7
groups or other religions who had surely heard the gospel and were consciously rejecting it. This
kind of rejection was evidence of grave infidelity, resulting in condemnation.
Shortly after the Council of Florence, a new wrinkle entered the discussion of extra
ecclesiam, the discovery of the New World. The fact that an entire population had lived unaware
of the Church for nearly 1500 years faced Catholic theologians with a whole new set of
questions. What was the status of those who, while living during the time of the Church, when
the gospel was known, had no access to the gospel message? Could they be saved? One of a
group of Jesuit theologians to struggle with this problem, Cardinal Juan De Lugo (1583-1660),
expands the cracks opened by the earlier theologians. Sullivan writes of him:
On the question of the possibility of salvation for people who had never had a chance to
hear the message of the gospel, he gave the same response that Suarez had given; that
they would receive the grace with which they could observe the natural law; and if they
keep this, they would be enlightened so that they could arrive at faith in God, and with
this they could have the implicit desire for Christian faith, baptism and membership in the
church that would suffice for their salvation.
18
De Lugo goes on to contend that Muslims, Jews, and heretics can be judged not guilty of the sin
of infidelity and thus saved because they believe some truths about God even if they deny other
crucial truths, such as the divinity of Christ. If these people show contrition for their sins and
follow actual truths found in their own religion, even though they do not recognize authentic
religion in Christianity, they can be saved. He contends (as a forerunner of Rahner) that these
people of sincere faith can even be considered as numbered with the Christians. Sullivan argues
that part of the source for De Lugos reasoning is the beginning of the knowledge of psychology.
The idea seems to be that for some, even a sincere inquiry into the claims of Christianity might
leave them unconvinced. Accordingly, such persons could not be held responsible for rejecting
Christian faith since they are not rejecting something they know to be true.
18
Sullivan 94.