Are Catholics Saved?

Are Catholics Saved?

There are many of us who have loved ones in the Roman Catholic Church, and we worry that their eternal destiny may be in jeopardy because they stand with the Catholic Church and their doctrines.

What if they genuinely love Christ? What if they are unable to let go of their traditions? What if they are staying in the church out of peer pressure?

In the following section, we will attempt to answer these pertinent questions.

My Catholic friend claims they are in a “relationship with Christ.”

The modern Catholic has learned to deflect from the age-old Protestant question of whether salvation is based on good works or a relationship with God.

Now, many informed Catholics respond by saying that they are saved through a relationship with Christ, not through works.

While this may sound encouraging, we shouldn’t just stop there. Instead, we need to dig deeper and probe further with questions like, “please define for me what do you mean by your relationship with Jesus Christ?” Or “please explain to me if there is anything that you need to do that contributes to that salvation?”

We shouldn’t assume they know what it means to have a relationship with Christ and believe in Him. Neither should we let them get away with superficial answers.

If you want to discover what they truly believe, you should keep probing them and asking them to explain the gospel message to you. This also applies to all other Christians as well. Simply professing Christ, without any theological understanding of what that means is useless.

Are people who have accepted Christ but still follow Roman Catholic traditions/rituals/practices able to enter heaven?

It is possible for many faithful Christians to be saved and remain within the Roman Catholic Church. However, their salvation is not due to the Catholic Church, but rather despite it.

What does that mean?

Roman Catholicism does not grant Christians the grace to become children of God; it is God’s mercy that does. So even though there are flawed doctrines and traditions, the Spirit of God can still perform a sovereign work in directing them to the truth and knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

There are times when well-intentioned people who have practiced certain religious habits for years (such as saying the rosary) find it difficult to completely break away.

There is a similar incident in the Bible when Paul preached the gospel in Corinth, and many believed and came to faith in Christ, but they had difficulty breaking some of their pagan habits. And so Paul wrote to them in 1 Corinthians (vs 10:21), saying, “You can’t come to the Lord’s Table and then go to the idol temple.”

It is understandable that certain rituals and traditions that give honor and respect to society and the family are hard to discard overnight. It takes time to set aside old habits, and sometimes if a person passes away (while in the process of sanctification), they may not have had enough time to fully disassociate or walk away from the church’s practices.

It is not a person’s perfection here on earth that earns them a place in heaven; rather, it is their faith in Christ. This is also true for the thief on the cross (Luke 23:33-43). Due to his imminent death, he didn’t have time to change his old habits.

So as we understand, while the teachings of the Roman Church might be a matter of grave concern, there might still be many within the Roman Catholic Church who trust in Christ alone for their salvation and do not subscribe to the way of salvation that their church prescribes.

It is also true that many within Protestant churches do not fully comprehend or believe the Reformed doctrines of grace.

There will always be some inconsistency among the brethren, but it is usually on secondary issues and not on any of the primary doctrines of Christianity.

Catholics who fully embrace all the primary doctrines of the Christian faith are more likely to be saved.

What are the implications of accepting Christ but remaining in the Catholic Church?

It is possible for individuals to come to faith in Jesus Christ and discover His teachings without leaving the Catholic Church. There can be reasons for this, such as the need to continue ministering to those left behind, or peer pressure from family and society. 

When it comes to their eternal salvation, the Bible does not specifically differentiate between which religion one must belong to or not belong to in order to be saved. In other words, a person can still be saved even if they were Catholic (or anything else) because salvation is about believing in the truth of the gospel and not in a particular religion.

However, the issue concerning this question extends beyond salvation because true believers must be in a Bible-teaching church for personal growth and sanctification.

Believers are called to study God’s word and seek His truth diligently. Therefore, those who choose to ‘remain’ in a different religious environment will constantly struggle with finding the truth that edifies them.

Finding a local church that prioritizes the word of God is essential for a persons spiritual growth and needs.

See the below verse from the book of Corinthians; 

1 Corinthians 10:21 (NKJV)
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons.

Here, Paul urges the Corinthian church to make a decision. They cannot be partakers of truth and also share in the table of demons.

