A reader writes:
My husband and I are young, both practicing, orthodox Catholics, with two children and one on the way. We have been writing up our wills — no immediate reason other than preparedness, we are both healthy — and we now need to decide whom we should name as our children’s legal guardians in the event that both of us die or become incapacitated. There are two obvious choices.
Option 1: Mr. and Mrs. X. are our good friends, the same age as us and with three children . Our families spend many hours per week together, and our children regard each others’ family as an extended family. Our kids love them. They share many of our values and our parenting style, plan a large family, and are even NFP users. They, like us, are homeschoolers. They are Christians. They are, in short, perfect. *But* — they are not Catholics.
Option 2: My husband’s parents. They love the kids and the kids love them. They are practicing Catholics and in fact they are my older son’s godparents. But they are also 60 years old — will be nearly eighty by the time our youngest turns 18 — and live hundreds of miles away. We are concerned that if we should die suddenly, sending them to live with Grandma and Grandpa would be more stressful on them than for them to stay with their longtime friends, and also that the grandparents’ health will eventually fail.
Are we morally required to choose my husband’s parents over Mr. and Mrs. X for the sole reason that they are Catholic? Assume that Mr. and Mrs. X would respect our wishes that our children at least receive education in the Faith and won’t stand in the way of their receiving the sacraments — but I’m pretty sure it would be unreasonable to expect them to take the children to Mass every Sunday, or to bar them from taking the children to their own church.
What expectations should we set, if we do choose them? Is it sufficient for us to place enough resources at Mr. and Mrs. X’s disposal that the burden on them to raise children in two different faiths would be not so large? I feel torn — my Catholicism tells me that to be certain they are raised securely in the faith is the most important thing, yet my motherhood feels they will be happier, healthier, and safer in our friends’ home. Of course, it’s all theoretical — hopefully we won’t die suddenly — but if we do then this will turn out to have been the most important decision we ever make.
This is a tough situation. I’ll offer you what help I can, though.
The purpose of parenting is to prepare children for life–and not just this life, but for the next one as well. This is why parents have a responsibility to see to the religious education of their offspring.
Given the fact that what happens to us in the next life is infinitely more important than what happens to us in this one (given the fact that the next life is infinitely long and will either be really good or really bad), the proper religious education of offspring seems to have a transcendental value.
Since God mandates that all adhere to the Catholic faith for their salvation, it must be understood that–even though God allows others to be saved on certain conditions–that adherence to the Catholic faith must at least maximize one’s chances of salvation. (If it were easier to be saved as a non-Catholic than as a Catholic then God would have perversely commanded people to enter a suboptimal situation; one would then maximize one’s chances of salvation be entering a state that is out of conformity with God’s known will, which is crazy.)
In view of these considerations, it seems that parents have a responsibility of transcendental value to do what they can to encourage their children’s adherence to the Catholic faith.
This does not mean making them say Rosaries every waking minute of the day. That actually would harm their religious development. (More is not always better. We are expected to live in a human mode in this life, not a superhuman one.) But it does mean ensuring that they will be raised to believe in the Catholic faith and to participate in its rites according to their age and capacity.
This means, among other things, regularly attending Mass. Once they have hit age 7 (CIC, can. 11) they will be obliged to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation unless they have an excusing cause. Of course, if your guardians refuse to take you to Mass then that is an excusing cause, but the point is that the Church feels that it is very important to attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation or it wouldn’t have gravely bound the faithful to do so.
It is scarcely consistent with the proper religious education of children to have them attend Mass only infrequently (this is not the way to raise them to be regular Mass-attenders as adults), and so it would seem that the parents’ responsibility to best prepare their children for the next life would strongly argue against putting children in a situation where their religious practice will be so neglected–at least as long as there is an alternative.
Since there is an alternative in this case, it seems to me that the thing to do would be to put in grandma and grandpa–at least as placeholders until such time as your friends become Catholic (it sounds like they’re already pretty Catholic friendly) or until you make other Catholic friends who would be willing to take them.
This arrangement may mean placing a higher good over a lower good (their eternal good over their temporal good), but it seems to best reflect the fundamental ordering of values in Christian morality.
Hope this helps!
A few additional thoughts:
Let’s suppose for a moment that regular access to Mass and the sacraments was the greatest obstacle to choosing your friends. Might it be possible to overcome this obstacle?
