Per Christum Catholic Blog

Here is an excerpt from The First Apology of Saint Justin, which we are reading this week as a part of the Church Fathers Lenten Reading Plan:

And when Socrates endeavoured, by true reason and examination, to bring these things to light, and deliver men from the demons, then the demons themselves, by means of men who rejoiced in iniquity, compassed his death, as an atheist and a profane person, on the charge that “he was introducing new divinities;” and in our case they display a similar activity. For not only among the Greeks did reason(Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ;

Perhaps this sounds shocking to modern Christian ears. However, we Catholics believe that anything true in other religions is not to be condemned, because Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and wherever there is truth anywhere, we can connect this to Jesus in some fashion. For St. Justin, Jesus is the Logos, and as the Logos (the architect of the universe, the universal Reason) anything divinely reasonable can be connected to Christ’s activity, even if Christ is unknown to the person acting reasonably. I say “divinely reasonable” because Justin does not mean mere logic or common-sense here, but acting in accord with divine justice and truth. Thus for Justin, Socrates and Plato may be said to be “Christians before Christ” because they (in their own limited way) submitted to Divine Reason, which is Christ. This does not mean that we excuse some of their behaviors or opinions that contradict Christian Teaching. Rather we mean that they, in a limited way, embraced the Logos while most around them did not.

Is this teaching dangerous liberalism? Is this universalism? Hardly. Third-century writer and theologian Origen was officially condemned for his universalism at the 5th ecumenical council, whereas Justin has never been official accused of universalism. Plus, Justin admits that most of Socrates’ detractors “rejoiced in iniquity” and were influenced by pagan gods, rightly demons rather than gods. In other words, among those in Athens, only a few could be said to be following Reason; thus all ways were not equally true. Justin and the Catholic Church do not teach that all ways are True, or that every path is as good as the next.

As to how this relates to salvation, we teach that those who have never been taught about Christ, yet who live according to Divine Reason, may have the chance to be saved. Those who openly reject Divine Reason will suffer a different fate. Ultimately it is up to God of course, since we humans have no way of knowing to what extent a person embraced divine Reason in relation to his/her situation or ignorance.

Also, the Catholic position is actually rather conservative because it assumes that Christian Truth is universal. If the truth of “thou shalt not steal” is only true when Christians obey or embrace it, then this truth is not universal at all, but only true some of the time. However, if we follow St. Justin, “thou shalt not steal” is true whenever anybody embraces the truth of the commandment. Thus, the truth of Christianity is so universal that it even passes beyond the borders of the Church, although in a more limited way than within the Church.

All of this seems reasonable to me, even divinely reasonable. What do you think? Note: If I have misunderstood or mischaracterized this nuanced Catholic belief, please let me know.