This video from the Mormon Channel is currently making the rounds on social media. It depicts a mother going through a day of frustrations, failing to accomplish the items on her to-do list, failing to meet other people’s expectations, being ignored and/or taken for granted, and ultimately having to cancel her own plans (which she had clearly been looking forward to all day)because of the tornado of things that got in her way. At the end, crying and hopeless, she hears her son pray his goodnight prayers, and suddenly she realizes all the good she actually did that she didn’t realize she had done, because she had been focused on what she was unable to do.
“You Never Know” is clearly intended to encourage and give hope to mothers (and others!) who feel like they just are never able to measure up, to do everything they are supposed to do and still take care of themselves. The message is, “hey now, don’t get so discouraged, you did better than you thought you did!”
Most of the criticism I’ve seen focuses on the absurdity of the specifics (that project really won the science fair?), the parenting problems (making your kid a second meal after they reject the first), the gender issues (why are there apparently no able men anywhere?), the value judgments about life choices (the career-oriented and accordingly selfish sister) and the terrible modeling of interpersonal relationships (COME ON WOMAN, LEARN TO SAY NO TO SAVE YOUR SANITY).
In other words, the critics say, the problem is not the concept, but the execution. But the thing is, the problem is definitely the concept, and it’s a big problem.
Even looked at as charitably as possible, the message of this video is still firmly built on the premise that your value is based on your merits. Whether its the things you know you do or the things “you never know” that you do, at the end of the day, the question is still, what did you do? Folks, that’s what we call the Bad News. Spoiler alert: you will never do enough. You will always fail. You will never measure up, ever. Even if you add in all the good you do that “you never know,” you still fall miserably, wretchedly, abysmally short.
But the Good News is that Jesus Christ did enough, Jesus Christ never fails, and if you will put your trust completely in him and nothing else, He offers grace to you that is truly amazing: in him, you have also done enough. In Jesus Christ, you have already succeeded.
You don’t deserve God’s grace. You could never deserve God’s grace. And that’s precisely what makes it grace: you have failed, and God is under absolutely no obligation to do anything other than to subject you to his unbearable wrath, but even so, God gives eternal life to those who believe. Not because they earn it or deserve it, but because Jesus Christ earned it. Jesus paid it all.
That’s the good news: at the end of the day, the answer is that Jesus did everything.
And that’s also why criticism based on the need to set healthy boundaries is misplaced and will fall on deaf ears. As long as someone believes that they have to earn their salvation, your plea to them to do less for their own sake is completely and utterly vain. They know perfectly well that God demands nothing less than absolute perfection and unbounded righteousness, and they know perfectly well that God demands sacrifice.
People don’t need to be told to give themselves a little break, fall a little short, and God is okay with that (even if you actually did “more than you know”). People need to be told that Jesus already did everything.
Sailing to Byzantium 
I see what you’re saying about grace and salvation and I don’t disagree. But Mormonism (the church that made the video), while not explicitly rejecting this concept, doesn’t really preach it either. Are you familiar with the Mormon idea that there are several levels of heaven? Mormonism generally teaches that grace will get you to heaven in a basic way, but you need a whole host of good works to achieve the highest level of exaltation. That’s why criticisms from a Mormon perspective don’t generally question the basic premise of “working out your own salvation” through service.
Dusty, thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment! was born into a Mormon family, baptized into the LDS church at age 8, graduated from seminary (the Mormon high school religious curriculum), served a full-time mission for two years in Germany, and married my beautiful and sexy wife in the Mormon temple. I served as a sunday school teacher for years.
So I consider myself exremely familiar with Mormon doctrine and practice (including the diversity of opinion about a lot of it among Mormons), and I also know quite a bit about Mormonism’s struggles with grace. You might be surprised at how many Mormons’ beliefs about grace and works are actually in a pretty serious state of flux. And that’s all the more reason why Mormons need to hear the Good News.
Good critique. As you know, I was especially focused on how her boundaries were craptastic, but the lack of grace that makes her feel like this is all necessary in the first place is a very very valid point.
Oh, don’t get me wrong; her boundaries are absolutely craptastic. (And the there are definitely gender issues to think through, and the story’s details are in fact absurd, the parenting is terrible and the value judgments are most certainly present.)
But all those are secondary problems.