For example, assuming your friends would be amenable to such an arrangement, could there be other local Catholics who might be willing pick up the kids for Mass on Sundays, and perhaps help educate them in the faith?
A solution like that could conceivably offer the best of both worlds, and might even help ensure a stronger foundation in the faith than your children might receive from their grandparents, since grandparents often don’t parent well and may not be ideally equipped for the challenges of instilling kids with a lively adherance to the faith.
OTOH, I’m guessing your options regarding local Catholics may be limited, since if there were a plethora of wonderful Catholics in the area you would probably be targeting some of them as choices for guardian.
By the same token, though, if you face a dearth of good Catholics in the area, then even if nothing at all happens to the two of you, it might be that you need to take a look at the environmental challenges you may already be facing as Catholic parents.
My wife Suzanne and I once faced a dilemma similar to yours, at a point when we lived in an area where there were no Catholic families we could connect with and almost no tolerable parishes we could attend.
As long as it was only we who were suffering, we were willing to endure this sort of environment for quite awhile, but as our children got older we were increasingly faced with the difficulty of either trying to teach our children that what they saw in church week in and week out was actually wrong, or else allowing them to grow up thinking it was right.
Neither option was very appealing to us, and either way there would be no replacing the lost pedagogical and social value of actually being able to raise them in a wonderful parish.
Anyway, God be praised, a number of circumstances contrived to bring us to a new diocese and a new parish with a growing community of highly committed Catholic families with lots and lots of kids.
And of course while this wasn’t the primary goal, this has greatly altered our prospects for choosing suitable guardians for our children in the event of anything happening to us.
btw, SDG’s parish plight is common. Saints be praised, we’ve had two good parishes and three fine pastors in a row. We must lead a charmed life.
Um. Well. I hate to be harsh about this. But…
Family comes first. (Assuming these grandparents are not evil and abusive, or disabled beyond the point of being able to take care of kids.)
It is ten thousand zillion times better to have kids stay with their own family then to make even the closest of family friends their guardians. Isn’t this self-evident?
It is ten thousand times better to make kids move to another town across the country which keeps them within their own family, than to make them move to another family, however friendly. Isn’t this self-evident?
Moreover, if you assigned guardianship in your will to friends instead of family, your family will never, ever forgive you. You are basically saying, “I proclaim that these strangers would be better at raising my kids than my flesh and blood would. My flesh and blood may therefore be deduced to be evil and abusive. I hate them, or I think they are totally incompetent.”
Of course, if you want to cause a huge family feud and custody battle, or cut your kids off from your grandparents right after they’ve just lost you, go to it. But personally, I think you could achieve better results by just moving to the King Solomon “equal division” method now.
Maureen – that’s a little harsh. What if it’s simply that “my flesh and blood have done a great job raising their children, but now they are somewhat older, somewhat tired, and think that raising a second round of children would exhaust them”? Also, there’s the question of extended family – we have some extended family I do NOT want to have any access to my son (for good reasons, I assure you) so anyone who would grant these other family members access is automatically out.
We’re in a quandary similar to the questioner’s, incidentally: we know NO ONE who is Catholic outside of my parents (who are great, but I wouldn’t want to have them start over with a toddler when they’re approaching sixty). None of my siblings are in a position to bring up our child, my husband’s brother and wife are excellent, religiously conservative – but not Catholic. They’re our instinctual choice, but I do worry about the religious issue. Same for the second couple we could see doing a good job – religious, Catholic-friendly, solid – but not Catholic.
We’re friendly with several Catholic couples (we live in Salt Lake, which limits the selection somewhat) but not to the point where we’d trust them to raise our child.
Maureen,
If family really trumps all other considerations, would you say it is better to have children raised by non-Christian family members than by close friends who are solid Catholics?
If so, sorry, I can’t agree.
Like Jimmy says, our obligation to see to our children’s spiritual well-being has to be the driving concern here. If my non-religious in-laws are offended that my wife and I would choose one of our circle of Catholic friends from church as guardians over them, so be it.
Heck, they were already offended that we (or rather the Church) wouldn’t allow them to act as godparents at our children’s baptisms. Sorry, too bad. Sometimes following Christ means giving offense:
Now, obviously in the case under discussion the grandparents are Catholic (and the friends aren’t). But the welfare of the children, even the spiritual welfare, could still militate against sending the children to the grandparents. Parents have to make the best choice they can for the welfare of their children, irrespective of who does or doesn’t like it.
