-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How far does confidentiality extend itself in the confession booth?
- Thread starter Joseph_Botwinick
- Start date
Carson Weber
<img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Promise,
Perhaps you should ask Jesus this question in prayer; it was He who said:
John 20:21-23 - Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
I know Jesus' words are scandalous to the non-Catholic ear, but the paradox and irony of the scandal of the Cross has always been folly for the wise.
You wrote, "have no authority whatsoever to forgive sins."
You should read my post above, where I show that the Bible explicitly mentions that "such authority" has been given "to men" in Matt 9:2-8 with emphasis upon verse 8.
God bless,
Carson
[ March 06, 2002, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
Perhaps you should ask Jesus this question in prayer; it was He who said:
John 20:21-23 - Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
I know Jesus' words are scandalous to the non-Catholic ear, but the paradox and irony of the scandal of the Cross has always been folly for the wise.
You wrote, "have no authority whatsoever to forgive sins."
You should read my post above, where I show that the Bible explicitly mentions that "such authority" has been given "to men" in Matt 9:2-8 with emphasis upon verse 8.
God bless,
Carson
[ March 06, 2002, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]
A bit more direct answer to the post question.
The confidentiality must be complete. If certain crimes must be disclosed to authorities, obviously those sins would never be confessed or dealt with in anyway.
Once you break the seal for one crime, then isn't some other crime just as bad? Before you know it the priest would have to disclose what an ultra libral college student thinks is hate speach.
The rite of reconciliation is about one's relationship with God and the Church. It's not a branch of state court. There are many ways crimes are revealed. Evidence, witnesses, victims, etc. Even the problems in Boston came out without breaking the seal of the confessional.
At first I thought, gee why not make an exception in the cases involving children? Then I realized very quickly, all would be lost if the seal is broken.
Grace and peace,
Uncle Ray
The confidentiality must be complete. If certain crimes must be disclosed to authorities, obviously those sins would never be confessed or dealt with in anyway.
Once you break the seal for one crime, then isn't some other crime just as bad? Before you know it the priest would have to disclose what an ultra libral college student thinks is hate speach.
The rite of reconciliation is about one's relationship with God and the Church. It's not a branch of state court. There are many ways crimes are revealed. Evidence, witnesses, victims, etc. Even the problems in Boston came out without breaking the seal of the confessional.
At first I thought, gee why not make an exception in the cases involving children? Then I realized very quickly, all would be lost if the seal is broken.
Grace and peace,
Uncle Ray
If all ministers' ears are supposed to be "tombs," not just that of Catholic priests, why are we doubting Catholic priests' abilities to lock away what they hear in confession? As a Lutheran, if I needed to talk to my pastor, I would certainly hope he wouldn't go blab around.
Secondly, you are holding on to the belief that the priest is providing the forgiveness. God provides the forgiveness, and so it is unimportant what you tell the priest; it matters not to him. He is there to hand down God's forgiveness, not be your judge. Thus, he cannot tell if you have committed a crime, nor should he be asked.
Secondly, you are holding on to the belief that the priest is providing the forgiveness. God provides the forgiveness, and so it is unimportant what you tell the priest; it matters not to him. He is there to hand down God's forgiveness, not be your judge. Thus, he cannot tell if you have committed a crime, nor should he be asked.
Deacon's Son
You said But honestly, is it just me or do mean-spirited attacks by Baptists on this thread seem to be going un-checked?
This thread is full of venom, however I still believe the "mean-spirited attacks" are by a few and not representative of all Baptists.
As to the un-checked business. I suggest that you take a look at the classification of the poster of the most venomous posts, well
he is one of those who is supposed to be doing the checking. .
I have never before seen this type of posting from one who has the respectable position of moderator. Then again it's their house and we're the guests.
We just need to and bear it.
I lost it myself a little last week. I blame it on a very bad cold. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.
Grace and peace,
Uncle Ray
You said But honestly, is it just me or do mean-spirited attacks by Baptists on this thread seem to be going un-checked?
This thread is full of venom, however I still believe the "mean-spirited attacks" are by a few and not representative of all Baptists.
As to the un-checked business. I suggest that you take a look at the classification of the poster of the most venomous posts, well
he is one of those who is supposed to be doing the checking. .I have never before seen this type of posting from one who has the respectable position of moderator. Then again it's their house and we're the guests.
We just need to
and bear it. I lost it myself a little last week. I blame it on a very bad cold. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.
Grace and peace,
Uncle Ray
I don't post here too often lately, for obvious reasons. But I gotta now.
The reason you detect hostility is because there is a question being asked that you don't have an answer to.
The vow of celibacy is unscriptual. If you can prove otherwise, please do so, using scripture only.
The practice of confession to a fallen man is unscriptual. If you can prove otherwise, please do so, using scripture only.
The seperation of church & state that Christ himself taught would suggest to me that confessed child molesters need to be brought to justice. Not hidden by the church.
The reason you detect hostility is because there is a question being asked that you don't have an answer to.
The vow of celibacy is unscriptual. If you can prove otherwise, please do so, using scripture only.