My husband and I were just discussing this last night. Since we are a newly mixed faith family (I have become protestant, he and the kids continue to attend our LDS ward, with an occasional visit to my congregation), we tried to teach an FHE lesson on the Good News. My husband tried to explain that the Good News is just that and we can learn about it at both churches. The problem is, neither of us is quite sure we’re telling the truth. We actually both believe in the Good News you describe, not the “after all that we can do” kind. But we are genuinely concerned that the message of grace is being drowned out by well, messages like these. Is it possible to raise kids in the LDS church and have them truly understand the amazing gift we are being offered? It didn’t work for either of us. We are almost 40 and just figured it out! I absolutely respect my husband’s commitment to the church and his desire to raise our children (mostly) LDS. I just worry that the strive harder, do more, be better, is so strong that they won’t ever open their hearts to the gift they have already been given. Sorry for the long comment. Am I paranoid?
If I may, there is a LOT wrong here, both in terms of basic theology, and the basic historical understanding of Christianity. Kullervo’s OP is quite honestly, the product of very late 20th/early 21st Century Evangelical Christianity, and has little resemblance to even Protestant Christianity in the past several decades.
In history of Christianity, the theology of salvation was predicated on a number of necessary actions. Most Westerners are familiar with the rites of the Catholic Church, but the same types of rites exist in most older institutions, to include the Orthodox and the various Eastern Churches. They were recognized in the Early Church, and many Early Christians felt that keeping aspects of the Mosaic Law were essential as well. Physical action was not just assumed, it was actually preached and practiced.
Luther introduced the concept of grace in the modern context. This was/is an interesting concept, both in terms of what it said, how it interacted with history, and how it has been interpreted over time. What most do not know is that Luther’s claim of authority through scripture is somewhat suspect, in that he wanted to change scripture to adjust his theology.
I have mentioned elsewhere that there has been a perceived conflict between James, the leader of the Church in Jerusalem, and Paul, the Apostle to the Gentiles. There is some evidence that they actually got into a fist fight over their respective beliefs. Luther wanted the Epistle of James removed from the canon, in part because of the contradiction with his beliefs (and modern Protestant beliefs).
Fast forward a few hundred years, there is an economist names Max Weber who wrote about Protestant practices through history. It is interesting that Max would be appalled with Kullervo’s assessment, as it would have gone against everything Protestants believed in and practiced in his (Weber’s) study. In Weber’s day, and the past history, the mother in the video would be expected to do everything she was doing, and more, and failures would be indicative of a lack of salvation. Protestants sought to excel at their tasks, from motherhood, to business, to haberdashery.
In the 20th century, the introduction of Evangelicalism has ultimately watered down the Protestant tradition, as the more liturgical traditions are dying off, to the point that what passes for Protestantism today is a very shallow representation of past belief systems. Princeton professor, Dr. Kendra Dean (herself a Methodist) wrote about this in a recent book about Evangelical teens.
With respect to Mormons, they are more in line with the Catholic system of beliefs. This is a system of theology, and this does not mean they are mirror images, that has significant historical support and basis. This does not mean that they are correct, only that there is some depth there.
For Anon, you should make a concerted effort to really understand Christian history. It is completely possible to “raise kids in the LDS church and have them truly understand the amazing gift we are being offered” but I would make an attempt to understand the “amazing gift we are being offered”, and what that really means.
For modern Protestants, the efforts by Luther are interesting. If the Canon is closed, and the Canon includes James, why did Luther try to have it removed? If Paul disagreed with James, who is correct? Does anyone have to be correct? Is it possible that there is some sort of Hegelian synthesis that could be more accurate? How did the primitive Church work it out? Why did they arrive at the system they did? This is far more interesting, and far more useful, than anything else you could do.
Where to start? A Rite is the theology piety and practice of a Church. So you have the Byzantine Rite, Roman Rite, Coptic Rite etc. The Roman Catholic catechism may be helpful, it explains that even baptism is not a strict necessity for salvation. I have heard many Mormons say that their religion is closer to Roman Catholicism. I understand the apologetic point but as a system Mormonism just doesn’t have the slightest theological resemblance. I am at a loss to think of any doctrine or practice where there is agreement.