Well, we weren’t dealing with non-Christian family members. But okay, let’s suppose we were.
Family still comes first. It’s just that in this case, the children’s spiritual family trumps their physical family. Hence the importance of naming godparents. (And in an emotional family argument, godparents would have a really good claim not to be considered “strangers”.)
However, that doesn’t mean that a big custody battle and family feud would not ensue; it would. It just means that you have a legitimate overriding reason to put such forces into motion. You can also use said overriding reason as a lever to explain your decision to the non-Christian family members; it might even work. (“I wouldn’t want to take the kids to church anyway.”)
But it would still be an extremely delicate situation — maybe worse, because of the religious reason. It would certainly be something you would have to prepare your family and the potential guardians ahead of time, as well as making sure your wishes were expressed in legally ironclad fashion.
Now, I have a lot of really close friends. But they aren’t my family. All things being even semi-equal, if I had kids and I died, my brothers or my parents or my grandparents would get them a long time before even my closest and most responsible friends or the kids’ godparents.
Furthermore, even though my generation often considers friends their “chosen family”, this doesn’t go down well with the rest of the family. My mother nearly choked the first time one of my cousins called one of my aunt’s friends “Aunt L”. She felt this was a denigration of her own auntly role, and resents it deeply to this day. The same aunt gave me serious guff for missing a birthday party for a friend’s gathering, even though the birthday party invite didn’t come until after I was gone from the house for the day.
And since family is forever, I will be hearing about this until the day either I or my aunt is dead…. 🙂
When it comes down to matters of life or death, family comes first. Friends go in and out of your life, no matter how close; all that binds you is choice. Family is a given. Family is forever. That’s just the way it is, folks, and I’m really surprised that this even needs to be argued on a Christian or Catholic website.
If the grandparents are really really okay with this, and really really don’t feel able to take the kids, then it really will be necessary that the grandparents tell everyone in the family that they are okay with this, should the time ever come that the guardianship is needed. (I’d avoid the subject until then.)
But that still doesn’t mean that Cousin Bill who you’ve never met won’t sue for custody. Not to be pessimistic or anything.
Bingo Steven! My wife and I are in that exact situation. No one in either of our families is Catholic. We’re both converts. Half of our combined family is athiest, 1/4 or so is marginally Christian by name only, and the few who remain belong to dying “progressive” Christain churches with all the problems that entails.
And for the “they’ll never forgive you” bit: Who cares? I’ll be dead.
In charity to Maureen, I suspect she’s got a great family who did a wonderful job raising her in the faith. It’s hard when you come from that background to remember that many weren’t given that gift.
I’d also second Steven’s idea to talk to family X about what is being considered. If they love the family as much as the author suggests, I’m sure they’d be willing to honor their dying wish for the children. I’m sure they’d even be willing to take them to Sacramental prep and Mass if that was your request of them and a condition of granting them guardianship. I suspect the bigger risk would be that there heart may not be in it and kids are very smart and pick up on things like that.
I’m sorry I’ve been so wild and harsh about this, but something about this issue really does bother me. Maybe it’ll all sound better if I argue that “family comes first” is a kind of subsidiarity principle.
But everybody in my cubicle row agrees with me. Of course, this is biased, because most of my cubicle row hails from Kentucky…. 🙂
We face a slightly different guardianship question in our family. DH & I have seven kids, ranging from 1-12, and hope for several more. There is NO ONE in either of our families who could or would take on seven (or more!) children, even though they are good, practicing Catholics. We also have no shortage of good Catholic friends, but again– who on earth could suddenly take on so many?
I honestly don’t know what the solution is– should the children be split up (I shudder at the thought) into more manageable groups? I just don’t know…
Margaret, one suggestion is to be sure to have your property properly managed after you and your spouse’s death. I’m not legal expert, but what we have done is allowed for an executor (that we trust would have the children’s best wishes in mind) that would manage our property after death. However, we have designated guardians of the children.
The executor can provide the resources necessary for the raising and teaching of your children. We have many new Catholic friends that I would now consider to be guardians. To help offset our number children with their 5-8 children, They would certainly have the option to use that money to build on to the house, move to a better location, have a sizable vehicle and so forth. Now I have to trust my executor to provide for the those needs, and any guardian to not take advantage of the resources.
As a side note, it would be very difficult for anyone in my family to take care of our children due to either lack of Catholic teaching or simply physical resources/capability. And I seriously doubt there would be any family issue with that dicision (probably relieved).
