I understand that Joe is working under severe time constraints, and I am glad that he was willing even to approach a subject as difficult as EENS. But the question is much larger than the status of our separated brethren.
A Feeneyite could agree with quite a lot of Joe's moral analysis. Joe says that someone innocently separated from Rome is not morally equivalent to someone who knowingly rejects the Church; he explicitly distinguishes accidental or material separation from intentional schism. A Feeneyite need not deny any of that.
The disagreement would begin when Joe moves from:
“This person is not culpable for being outside the Church”
toward:
“Therefore this person can nevertheless possess the union with the Church necessary for salvation.”
Those aren't necessarily the same proposition.
From a strict Feeneyite perspective, ignorance removes guilt; it does not supply what is objectively absent. An analogy would be original sin: an infant is personally innocent, yet still bears original sin. That innocence does not itself remove original sin nor confer sanctifying grace. Something positive must happen to the soul: it must receive sanctifying grace and be incorporated into the Church--the Mystical Body of Christ.
Likewise, I would say the Protestant's problem isn't merely:
“Did he culpably refuse to become Catholic?”
There is also the positive question:
“What are the objective supernatural consequences of not being fully incorporated into the Catholic Church, even when that separation is inculpable?”
A Protestant might be completely innocent of formal heresy and nevertheless live in an objectively impoverished supernatural situation.
Depending on the Protestant body, he may have valid Baptism, but ordinarily lacks Confession, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Extreme Unction, and authoritative Catholic moral and doctrinal formation. His ignorance might excuse some particular errors, but it doesn't magically give him the sacramental graces he lacks.
Suppose someone is invincibly ignorant that contraception is gravely wrong. Even granting diminished or absent culpability for contraception itself, the person is still living according to an erroneous moral system. This can create circumstances leading to other sins for which ignorance may not excuse him, such as abortion or sex outside of marriage.
These errors can also compound over generations. Today's Protestant beliefs and moral practices might be unrecognizable even to the founders of their own churches.
So there is potentially a cascading problem:
Separation from the Church:
1. Loss of ordinary means of grace and authoritative teaching
2. Moral/doctrinal error
3. Greater exposure to temptation and additional sins
4. Increased danger of dying without sanctifying grace
EENS is larger than merely saying, “Ignorance excuses someone who does not knowingly refuse to become Catholic.”
Joe does recognize that not everyone outside the Church is invincibly ignorant. Some may knowingly refuse conversion, while others may be culpably ignorant because they have neglected their duty to seek the truth. But this still keeps the discussion centered on the sin of refusing to enter the Church.
The stricter Feeneyite objection goes deeper. Even if we grant that a particular Protestant is completely invincibly ignorant and therefore innocent of the sins of heresy and schism, he still lives in an objectively defective spiritual condition. His ignorance may excuse his separation; it does not give him the supernatural advantages that his separation deprives him of.
He lacks the fullness of Catholic doctrine and moral guidance and, in most Protestant communities, lacks the ordinary sacramental means Christ established for preserving and recovering sanctifying grace.
Thus, the substantive question is not merely, “Is this Protestant culpable for remaining outside the Catholic Church?”
It is also, “What does remaining outside the fullness of the Church objectively do to his spiritual life and his prospects of persevering in sanctifying grace?”
Invincible ignorance may excuse the fault; it does not remedy the defect.
Where I would press him is:
“Yes—but now follow that principle all the way through. Innocence concerning separation doesn't itself remedy the supernatural consequences of separation.”
Invincible ignorance can excuse a person from the personal sin of infidelity (not joining the Church); it cannot turn the defect into the supernatural good that the defect lacks.
In other words:
Ignorance excuses sin, but does not confer grace.
The real theological dispute becomes what God has positively instituted through the Church as necessary to remedy that defect: particularly water Baptism, incorporation into the Church, sanctifying grace, and perseverance until death. That's where the Feeneyite/Catholic Answers disagreement actually becomes substantive, rather than merely a disagreement over how many Protestants are sincere.
What about the unbaptized?
It is not enough simply to sprinkle the dry Baptism of Desire and invincible ignorance over the problem, because this raises another question rather than answering it.
Unam Sanctam does not merely say that subjection to the pope is absolutely necessary. Pope Boniface VIII also de fide declared:
“Outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins.”
The same passage speaks of “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” and compares the Church to Noah's Ark, outside of which none survived.
This creates a serious question for Baptism of Desire.
The Council of Trent teaches that the sacrament of Baptism imprints upon the soul “a character, that is, a certain spiritual and indelible sign.” Trent also defines that “true and natural water” is necessary for Baptism and that Baptism itself is “necessary unto salvation.”
So sacramental Baptism does something objective to the- soul that Baptism of Desire, by definition, does not do: it confers the sacramental indelible baptismal character (mark, or seal).
Trent's teaching on Penance makes the ecclesiological problem even more striking. Explaining why the Church's sacramental jurisdiction differs with respect to the baptized and unbaptized, Trent says that:
“the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not entered it through the gate of baptism.”