What does grace in the modern context even mean? Did Paul disagree with James? The idea that the doctrines of grace rests on Luther’s view of the canon seems a bit strained. Understanding that Luther questioned the apostolic authorship of James along with Erasmus and that he never removed James from the canon makes me wonder if you have a point?
Some would say that Weber’s so called Protestant work ethic is just another form of Constantinian Christianity where the Ecclesiastical authority of the Church is usurped or surrendered to the culture. Again I am not sure of your point?
It is my understanding that what I have posted above is basic knowledge to someone who has read basic Christian Church Theology or a high school intro to Christian Theology at least in the Justo Gonzalez style. I make no claims that any of this is my own research, scholarship, or the product of any research or scholarship that I have participated in. The lack of proper citations comes from the media being used (a blog comment) and my own laziness. Any errors are completely my own.
Your use of rite is ultimately wrong provided context. A rite is “a formal or ceremonial act or procedure prescribed or customary in religious or other solemn use, rites of baptism; sacrificial rites.” Collections of these individual rites are generally lumped together as you are using it, as in “a particular form or system of religious or other ceremonial practice”.
My comment, “Most Westerners are familiar with the rites of the Catholic Church, but the same types of rites exist in most older institutions, to include the Orthodox and the various Eastern Churches” should be readily recognizable provided the definition of rite. I am not sure if you deliberately misinterpreted my comments by applying the improper definition, or if you really did not know the definitions of the word. In either case, it is troubling.
You also seem to misunderstand basic premises of religious practice. When I say, “With respect to Mormons, they are more in line with the Catholic system of beliefs” this would not necessarily imply similarity in theology. Catholics have systems of beliefs that include practices and activities that they deem important and even necessary. Communion, Baptism, Last Rites (for Catholics), etc… There is an expectation for life and practice that extends from the Church to the home, and back again, that constitutes a system of worship, completely with activities and obligations on the part of the practitioner. The same could be said of Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and a multitude of other faiths. There is nothing apologetic in this, this is simple understanding religious history and practice, without need for apologetics, since there is no value claim or judgment other than simple existence. Much like the word “rite” I am not sure if you do not know what apologetics are, or if you are intentionally misusing the word? Unlike Protestants, Mormons, like Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc… have practices that are important and necessary for religious life.
As for the rest of your comments, please answer your questions.
Why didn’t Luther remove James from the Canon? Did Paul disagree with James? How is “Weber’s so called Protestant work ethic…just another form of Constantinian Christianity where the Ecclesiastical authority of the Church is usurped or surrendered to the culture”? Particularly when Weber himself would disagree with you, in fact have the opposite opinion (that the Protestant ethic defined culture and not the other way around, that was sort of the point of his whole élan?!?!)?
Also if “I have posted above is basic knowledge to someone who has read basic Christian Church Theology or a high school intro to Christian Theology at least in the Justo Gonzalez style” how is it that you completely misrepresented Weber, cannot explain the James Pauline divide, do not know what a rite is at the most basic level, and cannot use the word apologetic correctly?
I understood your connection to “necessary” actions, salvation, and rites to be referring to sacraments. Properly peaking in the way you are using “rite” for ceremonies and rituals it includes rituals not required for salvation. So the “last rites” are not simply a ritual, they are 3 sacraments. There is a distinction between rituals and sacraments (even for Protestants). In any case the Roman Catholic Church makes exceptions so that no rite, ritual, sacrament (pick the word you like) is absolutely required for salvation.
Protestants have a similar distinction. While it is a “grave sin” not to Baptize, it is not unforgivable. There are no mortal sins in Protestantism, and salvation comes through faith in Christ. Worship, attending to the Word properly preached, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, all are important, vital, critical indispensable, but they are not meritorious and salvific in and of themselves.
This is the sacramental distinction Protestants: important, not absolutely required for salvation, not meritorious. Roman Catholics: important, not absolutely required, meritorious.
The idea that Protestants don’t have practices that are important and necessary for religious life is demonstrably wrong. What a Protestant would tell you is that none of those practices or even religious life itself is salvific or meritorious.
This is all pretty basic catechism stuff Roman Catholic or Protestant.
Squirrel… Of course Weber would disagree with me. That pretty much goes without saying. I think he was wrong about a “protestant” work ethic and it could have as easily been the Catholic work ethic or the western European work ethic. I think his view was theologically flawed and would’t have much of a problem defending that from the confessions and catechisms of the Protestant Churches.