Margaret, I’m the godmother of five children under the age of majority, all my eldest brother’s children. My brother doesn’t have a lot of money, but he and his wife have arranged their life insurance in such a way that if they both died, money would be earmarked for the children’s care. Part of that money would no doubt go toward either an addition or a new house.
Maureen, I understand your concern. One of my aunts was orphaned and went to live with her parents’ friends rather than her alcoholic grandfather and his wife. Unfortunately, the “friends” went through her inheritance and treated her as second-class to their own children, before finally dumping her off with her grandparents when she was about 10. They tried to get her back when she turned about 14 – evidently because of her proficiency at running the farm – but her elderly grandparents went to court to retain custody. It was quite a scandal at the time.
That said, it seems as if more and more people are having to think about their children’s custody outside their immediate families. Most of my friends have only a sibling or two, and no cousins with whom they’re close. My younger brother and I ended up being godparents to eight children (so far) because we’re among the few practicing Catholics among our crowd – and despite being (respectively) the bachelor and the spinster.
Back to the original question. I don’t see 60 as that old. If I were 60 and my adult son and his wife were killed, I cannot imagine not raising their children. I think it would ease the grief somewhat.
My choices are no Catholic siblings of my own in town with my 70 year old parents, but several Catholic siblings of my husband, all out of town. Do I trust that my non-Catholic brother will raise our kids in the faith or that my out-of-town sister-in-law will make sure they bring them to see my folks regularly? Probably option B. The down side to this option is that her parish is one of the worst for liturgical abuses. I think there would have to be some sort of stipulation in our wills that she take them to mass somewhere else from time to time!
For those who have suggested giving the kids to the non-Catholic friends and trusting these friends to bring them up Catholic in some way, I have a comment.
If you die, then whoever ends up raising your kids ADOPTS your kids. Your kids are now their kids. THEY have the responsiblity to get them to heaven the best way THEY know how. Just as everyone who births OR adopts kids. You are DONE. (Except of course you will pray for them!)
So your job is to do your best to put them with the family who will do the best job of leading them to heaven. NOT to put them with a family who has a different view of “being saved” and then ask these parents to go against their own beliefs and raise your kids Catholic.
This creates two problems: First, you have no guarantee that this will happen for very long or at all. And as someone mentioned, their hearts would not be in it. And anyway, raising a kid Catholic is NOT just about making sure they go to CCD and get Confirmed in the Catholic Church.
Second, you are asking these parents to “parent” these children in a way that they believe is not the best for the kids’ spiritual lives! If this family left their kids to you, would you promise to raise them Protestant?? NO!!
When you die they are no longer your kids to raise. Their new parents are the parents who are raising them now. Just keep that in mind.
Yes, but here’s a quandary – suppose (leaving blood ties out of it for a second) you’re faced with a choice between a family who are Evangelical but very observant and faithful, and family who is nominally Catholic but goes about twice a year and doesn’t let church dogma influence their opinions in the slightest? Some of us really do not know too many other Catholics at all.
“Since God mandates that all adhere to the Catholic faith for their salvation…”
Oh, I have big problems with that statement. I just can’t go along with that. The way I understand it (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong), that is the position of the church, i.e., the Pope. And equating anybody on Earth with God is pretty scary stuff, in my book. JMO.
No, APV, that is the position of the Church that Jesus founded, to which He imparted His Authority (binding and loosing, Matt.16). No one is equating the Pope or anyone else with God.
bill912, I just can’t take a proclamation from an institution and elevate it to the status of a proclamation from God.
Now, I understand where I’m posting, so I’m not looking for a fight or anything. I just enjoy reading many of the subjects and posts on this blog, and wanted to put my 2 cents worth in.
I can, if Christ endowed it with His Authority, and guaranteed that it would never teach in error on matters of Faith and Morals.
Let me add one more thing, if I may. As I said, I enjoy reading this blog, but I have no interest in converting to Catholicism. Please understand that I mean no malice when I say this, but converting to Catholicism would, to my estimation, be a tragic miscarriage of my faith. (Just as converting to Protestantism would be a tragic miscarriage for the Catholics here.)
But since I have no intention of converting or otherwise becoming involved in the Catholic church, other than posting and reading here, where does that leave my soul, according to Catholic theology? I ask this in light of my spiritual beliefs, to wit: (Please forgive my use of Protestant terminology) I’ve been a born-again Christian for about 25 years, my faith defines who I am, and I put my trust in Jesus for my soul’s eternal destination. I have been baptized, also.