The practice of confession to a fallen man is unscriptual. If you can prove otherwise, please do so, using scripture only.
The seperation of church & state that Christ himself taught would suggest to me that confessed child molesters need to be brought to justice. Not hidden by the church.
KeeperOfMyHome
New Member
That's exactly my point. You would do no such thing to your children.</font>[/QUOTE]Maybe your wires got crossed here and you misunderstood what I was saying.
How would you feel if it were your children who were being molested? Would you be so vigilant then?
Julia
[ March 06, 2002, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: KeeperOfMyHome ]
Deacon's Son
New Member
Uncle Ray,
You hit the nail on the head as far as my sentiments go. Here goes...
God Bless.
IOA,
Deacon's Son
You hit the nail on the head as far as my sentiments go. Here goes...
God Bless.
IOA,
Deacon's Son
I signed on rather late last night and noted Uncle Ray's concern over this thread. As I promised him in a PM, I have carefully reviewed this thread.
There is quite a bit of rock throwing occuring here, some justified, some not. I think it would be most beneficial to try to stay on the subject of the title, "How far does confidentiality extend itself in the confession booth?" Pedophilia is a social problem that extends far beyond our churches it is sad to say. The law does have a quandry in the issue of getting priest to break the obligation of trust in the confessional.
I did some searching and found that the secrecy of the confessional is indeed broken on occassion. It seems that it is up to the individual priest's discretion as to where the line is drawn. I will cite this article from this link: http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/2001-10/wus.html
I will try to remain unbiased in my moderating of this topic as my co-moderator is acting as a participant. I would urge all of you to stay on topic. I would also warn those who are non-Catholic to beware of mudslinging. People are people, whether they are in the clergy or not. People do evil things. It is a sad state of sin into which we are born. Bear in mind that if we sling mud, they may sling rocks, at least on secular topics.
Having said that, I return you to your debate.
Clint Kritzer
Moderator
There is quite a bit of rock throwing occuring here, some justified, some not. I think it would be most beneficial to try to stay on the subject of the title, "How far does confidentiality extend itself in the confession booth?" Pedophilia is a social problem that extends far beyond our churches it is sad to say. The law does have a quandry in the issue of getting priest to break the obligation of trust in the confessional.
I did some searching and found that the secrecy of the confessional is indeed broken on occassion. It seems that it is up to the individual priest's discretion as to where the line is drawn. I will cite this article from this link: http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/2001-10/wus.html
Here we see an example of the breaking of the confessional vow bringing about good. So to answer the question, no one can say that the secrecy is 100%. The article I cite is from a Catholic web site (intentionally).
I will try to remain unbiased in my moderating of this topic as my co-moderator is acting as a participant. I would urge all of you to stay on topic. I would also warn those who are non-Catholic to beware of mudslinging. People are people, whether they are in the clergy or not. People do evil things. It is a sad state of sin into which we are born. Bear in mind that if we sling mud, they may sling rocks, at least on secular topics.
Having said that, I return you to your debate.
Clint Kritzer
Moderator
That has to be the most naieve thing I have ever heard.
Sexual abuse by clergy is NOT in any way limited to the Catholic priesthood. Celibacy is not the cause.
In fact, many pedophiles are married. Just look at the stories of the gym teachers, soccer coaches, little league coaches, scouting leaders, Sunday school teachers, youth ministers, etc.
You may not, personally, have heard of any Lutheran ministers who have molested children. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
There is even a story at beliefnet.com that talks about this.... May I suggest you do a little more research before you spout off with these outrageous, inaccurate and slanderous claims...
http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/101/story_10199_1.html&boardID=36097
Deacon's Son
New Member
Hi Mr. Curtis,
I wanted to respond to your post and give a little more info on the Catholic position.
You wrote:
), I hope you would agree that the open hostility of some on this thread is quite un-charitable to say the least.
You wrote:
Any notion that Jesus was single only because he could not have been married is hogwash. He chose to remain single and celibate throughout his life, knowing that his life would be looked upon as a perfect example of human conduct. That seems like a pretty strong case in favor of celibacy. But there's more...
Matthew 19:12 addresses the fact that there were those, in New Testament times, that accepted self imposed celibacy for the Kingdom. Jesus emphasizes his approval of this practice, saying "He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."
St. Paul (another example of New Testament celibacy), wrote the following in his first letter to the Corinthians:
"Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.
But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
"But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided." 1 Corinthians 7-9, 32-34.
You wrote:
But, all in all, confession is not at all unbiblical. In fact, it is my opinion that not practicing confession is what is unbiblical.
You probably already know this, but I'll give you a quick refresher. In John 20:22-23 , Jesus gave his disciples the power to forgive or retain sins. Of course, you would expect that there would be some system that they had to hear about those sins so that they could forgive or retain them, otherwise, Jesus' gift to them was useless.
Of course, the apostles were not to live forever, and for this reason, they appointed successors to carry on their Christ-ordained ministry after they were gone. The first such instance was recorded in the Book of Acts (1:15-26) when Matthias was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot.