Parallelomania… So Mormons are like Roman Catholics because they have a list of things to do? No matter the specific forms, motivations, deities, rituals theology, tradition, history, etc bear no resemblance? That is a comparison of religious systems?
Character assignation… Poor Martin
Okay, Joseph Abraham, listen up. This is my personal blog, not a public forum, which means you are a guest here. I’m not obligated to allow comments at all, but I do, because I think the argument and debate is worthwhile, even when it challenges me. But frankly, I get to set the terms of the discussion, period. My blog, my rules.
So far, I have been really tolerant of your nonsense, but now you’re going to have to change your tone significantly if you want to be allowed to comment here.
Stop insisting that your interlocutors must be ignorant or disingenuous. Stop accusing others of arguing in bad faith. You’re done with that shit here. Is that clear? Do it again, even one time, and I’ll weigh my options: either I’ll just block you or I’ll block you and disemvowel your comment; but either way, expect to be blocked.
You’ll just have to figure out another way to debate. You’re a big boy (I guess); you can manage it. My patience with you is pretty much worn out, so if you’re at all in doubt, I advise you to revise your comment before posting.
Also, understand that this is a special rule for just you, because you apparently can’t just behave on your own. I fully intend to go on being lenient with other commentors (whether they agree with my arguments or not) and I will absolutely not impose this same rule on myself. The problem is not that you do this shit; it’s that you do it over and over again and clearly intend to stick around and keep on doing it. I’m not having that.
Gundek, your commentary is largely negated by your own faith tradition. Catholics certainly have necessary rites. Protestants do not.
What is so interesting is the lack of necessity, and this is really the problem that has metastasized in Protestant thought, for salvation. Belief is all that is required, and even that only for a finite period of time, depending on the theologian.
But this is an anomaly if one actually studies history.
I would be interested in your sources of Catholic scholarship regarding the necessity of sacraments.
Kullervo, my main thrust is that very little of what you say has a basis in history. You are certainly free to worship as you like, be it the Roman Pantheon, or Protestantism, I have no real objection to anyone deciding their own religious path in life.
But your positions frequently seem to have no basis in historical understanding. My Bachelors degree was in Roman History, and nothing in your worship of the Roman Pantheon seemed to fit in any historical understanding I was ever aware of. Likewise your Protestant theology.
And this is hardly an uncommon position. As I mentioned, several exceptional Protestant scholars have discussed the lack of historical and theological familiarity with the Christian faith that many within the tradition hold, and the poison this has for the faith in general. This should be something that would concern all adherents of that faith.
In truth, my interest in purely academic. I do not really care if Protestant Christianity lives or dies, I am more inclined to the liturgical faiths which have a deeper history in any case. I have the same interest in Islam. I have spent several decades studying the faith, and it is interesting to watch as an observer how the current forces are playing themselves out, but I have no side to take in the issues involved.
If you want to discriminate based on symbology, that is your choice, but someone should at least point out the prejudice, and the complete failing to understand history in the commission of the discrimination. If this is uncomfortable, well it sort of should be. Prejudice is ugly for a reason. If you have to censor these sorts of criticisms, then that is your choice too, but it too is no less ugly.
Gundek, here is a good example of why Protestantism is dying…
http://www.allaboutgod.com/how-to-be-saved.htm
Besides being ahistorical, this type of theology actively promotes lackadaisical Christianity. Nothing more is required, so nothing more is actually done (no study, no research, no searching, no growth), which is why much of Protestant Christianity is withering.
How do you define “necessary”, because a lot hangs on that word.
If you mean the absolute necessity, such as baptism must be performed, without exception, in order for salvation, then you are simply incorrect. The Roman Catholic Catechism teaches that there are indeed exceptions made for the necessity of baptism.
If by necessary you mean critical rites of the Church that a Christian should not neglect, then you are still wrong. The Protestant Westminster Confession explains that it is “a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance [baptism]”.
You should understand that in Protestantism belief is not what is required for salvation, faith is necessary. This is a critical distinction and I think a biblical distinction (Jam 2:19). Protestants have a pretty developed theology of faith, and simply believing for a period of time falls outside that theology.