Christians who wish to attend a Catholic Mass are required to repeat “Amen” after the priest when he lifts the Eucharist. In doing so, you would be affirming the church’s teachings, which a true Christian cannot do with good conscience. It would still be fine if you were silent and didn’t respond, but then again what are you doing there? If you aren’t participating?

In some cases, staying in a particular church environment may feel like a place of comfort due to habit, while in other instances, it might be driven by peer pressure from family or society. Nevertheless, Christians are ultimately responsible for their own spiritual growth and that of their families. This means aligning their desires with God’s will and standing firm for the truth where it matters most.

The decision to remain or leave is not an easy one, but it requires careful consideration of our priorities.

    The Apocrypha books

    The Apocrypha books

    Why does the Roman Catholic Bible differ from  the Protestant Bible?

    It is common knowledge that the Catholic Bibles differ from Protestant Bibles. It is because the Roman Catholic Bible contains seven additional books.

    These seven books (written during four-hundred-year period between the Old Testament and New Testament) are referred to as the Apocrypha (meaning “hidden” or “doubtful”) because of their questionable authenticity and authority.

    The Protestant Bible lines up with what the Jews considered the complete Old Testament. However, the Roman Catholic church added seven books to the Old Testament at the Council of Trent (AD 1545–1563). This was a period when Catholic doctrines were being questioned, and the Apocrypha was seen as supporting some of the traditions practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, such as prayers for the dead (Mac 12:45).

    There are several reasons why Protestants do not consider these books canonical, which are summarized below:

    • No New Testament writer quoted from any of these books as Scripture or even considered them inspired, though they often quoted from other Old Testament books.
    • These books were virtually ignored by Jesus and the disciples, which they would not have done if they considered them to be inspired by God.
    • As early as AD 90, the Jewish Council of Jamnia rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Additionally, most church fathers of the first four centuries of Christian history rejected these books as inspired.
    • The Apocryphal books were written between 250 BC and the first century AD. However, according to Judaism, by about 400 BC, the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel.
    • The Apocrypha contains clear historical errors, such as the assumption that Sennacherib was the son of Shalmaneser instead of Sargon II (see Tobit 1:15).
    • As opposed to many biblical books, none of the Apocryphal books claim to be inspired by God.
    • Unlike the Old and New Testament books, the Apocrypha contains no predictive prophecy.
    • Apocryphal books were emphatically rejected by Jerome, the famous Roman Catholic scholar (lived around AD 420) who translated the Latin Vulgate Bible.
    • They were not written by the apostles whose names the books bear since the apostles died in the first century.
    • There are many errors in doctrine and heresies in them.
    • Apocryphal books contain doctrines that contradict the inspired scriptures. For example, 2 Maccabees 12:43–45 teaches the efficacy of prayers and offerings for the dead. Ecclesiasticus 3:30 teaches that alms-giving atones for sin and justifies cruelty to slaves (33:26, 28).

    Furthermore, the Roman Catholic church’s acceptance of these books in AD 1546 is also unjustified for the following reasons:

    • They were the wrong group to make this decision i.e., New Testament Christians whereas it was the Jews who were entrusted with the oracles of God as per Romans 3:1-2;
    • It took place at the wrong time (16th Century AD), and
    • It was done for the wrong reasons in response to the Reformation.

    Forgiveness of sins according to the Catholic Church

    Forgiveness of sins according to the Catholic Church

    Here are a few extracts from the 1994 Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church claiming to be authorized to forgive people’s sins.

    “There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive.”
    (1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church Page 256 #982)

    “By Christ’s will, the Church possesses the power to forgive the sins of the baptized…”
    (1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church Page 257 #986)

    “The Church, who through the bishop and his priests forgives sins in the name of Jesus Christ…”
    (1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church Page 363 #1448)

    Despite these claims, the Bible teaches God is the only one who can forgive sins. Moreover, God does not rely on a church to delegate His rightful authority to forgive sins. Instead, He only requires a repentant heart that is ready and willing to call out to Him.