But if God mandates that I adhere to the Catholic faith for salvation, where does that leave me? Again, I’m being sincere. I’m not trying to start a flamewar.
Jesus founded a Church. He established that salvation would come only through that Church, His Body. That is not to say that only those who are formally members of that Church will be saved. Those who do not realize that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded, and is necessary for salvation, may still be saved. But it will be through the Catholic Church that the grace of salvation will reach them.
I wasn’t trying to start a flamewar either. I was possibly a little flippant, but I wasn’t intending to offend. I sometimes have all the subtlety of a falling brick. (Sometimes?) Gotta drive some tacks now(where’s my sledgehammer?)
APV,
Your question is a difficult one. Put simply, I have been given no positive revelation on the matter. It is certainly my hope that God would provide in his mercy for those souls that “put [their] trust in Jesus for [their] soul’s eternal destination.” The Catholic faith is not defined by law or by structure. These are certainly aids in faith, but they are not the faith itself. In the sense that the Catholic faith is required for salvation, it is understood that Catholic is describing that which was taught by the apostles and then the fathers. Through the ages Catholic has been juxtaposed against Gnostic, Albigensian, and other faiths. Those faiths are deficient.
The question then becomes “Is Christian faith sufficient for salvation?” (Christian here being in the Vatican II sense, e.g. exclusive of Mormons or JWs.) I think it can be, because Catholicism herself embraces Christian faith. Where trouble can arise is when men believe that certain sins are actually righteous such as divorce. The refusal to recognize fellowship can also be an issue. The refusal to pray to Saints or other such pious traditions is not an issue, because they are just that, pious traditions. Assigning ill-motive to those that do so can be an issue though. I hope this helps.
The last comment was by me.
Dear Protestant Visitor,
Speaking as a convert from Protestantism myself:
The Catholic Church holds that, as a baptized Christian, you have been united to Christ, filled with his grace, cleansed from original sin, made a true child of God.
As such, Catholics recognize you and other non-Catholic Christians as brethren in faith, albeit separated brethren.
The Church also holds that it is possible for any Christian to fall from grace through deliberate serious sin. Those who die in this state are lost.
An example of such serious sin would be to knowingly and deliberately refuse to accept God’s authority or will.
For example, suppose someone recognizes that the Bible is God’s word and that he ought to accept its authority, but adamantly refuses to do so. Such a person’s soul may well be in dire jeopardy.
However, it does not follow that everyone who does not accept the authority of scripture is necessarily in serious sin. People can be honestly mistaken or confused about God’s will, and there are degrees of responsibility that only God can judge.
That said, the possibility of a person being saved without recognizing the authority of God’s word does not mean that the issue is of no significance regarding one’s standing before God. It isn’t, and it is much better to recognize the authority of God’s word than not to. That doesn’t mean we consign those who don’t to hell, but still it matters.
In the same way, Jesus Christ founded his church on the rock of St. Peter and his successors, and it is God’s will that all men belong to this Church. In fact, membership in this church is intended by Christ as the normative path of salvation, especially since through the Church we receive constant divine aid on the path to heaven through the sacraments and the Mass.
To knowingly and deliberately refuse to belong to the true Church would be a very serious sin, tantamount to a refusal of salvation.
However, not all those who do not belong to the Church are guilty of this sin. Many non-Catholics fail to follow God’s will in this regard through no fault of their own, due to misunderstanding, error, and the sins of others besides themselves. Or they may have a mitigated level of responsibility that, again, only God can judge.
I’m sure that you are sincere in your Protestant convictions. At the same time, I hope that you are willing to take some time to examine the Church’s claims, not just from second-hand Protestant sources but from good first-hand Catholic sources. (You might try starting here).
Thanks for the comments, folks. You have seriously expanded my religious knowledge.
And bill912, I didn’t take your comments flippantly. When I mentioned not trying to start a flamewar, I was just talking about my comments. I despise trolls, and don’t want to become what I despise.
APV, my above comment still stands; I do have the subtlety of a falling brick(but God’s not through with me, yet).
APV,
I also am a Catholic who used to be Protestant. I wanted to point out one more thing. If you have ever committed a mortal sin of any type in your lifetime, you will need access to the sacrament of Reconciliation. Even Catholics need that. But we DO have access to this sacrament.