It then invokes St. Paul's words:
“What have I to do to judge them that are without?”
The implication is important. The person who has not entered through the gate of Baptism is described as “without.” Sacramental Baptism is presented as the gate through which one enters the Church.
Therefore, the problem cannot simply be answered by saying:
“The unbaptized person was invincibly ignorant and therefore was not guilty of refusing to enter the Church.”
Again, that addresses culpability. It does not answer the substantive ecclesiological question.
If a man has never received sacramental Baptism, has never received the baptismal character, and has not entered the Church through what Trent itself calls the “gate of baptism,” in what precise sense is he inside the Church?
And if he remains “without,” how can his sins be remitted when Unam Sanctam teaches that outside the Church there is “neither salvation nor the remission of sins”?
Now, there is an obvious objection that must be confronted. Trent itself says in its Decree on Justification that man's translation from the state of Adam into the state of grace:
“cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof.”
A defender of Baptism of Desire therefore has a serious conciliar text on his side. I do not think a Feeneyite should simply ignore it.
But that text creates the very question that needs to be answered.
If the desire for Baptism can be instrumental in justification before reception of the sacrament, what precisely has happened ecclesiologically to that person?
He has not received the sacrament. He has not received the baptismal character. And Trent elsewhere describes the person who has not entered through the gate of Baptism as one who is “without.”
Yet Unam Sanctam teaches that outside the Church there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.
This produces the apparent dilemma:
1. Unam Sanctam teaches that outside the Church there is neither salvation nor remission of sins.
2. Trent describes those who have not entered through the gate of Baptism as “without.”
3. Trent teaches that sacramental Baptism imprints an indelible character, and that true and natural water is necessary for Baptism.
4. Baptism of Desire does not confer the sacrament of Baptism or its sacramental character.
5. Yet Trent also teaches that justification cannot take place without the laver of regeneration “or the desire thereof.”
So the substantive question is:
What precisely does the desire for Baptism accomplish ecclesiologically?
If it justifies the unbaptized man, then his sins have been remitted. But if he has not yet entered through the “gate of baptism,” how is that remission reconciled with the dogmatic teaching that outside the Church there is no remission of sins?
Simply saying “Baptism of Desire” does not answer that question. Baptism of Desire is the very proposition whose relationship to EENS needs to be explained.
Nor does invincible ignorance solve the problem. Ignorance may excuse a man for failing to seek or receive Baptism when that failure is truly inculpable. But ignorance itself does not confer the sacrament, imprint the baptismal character, or explain how someone described as “without” can nevertheless receive the remission of sins.
Thus the Feeneyite challenge is not merely:
“Can an unbaptized man be sincere?”
Nor even:
“Can an unbaptized man desire Baptism?”
The deeper question is:
“How does the desire for Baptism place an unbaptized person inside the Church in the sense required by EENS, when sacramental Baptism—the gate by which Trent says one enters the Church—has not yet been received?”
That is the ecclesiological problem that must be answered before Baptism of Desire can simply be invoked as the solution.
But What About the Council of Trent?
At this point, the obvious response is the Council of Trent. In its Decree on Justification, Trent states that the transition from the state in which man is born a child of Adam to the state of grace:
“cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof.”
This is unquestionably an important text, and a serious Feeneyite argument cannot simply pass over it. But neither does quoting the phrase “or the desire thereof” by itself settle the question. The meaning of the passage, what precisely Trent intended to define, and how it is to be reconciled with the Council's other statements about Baptism must still be considered.
There are at least two responses that a strict Feeneyite might give.
1. Justification Is Not Yet the Completion
The first is substantially the position associated with Father Feeney.
Even if Trent is understood as teaching that the desire for Baptism can be connected with justification before the sacrament is actually received, it does not necessarily follow that the sacrament itself has become unnecessary.
The desire is directed toward the sacrament. It does not replace it.
Thus, even granting that an unbaptized catechumen could receive sanctifying grace before Baptism, there would still remain something objectively incomplete: he has not yet received the sacrament Christ commanded, has not received the baptismal character, and has not yet entered through what Trent elsewhere calls the “gate of baptism.”
On this interpretation, justification before Baptism would not establish that a man could die unbaptized and nevertheless attain salvation. Rather, God would bring the justified catechumen to the sacrament necessary to complete what grace had begun.
There is an analogy here with Our Lord's words to St. John the Baptist. When John hesitated to baptize Him, Christ answered:
“Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfil all justice.”
Christ obviously did not require Baptism for the remission of sin. Nevertheless, the divinely appointed act was still to be accomplished. In a different but analogous way, the Feeneyite would argue that an interior disposition toward Baptism does not make reception of the sacrament superfluous. What God has commanded must still be fulfilled.
We see the same pattern in Acts. Cornelius had already received the Holy Ghost, yet St. Peter still commanded him to receive water Baptism. St. Paul, after his conversion, was told: “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins.” The disciples who had received John's baptism were likewise baptized with Christian Baptism.