    Psalm 86:5 (NKJV)
    For You, Lord, are good, and ready to forgive, And abundant in mercy to all those who call upon You.

    Do Christians have the power to forgive sins and save people?

    Catholics will use the following verse by Jesus to support their claims that the priests have the authority to forgive sins:

    John 20:23 (NKJV)
    If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

    On the surface, it may seem as if Jesus was giving the disciples the power to forgive, but this is not the case.

    In this context, Jesus was giving the disciples a spirit-powered and spirit-guided mission to preach the good news about salvation so that people’s sins might be forgiven.

    The disciples did not have the power to forgive sins (only God can forgive sins), but Jesus gave them the privilege of telling new believers that their sins would be forgiven if they believed in the message of Jesus.

    Today, all believers have this same privilege; we can announce the forgiveness of sins with certainty when a person repents through faith in Jesus Christ.

    Relics

    Relics

    The word “relic” comes from the Latin word relinquo, literally meaning “I leave,” or “I abandon.” A relic is a piece of the body of a saint, an item owned or used by the saint, or an object which has been touched to the tomb of a saint. Traditionally, a piece of the body of a saint, especially that of a martyr, maybe – with the permission of the local ecclesiastical authority—used in solemn processions recalling the specific holy person.
    (Church teaching on Relics –
    catholiceducation.org)

    According to the above citation from a catholic website, a relic consists of a saint’s physical remains and/or any personal artifacts preserved for veneration.

    In order to justify the use of relics, Catholics often say that it serves no purpose other than to commemorate and acknowledge God, so retaining them does no harm.

    In truth, it’s not the possession of the relics that’s the problem, but the idolization of them. Many Catholics delve beyond just using them for memory and instead worship the object by kissing or falling on their knees before them.

    This act stands against scriptures’ clear teachings on worshipping idols (Deut. 29:17 and Leviticus 26:1).

    Some of the types of relics are also quite absurd. Just google images for “the crypt of Santa Maria”, which is a crypt made from chunks of skull and bone. In no way does this represent God or something God would have commanded the people to do.

    Roman Catholics may cite the following scripture to support the use of relics:

    Exodus 13:19 (NKJV)
    And Moses took the bones of Joseph with him, for he had placed the children of Israel under solemn oath, saying, “God will surely visit you, and you shall carry up my bones from here with you.”

    However, if you read the verse in context, you will see that Moses took the bones of Joseph because of an oath he made with Joseph to fulfill his dying wish to be buried in the Promised Land, as a sign of faith in God’s promise to bring the Israelites back to their homeland. There is nothing in the text that implies the bones of Joseph were worshiped or venerated.

    Another verse Roman Catholics use is as follows:

    2 Kings 13:21 (NKJV)
    So it was, as they were burying a man, that suddenly they spied a band of raiders; and they put the man in the tomb of Elisha; and when the man was let down and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived and stood on his feet.

    Here we see a direct miracle associated with touching bones. However, just because a miracle or blessing is tied to something doesn’t mean we should worship that object or person. There is no direction in scripture regarding this.

    The Old Testament also records another example of a brazen serpent that healed people stung by snakes (Numbers chapter 21). But even in this case, God did not allow veneration of the serpent figure. In fact, the figure was not intended as an idol; rather, it was a symbol sanctioned by God that people could look at in faith and be saved. 

    Unfortunately, even this ‘God-ordained symbol’ was turned into an idol, and when the people began worshipping it, God broke it into pieces (through King Hezekiah – 2 Kings 18:4).

    History shows us that fallen man can take good and glorious things from God and turn them to idolatrous ends.

    Surely if God had truly intended people to revere the bones and use them as a medium of power or connection to Him, He would have made it clear in the scriptures. 

    Another familiar verse used by Roman Catholics to justify the veneration of relics is from the book of Acts. 

    Acts 19:12 (NKJV)
    so that even handkerchiefs or aprons were brought from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out of them.

    In this verse, we see how Paul performed miracles simply by touching a handkerchief. But we need to understand the context of this verse as it is meant to be descriptive and not prescriptive to us.