To be fair, a lot depends of definitions and distinctions. If Protestantism means not Roman Catholic, and in this case not Mormon, then sure this is a mess. But if Protestantism has any connection whatsoever with the Churches and theology coming out of the Reformation then, if one studies theology, the first question you should ask when coming across some random website is, “Is this Protestantism?”
I am looking at a few sources that would disagree with you on Catholic theology, but if you have a source that would disagree, I would be interested in seeing it. What are you referencing?
As for the Westminster Confession, who follows this as a practice? Which denominations specifically? Is it widely followed amongst Protestant Christianity at large, in the present day? I am well aware of the document, but I would hazard that I would be one of the few in a room full of Protestants.
Also, it may be a great sin, but aren’t sins forgiven, regardless? If someone believes, as in the website I referenced, doesn’t this imply forgiveness of even “great sin[s]”? If not, please explain.
As for the distinction between faith and belief. Who stresses the distinction?
“Please understand that we are not saved because we pray a prayer; but because we believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ.”
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html
Your sources don’t disagree with me, its the Vatican. Try the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The rumor is that Presbyterians use the Westminster Standards, Anglicans the 39 Articles, Lutherans the Book of Concord, Methodists the Articles of Religion, Continental Reformed the Three Forms of Unity, etc. If Protestantism means more than not Roman Catholic (and in this case not Mormon) then the actual ecclesiastical documents expressing belief may be more relevant than some random website. Its like Choosing the Articles of Faith or a Jack Chick Tract.
Of course Protestants believe that all sins can be forgiven, thanks be to God.
As I mentioned a lot depends on how you define necessary. We have seen that even the Vatican in the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that baptism is not strictly necessary, there are extra-ordinary circumstances where the magisterium has decided that individuals can be saved without the sacrament, intent, martyrdom, etc. By a strict definition of necessary Rome does not require Baptism. Of course by a reasoned definition of necessary, taking into account ordinary circumstances it is obvious that baptism is necessary in the Roman Church.
A Protestant likewise can answer Westminster Shorter 85:
“What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse, due to us for sin?”
“To escape the wrath and curse of God, due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.”
Protestants, of course, understand repentance and faith to be inseparable saving graces bound together in a sense of sinfulness and a grasping need for mercy. Far more than just belief faith is “accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ”. The Shorter Catechism defines the outward means as Word, sacraments, and prayer.
So if by necessary you mean God is bound by the sacramental act and Baptism causes faith, then no Protestants have no necessary rites. If by necessary you mean the rites “instituted by God” as the ordinary means where the “grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost”, then yes there are necessary rites.
Incidentally, while we’re discussing the Westminster Confession, Chapter 11 says:
“Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.”
So I’m sure that the Westminster Divines would have been extremely surprised to know that the Westminster Confession too (as well as the Shorter and Larger Catechisms) must have been “the product of very late 20th/early 21st Century Evangelical Christianity.”
Also Calvin’s Institutes, the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dort, John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress, and the sermons of Jonathan Edwards and Charles Spurgeon. And Luther. And the Wesleys. And not to mention, oh, Augustine of Hippo.
Of course, it’s well-known that the Five Solas of the Reformation were not actually invented until ca. 1998.
For someone who is so incredibly arrogant and condescending when it comes to history, you should frankly be embarrassed about how wretched of a grasp of the history of theology you are demonstrating in this thread.
You’ve been warned about your tone once, but I’m feeling gracious today.
That may be because I never worshipped the Roman Pantheon.
Honestly, assuming that Greek and Roman religion were the same is pretty much a colossal historical error. And not the kind of made-up inferred “error” that you get your rocks off by inventing. But a real, full-blooded, bona fide, history fuck-up. Again, given how much you like to take other people to task for imagined historical peccadilloes, you should be deeply embarrassed.
For the record, I also was not worshipping the Greek gods the way they were worshipped in antiquity, but I was fully aware of it, and okay with it. It’s a live debate among modern polytheists as to whether they should be carefully reconstructing ancient religious beliefs and practices or whether the worship of the theoi is a living thing, adaptable to changing sensibilities and cultures. The reconstructionists in the debate–especally among Hellenic polytheists–are impeccable about their scholarship.
