Avery Cardinal Dulles, after surveying Roman Catholic teaching through the ages about who can be saved gives this bottom line answer:

Who, then, can be saved? Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments. Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found. Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled. Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will. Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice. God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.

So if Catholicism is correct, I guess most of us in other churches are OK. I worry that the atheists will be unhappy to find themselves in Heaven, irked that in not believing in God they nevertheless worshiped him under some other name, so what kind of Heaven would that be for them?

But let me get this straight, and keep in mind that Cardinal Dulles is no touchy-feely Catholic but a conservative Catholic in close association with the Pope. To be saved, you do not have to have faith in Jesus Christ. You can have faith in God. Or, despite the first commandment, you can have faith in God under some other name. Or, if you don’t believe in any gods, you can have faith in something else, such as truth or justice. Or, if you don’t have faith in anything, you can be saved by your good works, though this seems to be the main point even for Christians.

Certainly, if salvation is by good works, anyone who does good works–people of other religions, atheists–will be saved. And since Catholics define good works as having been produced by faith, one can predicate some sort of efficacious faith to anyone who does them. But what an impoverished view of sin we see here! So even this blatantly human rationalization to make God seem nice turns out to be of little comfort to an actual sinner who is burdened by his bad works.

But more than that, if faith in virtually anything is enough or even optional for salvation, why do we need the church, why should anyone evangelize, and why did Jesus need to die?

Canada has “human rights” commissions that seem bent on shutting down human rights. At least the right of free speech. The board is currently prosecuting an editor for publishing the infamous cartoons of Muhammed. Other targets include a Catholic publication for upholding the church’s teaching about homosexuality and Canada’s main newsmagazine, Macleans, for printing a column by conservative pundit Mark Steyn who was critical of Islam. Read this and be appalled.

There are other meandering cases in the works, or that were in the works, often against Internet website owners or the contributors to their online forums. It is almost impossible to get clear information about these. In the notification process, the recipient of a human rights complaint need not be told who the complainant is, or what he is alleging. The recipient is just left to guess for a while, as the bureaucratic machinery of quasi-legal “justice” proceeds at its glacial pace.

By forbidding speech criticizing homosexuality and Islam, Canadian law is also throwing out freedom of religion. Are any of my Canadian friends and readers out there who could comment on this? If the United States government agitates for human rights in Russia, China, and the Middle East, shouldn’t it do the same for our friends to the north?

HT: Nathaniel Peters at First Things

According to pro-life activist Gerard V. Bradley is John McCain.

McCain is not the only pro-life candidate in the Republican field. There are — and were — others. Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is rightly regarded as a champion of the unborn. He was no doubt the first choice of many ardent pro-life Republicans. But Brownback gave up his campaign for the Republican nomination months ago. Now he is backing McCain.

Of the remaining pro-life Republicans, none can match McCain’s record of opposing abortion. He has served in Congress for 24 years, and cast a lot of votes on abortion legislation during that time. His record is not merely exemplary — it is perfect. McCain’s votes on abortion really could not be better. A campaign advertisement in South Carolina says of John McCain: “Pro-life. Not just recently. Always. Never wavering.” The ad is true.

It is no criticism of any other pro-life candidate to say that McCain’s track record makes him the best of a small number of good choices. Mike Huckabee is a good man and solidly pro-life. I personally do not doubt the sincerity or depth of Mitt Romney’s present commitment to the unborn. But experience matters. Being battle-hardened in defense of life is a real plus. Twenty-four years of service at the national level — almost all of them in the Senate — make a big difference when we are talking about the next President, compared to candidates who have been small-state governors. There is no need to speculate or to rely upon promises or take matters on faith when it comes to McCain and abortion. He has demonstrated himself to be the best pro-life choice.

McCain’s only lapse was his openness to destroying “spare” embryos in fertility clinics that would not be implanted for their stem cells. Bradley here says that after he talked with him, McCain has changed his position and no longer supports that option.

I invited the Patrick Henry College students from Wisconsin over to our place for Johnsonville brats and to watch the Packers play the Giants for a slot in the Super Bowl. We had to console each other after a suspenseful, nerve-wracking game. But, as I have observed, when someone loses the Super Bowl, it’s almost better not to be in the thing, such is the disappointment, and I don’t think anyone can defeat the Patriots. I could be wrong.