    We are not instructed or commanded to venerate relics. Rather, this miracle was only performed to validate the apostles and ensure that the gospel message would be accepted by the people that they preached to.

    Last but not least, if these so-called “magical objects” truly have miraculous powers, why aren’t they openly available for use in hospitals to heal the sick, rather than being kept hidden away in churches and shrines? And why do these supposed miraculous occurrences involving relics seem to happen only in distant, obscure places where no one can independently witness or verify them? If these objects were genuinely capable of performing the wonders attributed to them, wouldn’t we see their effects more broadly and transparently?

    The reason is simply that these are exaggerated tales created by people to convey a sense of spiritual mystique.

    What is Purgatory?

    What is Purgatory?

    What is Purgatory?

    The Roman Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of purgatory, which they claim is an intermediate place for the soul after death and before entering heaven.

    According to the tradition, adults who remain unbaptized by the Roman Catholic church and those who commit mortal sins are destined for hell (by which standard would include all human beings). As per their understanding, only a few perfected persons (or saints) ascend directly to heaven while the rest of the in-between must spend their time in purgatory.

    In essence, purgatory is the teaching that those who die in fellowship with the church but are not in a state of perfection must undergo a purification process before they can enter heaven.

    Purgatory is a temporary place of fire where your sins (built up throughout your life) are burned off physically.

    Pope Gregory I (served as Pope from 590 to 604 AD) taught that “baptism absolves us of original sin, but for sins committed after baptism, penance and purification are necessary to prepare the soul for heaven.” His teachings, especially in his Dialogues (Book 4), laid the groundwork for the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, emphasizing that a process of purification must occur for the soul to be fully prepared for eternal life with God.

    Here are some citations from the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church;

    The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.
    (Paragraph 1031)

    As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence, we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.
    (Paragraph 1031 (608))

    To understand the Catholic claim regarding purgatory, we need to examine a key passage they often use to support it:

    Matthew 12:31-32 (NKJV):
    “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.”

    The Catholic Church interprets this to mean that some sins could be forgiven after death, suggesting an intermediate state like purgatory. But is that what Jesus was really saying? The context shows that Jesus is actually stressing the severity and eternal consequence of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit—it’s a sin that has no forgiveness, ever. This statement isn’t about a chance for forgiveness after death; it’s about the finality of God’s judgment against a specific sin.

    When we look at the New Testament as a whole, there is no clear teaching that supports the idea of an intermediate state like purgatory. In fact, Hebrews 9:27 makes it plain: “And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment.” The idea here is simple—judgment comes after death, with no room for an in-between purification.

    So while the Catholic Church may use Jesus’ words to argue for purgatory, the Bible in its proper context does not support this interpretation. Jesus was speaking of eternal consequences, not a temporary place of purification.

    Purgatory is the glue that holds the church together. Its followers become completely dependent on the merits of their own good works, the priests’ forgiveness, and prayers.

    Through the doctrine of purgatory, the Catholic Church sells its followers a sense of assurance that they can escape the clutches of hell.

    Taking away the idea of purgatory collapses the entire works-based system. In other words, why should you be Catholic if the church cannot guarantee anything for you? What is the point of adhering to the Catholic faith if it cannot fulfill its promises?

    The deceptive hoax of purgatory is perfectly summarized by Pastor John MacArthur in his sermon titled ‘the Pope and the Papacy’:

    “Purgatory is what makes the whole system work. Take out Purgatory and it’s a hard sell to be a Catholic. Purgatory is the safety net; when you die, you don’t go to hell. You go [to Purgatory] and get things sorted out and finally get to heaven if you’ve been a good Catholic. In the Catholic system you can never know you’re going to heaven. You just keep trying and trying. . .in a long journey toward perfection. Well, it’s pretty discouraging. People in that system are guilt-ridden, fear-ridden, and have no knowledge of whether or not they’re going to get into the Kingdom. If there’s no Purgatory, there’s no safety net to catch me and give me some opportunity to get into heaven. It’s a second chance, it’s another chance after death.”