But I was trying to worship real, existing gods, not LARPing. My ultimate question was never “what did ancient Attic Greeks do?” but “what honors the theoi?”
And really, the same issue applies here. The history of theology (even if you get it right, which you don’t) is interesting and important, and informs and frames our discussions, but at the end of the day, I’m a whole lot more interested in knowing and worshipping the only true Triune God in spirit and truth.
Now, more important than anything else, because it gets to the heart of what we are talking about: there is nothing at all that is watered down about God’s saving grace.
You want to know what waters it down? Adding things you have to accomplish. Adding to Jesus’s finished work on the cross. You lay burdens on your own back that you are completely unable to carry and you shrink God into a weak deity who is unable to actually save anyone. That’s watered down.
Well that was fun while it lasted. I have always wondered why Mormon apologists don’t bother to read a catechism before they tell you what you believe. It is up there with quoting Harry Emerson Fosdick to prove the great apostasy.
Lol
I guess the problem is one of perspective. When Gundek said, “The Roman Catholic catechism may be helpful, it explains that even baptism is not a strict necessity for salvation”, I asked for a source. This was because I already knew what the Catechism said, and I knew he was wrong.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-necessity-of-baptism
This allows the 3rd Century Chinese peasant an out, but not Protestants. Baptism is required for Catholics, but Gundek does not know this. That is a problem.
Kullervo said “I never worshipped the Roman Pantheon” he is correct, he did not really worship any Pantheon, but that is neither here nor there. His follow on comment “Honestly, assuming that Greek and Roman religion were the same is pretty much a colossal historical error” is likewise completely untrue (at least the Romans did not feel it would be true).
There is so much wrong with all of the comments above, from completely misattributing Max Weber (Gundek, you did not disagree with Max Weber, when you said “Some would say that Weber’s so called Protestant work ethic is just another form of Constantinian Christianity where the Ecclesiastical authority of the Church is usurped or surrendered to the culture” you were completely misstating Weber’s thesis, you got him completely backward, he said the opposite. You did not disagree, you did not understand anything you were commenting on) to completely misunderstanding the nature of Early Christianity, at some point it just seems like picking on someone.
None of this is Apologetics, either. This is history. It is not really even disputed history.
The problem is that Christianity is dying, and this is really evidence of it. Christianity used to be a deep and thoughtful faith, one that required study and really, really extensive intellectual engagement. This is one reason that having Priests as a separate caste really made sense, since the necessary study was considerable, but it needed to be done. This is what gave the faith richness and even gravitas.
Now….it’s sort of a morass of mediocrity. American Christianity in particular is McReligion, worthless empty spiritual calories that makes people spiritually flabby and unhealthy. It is not that any of this study is hard, one does not necessarily need a Greek or Hebrew linguistic background (though it does help somewhat), but some real research is necessary.
If you want to claim victory, I am content with that, I am not interested in any way in “winning.” That is sort of the problem, there is no victory. This is not a “Mormon vs. Evangelical” dialogue, it is one where your comments make no real sense given a lot of historical issues, and likely never will.
In the pursuit you are engaged in, everyone loses.
My good friend,
Of course this isn’t an evangelical vs Mormon conversation. I’m not an evangelical. If you’re trying to critique McReligion, then it may be proper to ask, is McReligion Protestantism?
The wonderful thing about the Catechism of the Catholic Church is its vast comprehensiveness. This can of course be troubling if you are looking only for information to confirm your views rather than an understanding of Roman Catholic beliefs. I would recommend the exceptions to the necessity of baptism found in the following paragraphs 1259 (un-baptized martyrs), 1260 (un-baptized catechumens intent on baptism), 1260 (possibility for those ignorant of the gospel), and 1261 (possibility of children who die prior to baptism).
It may be a step too far for someone outside the critique of some Reformed circles on modern Constantinian Christianity to connect it to Weber’s protestant work ethic (Protestants work hard and accumulate wealth proving that they are of the elect). In polite conversation the clarifying question is often used to resolve a possible misunderstanding. The steps from embracing the Spirit of Capitalism to the subverting the Church into a morass of political para-churches organization may not be obvious at first glance, but you’re a smart guy I am sure you can figure it out.
You’ve never read Weber, have you?
I’ve read more Max Weber than you did of the link you posted.