Acts never presents desire as a substitute for water Baptism. Grace may come first, but Baptism still follows.
The distinction, therefore, is between justification begun through grace and the completion of the divinely established order through sacramental Baptism.
2. Did Trent Actually Intend to Define Baptism of Desire?
The second response, associated especially with the argument made by the Dimond brothers, questions whether Trent intended the words “or the desire thereof” to define Baptism of Desire as an alternative means of regeneration by which a man may ultimately be saved without ever receiving water Baptism.
The context of Trent is important.
The Council was answering Protestant errors concerning justification, free will, grace, and man's cooperation with grace. Trent strongly defended the reality that the human will, itself moved and assisted by grace, must cooperate with God's action.
From this perspective, the votum baptismi—the desire or intention to receive Baptism—can be understood as emphasizing the necessary movement of the will toward the sacrament.
The Feeneyite reading therefore does not have to deny the importance of the votum. It disputes the further conclusion that Trent intended this phrase to define a substitute for actually receiving the sacrament.
This becomes especially significant because Trent immediately grounds its teaching in the words of Christ:
“Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
The Dimond argument therefore reads the phrase concerning the laver and its desire in light of the whole passage: the desire belongs to the process by which the adult approaches justification and Baptism; it is not necessarily being defined as an alternative to the water and the Holy Ghost of John 3:5.
Their grammatical argument concerning the force of “or” (aut) is more controversial and would require a separate linguistic defense. The stronger point is simply that one should not assume that Trent intended this single phrase to define two alternative means of regeneration—one sacramental and one entirely without the sacrament.
3. Infallibility Does Not Make Every Conciliar Sentence a Dogmatic Definition
There is a further principle that must be remembered when interpreting Trent.
To say that an ecumenical council teaches infallibly when it definitively settles a matter of faith or morals does not mean that every explanatory sentence contained in every conciliar decree is itself an irreformable dogmatic definition, much less that every theological formulation employed by a council is incapable of later clarification.
The Council of Florence provides an important example.
In its decree for the Armenians, Florence described priestly ordination using the handing over of the chalice and paten. Yet centuries later Pius XII, in Sacramentum Ordinis, determined that the matter of the sacrament of Holy Orders is the imposition of hands, not the handing over of the instruments.
This did not mean that Florence had taught heresy or that an infallible council had been “corrected” in one of its dogmatic definitions. Indeed, the validity of Greek ordinations, in which the handing over of the instruments was not employed, was never thereby denied.
Rather, it illustrates the necessity of distinguishing between what a council actually intends to define and other theological or explanatory material contained within its decrees.
The same question must therefore be asked about Trent:
What precisely did the Council intend to define when it said “without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof”?
Was Trent defining as an article of faith that an adult can receive the full effects necessary for salvation and die without ever receiving water Baptism?
Or was Trent explaining the process of adult justification, including the necessary movement of the will toward Baptism, while continuing to teach the sacrament itself as necessary?
That question cannot be settled merely by quoting four words from the decree.
There is another reason for caution. Baptism of Blood is not mentioned in the passage.
Yet Baptism of Blood was certainly part of the older theological tradition. If Trent's purpose in this sentence had been to give an exhaustive dogmatic definition of all the ways in which an unbaptized person could attain salvation without sacramental Baptism, its complete silence concerning Baptism of Blood would be noteworthy.
That silence does not prove that Trent rejected Baptism of Blood. But neither should the phrase “or the desire thereof” automatically be treated as though Trent had set out to define comprehensively the entire theology of non-sacramental Baptism.
The Question Remains
None of this proves Baptism of Desire false merely by assertion. Nor should a Feeneyite pretend that Trent's language presents no difficulty for his position. It does.
But the difficulty runs in both directions.
The defender of Baptism of Desire must reconcile his interpretation of Trent's “or the desire thereof” with the other principles already established:
1. Unam Sanctam teaches that outside the Church there is “neither salvation nor the remission of sins.”
2. Trent describes those who have not entered through the “gate of baptism” as those who are “without.”
3. Trent teaches that Baptism is necessary for salvation, that its matter is true and natural water, and that the sacrament imprints an indelible character.
4. Baptism of Desire does not confer that sacramental character.
Therefore, the real dispute is not resolved by saying:
“But Trent teaches Baptism of Desire.”
That is precisely what must be demonstrated. Trent certainly speaks of the desire for Baptism. But did Trent intend to teach that this desire can substitute for the sacrament itself and bring an unbaptized man to salvation?
The Feeneyite, meanwhile, must account seriously for Trent's votum language and cannot simply pretend it is absent.
That leaves us with the deeper question with which we began.
Until that apparent contradiction is resolved, merely appealing to Baptism of Desire does not answer the EENS problem. It identifies the very theological problem that still requires an answer.
Until this issue is resolved the crisis in the Church will continue.