    But is there really a “second chance” after death? The Bible clearly teaches otherwise. Paul makes it plain in 2 Corinthians 6:2 (NKJV): “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.” There is no mention of a future opportunity to be purified after death. The chance to repent and be saved is now, in this life. The idea that a purifying fire in purgatory can cleanse sins after death goes against the core message of the Gospel—Christ’s sacrifice was once and for all, fully sufficient for our salvation.

    Those who believe that a purifying fire will sweep away their sins are gullible victims of a false teaching. The creation of purgatory as a place for the purification of sin is one of the most seductive attractions of the Catholic religion, and it nullifies Christ’s final sacrifice.

    The origin of Purgatory

    During the first two centuries of the Christian Church, the doctrine of purgatory was neither mentioned nor taught.

    It was only until the Roman Emperor Theodosius (379-395) issued a decree that made Christianity the official religion of the faith that thousands of pagans flooded into the Church and brought their pagan beliefs and traditions with them.

    One ancient pagan belief was that there was a place of purification where souls were sent to atone for their sins.

    This concept further became widespread around A.D. 600 due to the fanaticism of Pope Gregory the Great. It was Gregory who developed the doctrine of purgatorial fire through certain visions and revelations that he claimed to have received.

    According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Pope Gregory said Catholics “will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames,” and “the pain [is] more intolerable than anyone can suffer in this life.”

    Centuries later, the doctrine of purgatory was officially defined as Catholic dogma at the Council of Florence (1431-1449) and was later reaffirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563). At the Council of Florence, the Church declared the existence of purgatory as an infallible doctrine, meaning it was established as a truth that all Catholics were required to believe. This declaration formalized the belief that souls who die in a state of grace but still need purification must undergo a process of cleansing before entering heaven.

    The Council of Trent, convened in response to the Protestant Reformation, strongly reaffirmed this doctrine, emphasizing that purgatory was essential for the purification of souls and rejecting any arguments against it. The Council also reinforced the practices associated with purgatory, such as prayers, almsgiving, and masses for the dead, which were believed to help those in purgatory attain their final purification more swiftly.From its roots in pagan beliefs to its development through the claimed visions of Pope Gregory and its eventual formalization in Church councils, the doctrine of purgatory is deeply entwined with Catholic tradition, extra-biblical writings, and oral history.

    It finds no origin or basis in Scripture; the Bible provides no clear teaching on an intermediate state where souls are purified after death. Instead, the doctrine relies on human traditions and interpretations that developed centuries after Christ’s apostles. This lack of biblical foundation raises significant questions about its validity, leading to the conclusion that purgatory is a man-made concept rather than a divine truth.

    Is there Biblical justification for purgatory?

    If you are trying to find any biblical justification in the 66 books of the Bible concerning purgatory, you will not find anything. Neither the word nor the concept of purgatory is mentioned in the Scriptures.

    The idea of a temporary place of purification before a soul enters heaven did not originate from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles. Instead, it began to emerge at the end of the second century AD and slowly gained traction over the years. The doctrine eventually found formal recognition when the Greek and Latin churches agreed upon it at the Council of Florence in 1439. It was later reaffirmed and firmly established as Catholic dogma during the Council of Trent, which took place between 1545 and 1563, with a strong emphasis in its final session in 1563.

    During the 16th century, the Vatican was confronted by the Reformers who protested against the practice of buying and selling God’s grace through their indulgences (so as to get out of purgatory).

    To defend their dogma, the Roman Catholic Church included the apocryphal books, such as 2 Maccabees (12:39-45), in the canon of Scripture, which makes a reference that some interpret as supporting the idea of purgatory. It should be noted however, that the Jewish scribes never accepted the apocryphal books as part of the Hebrew Scriptures, not to mention they contain numerous historical, theological and geographical errors that invalidate their status as sacred texts.

    Even 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 when taken in context does not support the church’s purgatory claims. It is simply a desperate attempt on the part of the clergy to defend their false doctrines.

    Some people also wrongly cite 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 as evidence for purgatory since it refers to a future testing by fire. However, if you read the context of the verse, you would notice that there is no indication of any time or place after death when the sins of the individuals are purged. The verse instead speaks of a man’s work being tested by fire and that the works that ultimately survive are those done for the glory of Christ and are like gold, silver, and precious stones in His sight.