By the way, thanks for being open to talking with Catholics!
(I remember when I only talked to Catholics because they had such “bizarre” beliefs that it was fun to see what they would say next. But now, here I am…)
But Louise, and I’m again mindful of where I am when I say this (not trying to start a controversy or anything, in other words), I can’t go along with your requirement about Reconciliation. To me, and I emphasize the “to me” part, it goes against 1 John 1:9 (If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.) I can’t add anything to that, because there’s nothing else in Scripture that says I need to.
However, I do seriously appreciate your concern. As I said, I’m aware of where I’m posting, so I won’t pursue the issue any farther, but your concern is very touching.
Re Louise’s comment: does the Church teach that every Jew, Protestant, etc. who has committed a mortal sin is damned to Hell without Reconciliation, even if invincible ignorance allowed Baptism of Desire to suffice or excused failure to enter full Communion with the Church? I thought we just didn’t know how God judged those things and had room to hope. I could have been wrong. If so, sad to think of all the sincere and serious conversions to evangelical Christianity having absolutely no possibility of impact on the soul of one who has sinned mortally.
APV,
Who do you think 1 John 1:19 is saying to confess our sins to? John is writing to those who would know of the power, given by Our Lord, to forgive or retain sins with His authority.
May I suggest you read:
John 20:21-23, Matt 9:8, Matt 18:18 & James 5:16.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Thomasina,
If someone’s in mortal sin, they need to either receive the Sacrament of Penance, or have perfect contrition for their sins.
Because perfect contrition is difficult, God instituted the Sacrament of Penance.
The position of someone outside the Church is more difficult, salvation-wise, than someone inside.
So that is a difficulty. A Catholic can go to confession to get out of sin. A Protestant stays in his sin until he has perfect contrition.
Another advance of being a Catholic, Sacraments. It’s hard to live without them.
P.S. Would perfect contrition not be enough for the forgiveness of a non-Catholic’s mortal sin? I wonder whether “the firm resolution to have recourse to sacramental confession as soon as possible” (CCC 1452) is essentially not applicable in this case, in which “as soon as possible” never comes if the person dies before conversion.
Thanks Breier — comments crossed.
RE: perfect contrition
Is this the ONLY way that God will remit sins outside the Sacraments, or is the Sacramental/perfect contrition pair just the NORMATIVE way?
I don’t know. But isn’t the Church’s teaching about salvation for the invincibly ignorant a bit hollow if (1) forgiveness is absolutely limited to those two methods, and (2) part of their ignorance is not knowing about those methods?
Francis,
Perfect contrition is an absolute requirement, sans the sacrament.
The teaching about the invincibly ignorant isn’t that everyone gets the same chances, or graces, that Catholics do. It’s simply that everyone has a chance to be saved, and if they aren’t saved, it’s because of their own fault.
Given the sinfulness of humanity, there are plenty of grave faults going around, without adding the sin of unbelief to the mix.
Bear in mind that if someone is unrepentant about the sins they’re living in and decides not to change their life even though they know they’re doing wrong, the grace to become a Catholic, or even to have faith, won’t necessarily be given them. Grace builds on nature.
Anyone who dies in those grave faults, without repentance, is not saved.
The Church’s teaching about the “invincibly ignorant” is perfectly compatible with a very pessimistic view about the salvation of the mass humanity. Of course it’s also compatible with a very optomistic view as well.
Therefore it doesn’t settle anything. God will give everone sufficient grace which, if they correspond with it, will enable them to attain salvation. The difficult of salvation outside the Church remains.
I should add that some groups, like the Orthodox, do have the Sacraments. But religions that lack confession, the Eucharist, the Mass, etc. That’s a world of hurt.
Francis,
Everyone receives sufficient grace which, if the correspond with it, will lead them to salvation. Clearly then, someone who was living a virtuous life desirious of the truth and following it, would be led by the grace of God to faith and an act of perfect contrition, or better, to the Church, before their death. It could well be, though, that this kind of person is really rare.
How would this be accomplished? That’s in God’s hands. Practically speaking though, the situation without the Church is perilous. That’s why it’s a blessing, and not a curse, to be a Catholic, and why there has always been such a great missionary impulse to share the Gospel with others. And a life without the Mass, without sacramental forgiveness, without the Eucharist, is that outer darkness that desperately needs the light.