenced in his book, Is There Salvation Outside the Catholic Church, a liberal as Raymond Karam claims in his Reply piece? From what I have seen of those in the St. Benedict's Center, anyone who allows for anyone at all that is not actually water-baptized and in good standing with the visible Church to be anything but damned is a "liberal." However, one does find a few subtle liberalisms within Bainvel's work. For example, he uses the phrase "Separated brethren" to refer to baptized non-Catholics (i. e., Protestants), which anticipates the use of the same phrase in the docuмents of Vatican II.

    Be all that as it may, the accusation is made that Bainvel has engaged in scholastic dishonesty. Of course we must know by now that even if that were true, such an accusation would merely be the pot calling the kettle black. But is it? Only one quote actually get's "exposed" within the Reply piece, namely that of Pope Pius IX, when he writes "it must likewise be held as certain that those who are affected by ignorance of the true religion, if it is invincible ignorance, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord." Bainvel quotes this statement thus: "It must be equally held as certain, that ignorance of the true faith, if it be invincible, excuses one from all fault in the eyes of the Saviour."

    The Reply piece rakes Bainvel over the coals for having quoted the Pope as stating that invincible ignorance "excuses one from all fault," where, if this translation had been more careful, it would have rendered the phrase "Excuses one from any fault in this matter." One must admit that a careless reading of what could be called a careless translation could make it out that ignorance of the Faith automatically excuses ALL sin, and not merely the failure to practice a Faith of which one has heard no detail. But does Bainvel advance such a claim?

    Clearly Bainvel does not believe that ignorance of the Faith excuses one from ALL guilt of any kind, for he makes it clear that the soul in question must have a specific will towards God, even the God of Whom he knows nothing. How many such souls, physically separated from the Church, might actually have this intention? "Certainly no one is saved who dies in enmity with God; no one is saved who dies in unrepentant personal sin; no one is saved without faith." So often language about how "the heathens are saved" by some means fails to mention, taking as assumed, that it is not claiming that all heathens are automatically saved, but that of all the heathens, whatever few who actually are saved would be saved by the means mentioned.

There is nothing in the papal quote, as given to support the claim that the Pope is warning against such reflection, as indeed by this reference it is clear that he himself has just been engaging in it. One cannot speak of the results of making a "reflection" without having made the reflection itself. Now it is true that the Pope does state later in the same paragraph that "to seek to penetrate further is not permitted," but that isn't given here in the Reply piece, and furthermore what he did warn against was not such reflection as he had obviously just performed, but rather against attempts to set limits as to "how far from God can a soul be and yet still be saved," or "how good is good enough," or to presume upon the salvation of any individual who has not at least an explicit BOD or BOB or outright membership in the Church through water baptism. So Fr. Donnelly has in no way misquoted the Pope.