    If we look at the 66 books of the Bible, there is no basis for the doctrine of purgatory. Scripture is clear that after death, a person’s eternal state is set, with no mention of any intermediate place where sins can be purged. The story of the Rich Man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31 makes it obvious that there is an immediate separation between the righteous and the unrighteous after death, and there is no crossing from one state to another.

    Paul’s words in Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 confirm that a believer who dies goes straight into the presence of Christ, leaving no room for a stopover in purgatory. When Jesus declared, “It is finished,” in John 19:30, He made it clear that His sacrifice was complete and sufficient for our salvation—nothing more needs to be done, and no further purification is required. And Romans 8:1 reminds us that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ, which would make any further suffering or purification unnecessary.

    All of these passages drive home the point that purgatory is not a doctrine found in the Bible but rather one built on tradition, extra-biblical writings, and a twisting of Scripture to fit the Church’s agenda. The Roman Church’s reliance on purgatory shows a lack of understanding of the complete and final work of Christ, leading many to place their hope in a false idea of cleansing after death, rather than in the finished work of Jesus.

    Purgatory implies that Christ’s sacrifice is imperfect

    According to the Handbook for Today’s Catholic, page 47, “If you die in the love of God but possess any ‘stains of sin,’ such stains are cleansed away in a purifying process called purgatory. These stains of sin are primarily the temporal punishment due to venial or mortal sins already forgiven but for which sufficient penance was not done during your lifetime.”

    Purgatory is not only wrong as a concept but it also downplays the essential doctrine of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice.

    Logically, there can be only one of two answers to the question of whether believers’ sins are forgiven or not. If purgatory exists, then Christ’s death was in vain because we are eventually required to earn it. If Christ’s sacrifice was perfect then purgatory is unnecessary.

    While purgatory leads to uncertainty about one’s eternal destination, the Bible is clear that because of Christ’s sacrificial death, we can be assured that all our sins are forgiven, past, present and future.

    (Romans 3:24 / John 5:24 / Hebrews 9:12 / Heb. 9:25, 26).

    By comparing the doctrine of purgatory to the Biblical teaching, we are able to see that it is a flawed concept.

    Furthermore, this false doctrine denies the most fundamental teaching of the new testament, that Jesus’ death on the cross atoned for all sins, not just the original sin (Romans 3:21-26; 2 Cor 5:21).

    Biblical rebuke of Purgatory 

    It is clear from the Bible that only the blood of Christ can purge our sins. The apostle John stated that “The blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin and all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:7, 9).

    Rather than saying ‘some’ or ‘most’ sins, John said ‘all’ sins. The verse alone negates the entire purpose of Purgatory’s sin-purification fire.

    Scripture also teaches that every redeemed believer is immediately sent to be with the Lord Jesus Christ upon death. 2 Corinthians 5:6-8 states that to be “absent from the body” is to be “at home with the Lord.”

    The same can be said for the repentant thief on the cross at Calvary, to whom Jesus promised instant paradise (Luke 23:43). A habitual sinner like the thief (deserving of a punishment that required his crucifixion) did not require the fires of Purgatory to cleanse his sins.

    It is important to ask Catholics who they believe is responsible for “releasing” souls from the purging fires and the answer cannot be God, since, Hebrews 10:17 clear states, God promises not to remember believers’ sins and iniquities.

    The concept of purgatory mocks God’s justice and mercy, and it denies Christ the glory He deserves for redeeming us. It is the deception of Purgatory that blinds Catholics from the gospel of grace. This is one of many lies propagated by Satan to keep his captives from trusting in and knowing Jesus as their Saviour.

    Roman Catholic Nuns

    Roman Catholic Nuns

    In the Roman Catholic system, nuns play an important role. They are subtle workers who, behind the scenes, handle all the administrative activities required to maintain the church system, train children, run public schools, hospitals and much more.

    The recruitment of nuns

    The role of a sacrificial nun who submits her life to the service of the church might not sound like an aspiring vocational call for any teenage girls.

    Despite this, thousands of women have sought to become nuns. What makes the church so successful at recruiting so many women?

    Well, one of the ways in which they are recruited is through confessionals. This is where the priest is able to source out those who are gullible and who could be easily swayed into giving their lives in submissive service to the church.

    Some women may feel more inclined to do anything to rid themselves of the pain and shame associated with the sins they confess, like someone who has been in a recent shattering relationship and is struggling with depression.

    Many priests are adept at preying on sensitive souls who keep returning for confessional after confessional. As soon as a suitable pain or suffering occurs, they sneak in the idea of joining the church.

    According to Loraine Boettner (an American theologian and author known for his critical works on Roman Catholicism) in his book on Roman Catholicism;

    “In the setup of the Roman Catholic Church it is he confessional box that feeds the nunneries. The groundwork is done on the Catholic girl in the parochial school where the nun is made an object of holy glamour, a replica of the Virgin Mary.

    The institution of the confessional makes it easy for the priest to find the girls they want and naturally try to select the choice ones. Ordinarily confessions begin at the age of seven. Through this means the priest comes to know the very heart and soul of those who confess, which to them would be desirable in the service of the church, and which can be persuaded and which cannot.

    It’s easy for a trained priest to seize a passing fancy and blow it into a full-scale vocation. Once the victim has been chosen, pressure is applied directly and indirectly until the battle is won. Appeals are made to the girl’s Christian sense of duty. The girl’s natural reluctance to enter into such a life is pictured as the evil influence of the world and the Devil.”

    And then he writes,

    “Usually the most opportune time for persuading a girl to enter a convent comes just after she’s been disappointed in love. Blighted romance often affords the priest his most valuable opportunity.”

    Helen Conroy writes in her book Forgotten Women in Convents notes:

    “A jilted girl in the first rush of shame and agony at the shattering of her romance is an easy victim of any priest. Knowing that such intense grief cannot last long, the girl is urged to go into a convent at once… [They] give up everything they possess… which becomes immediately the church’s possession.”

    Conroy also notes, “The girl’s mind is poisoned against the mother who bore her… This doctrine of hatred of parents fully explains why a girl is not allowed to dispose of her property until 60 days before she is to take the veil (become a nun) and the vows” [the period where she is expected to accept the convent as her real home].

    The hard life of a nun

    Choosing to leave one’s family (and even hating them) is one of the most challenging parts of entering a convent.

    An emotional disconnect like this can lead to psychological trauma. Essentially, the woman must die to all maternal instincts, as well as the idea of ever being cared for by a man.

    Former priest Emmett McLoughlin, in his book People’s Padre (1954), described the life of a nun as follows;

    “The nun is one of the most remarkable products of the Roman Catholic Church. She’s an absolute slave, one whose willingness to offer her life should fill communist leaders with jealousy. One from whom the hierarchy conceals her slavery by the wedding ring on her finger. One who believes that in shining the bishop’s shoes, waiting on his table or scrubbing the floor, she is gathering treasure in heaven. She is the one who makes possible the church’s hundreds of hospitals, the one who teaches in parochial schools and orphanages and so forth. She is also a woman with all the desires, instincts, loyalties, and hatreds of which a woman is capable; subservient to her man through her indoctrination of her wedding to Christ; often catty and gossipy towards sister nuns and hospital nurses; maternal in her hoverings over priests and children; matriarchal in her petty policies for the control of her hospital and convent.”

    The recruitment of nuns in the Roman Catholic Church is deeply rooted in emotional and psychological tactics. As critics like Loraine Boettner, Helen Conroy, and Emmett McLoughlin have highlighted, vulnerable women—often in moments of distress or heartbreak—are targeted and persuaded to join the convent. Once inside, they are stripped of their possessions, disconnected from their families, and subjected to a life of sacrifice and servitude.

    The picture that emerges is not one of spiritual fulfillment but rather one of a harsh, isolating existence where personal freedom and desires are suppressed in the name of duty and religious devotion. This stark reality challenges the romanticized view of convent life, revealing the underlying pressures and hardships faced by those who choose—or are coerced—into this path.

    Pin It on Pinterest