As the Church grew and spread throughout the world, it became impossible for the bishops (the successors of the apostles) to minster to all who were under their care, so they began to make more use of the presbyters (aka priests) to carry out some of their apostolic duties (such as celebrating Mass and listening to confessions). This is history. Your quesiton wanted Scriptual proof for "the practice of confessing sins to a fallen man."
As I said earlier, I do not know who is fallen so I will not make that judgement or attmept to answer the unaswerable. As to the practice of confession...
"If we confess our sins, He is faihtful and righteous to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9.
"Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders (presbyers, aka priests) of the church and they are to pray over him, annointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much." James 5:14-16.
How do we know that the above passage is not asking us to confess to just anyone? Because, in verse 14, James tells us to go to the elder (or priest). Then, verse 16 begins with the word "therefore", a conjunction that connects verse 16 back to verses 14 and 15. James tells us it is the elder (priest) to whom we are to confess our sins.
I hope this was helpful.
God Bless.
IOA,
Deacon's Son
I wanted to respond to your post and give a little more info on the Catholic position.
You wrote:
I think that the Catholics here have answered the questions asked of them. I believe that the hostility peppered throughout some of the posts by non-Catholic Christians is more because they did not like our responses. And, since we are all to be respectful of others' opinions (we are all held to that standard, right? Not just Catholics
), I hope you would agree that the open hostility of some on this thread is quite un-charitable to say the least.You wrote:
Well, first and foremost, the best Scriptural example I can give for celibacy is Jesus himself. Because he was unmarried and since he was perfect, I should think we'd agree that he was celibate.
Any notion that Jesus was single only because he could not have been married is hogwash. He chose to remain single and celibate throughout his life, knowing that his life would be looked upon as a perfect example of human conduct. That seems like a pretty strong case in favor of celibacy. But there's more...
Matthew 19:12 addresses the fact that there were those, in New Testament times, that accepted self imposed celibacy for the Kingdom. Jesus emphasizes his approval of this practice, saying "He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."
St. Paul (another example of New Testament celibacy), wrote the following in his first letter to the Corinthians:
"Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I.
But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
"But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided." 1 Corinthians 7-9, 32-34.
You wrote:
Well, first and foremost, it is not up to any of us to decide who is "fallen" and who is not. Remember, Jesus commanded us, "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." Matthew 7:1-2 .
But, all in all, confession is not at all unbiblical. In fact, it is my opinion that not practicing confession is what is unbiblical.
You probably already know this, but I'll give you a quick refresher. In John 20:22-23 , Jesus gave his disciples the power to forgive or retain sins. Of course, you would expect that there would be some system that they had to hear about those sins so that they could forgive or retain them, otherwise, Jesus' gift to them was useless.
Of course, the apostles were not to live forever, and for this reason, they appointed successors to carry on their Christ-ordained ministry after they were gone. The first such instance was recorded in the Book of Acts (1:15-26) when Matthias was chosen to replace Judas Iscariot.
As the Church grew and spread throughout the world, it became impossible for the bishops (the successors of the apostles) to minster to all who were under their care, so they began to make more use of the presbyters (aka priests) to carry out some of their apostolic duties (such as celebrating Mass and listening to confessions). This is history. Your quesiton wanted Scriptual proof for "the practice of confessing sins to a fallen man."
As I said earlier, I do not know who is fallen so I will not make that judgement or attmept to answer the unaswerable. As to the practice of confession...
"If we confess our sins, He is faihtful and righteous to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9.
"Is anyone among you sick? Then he must call for the elders (presbyers, aka priests) of the church and they are to pray over him, annointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much." James 5:14-16.
How do we know that the above passage is not asking us to confess to just anyone? Because, in verse 14, James tells us to go to the elder (or priest). Then, verse 16 begins with the word "therefore", a conjunction that connects verse 16 back to verses 14 and 15. James tells us it is the elder (priest) to whom we are to confess our sins.
I hope this was helpful.
God Bless.
IOA,
Deacon's Son
T
tulpje
Guest
That has to be the most naieve thing I have ever heard.
Sexual abuse by clergy is NOT in any way limited to the Catholic priesthood. Celibacy is not the cause.
In fact, many pedophiles are married. Just look at the stories of the gym teachers, soccer coaches, little league coaches, scouting leaders, Sunday school teachers, youth ministers, etc.
You may not, personally, have heard of any Lutheran ministers who have molested children. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
There is even a story at beliefnet.com that talks about this.... May I suggest you do a little more research before you spout off with these outrageous, inaccurate and slanderous claims...
http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/101/story_10199_1.html&boardID=3 6097</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks Carole
<---The Chior
That has to be the most naieve thing I have ever heard.
Sexual abuse by clergy is NOT in any way limited to the Catholic priesthood. Celibacy is not the cause.
In fact, many pedophiles are married. Just look at the stories of the gym teachers, soccer coaches, little league coaches, scouting leaders, Sunday school teachers, youth ministers, etc.
You may not, personally, have heard of any Lutheran ministers who have molested children. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
There is even a story at beliefnet.com that talks about this.... May I suggest you do a little more research before you spout off with these outrageous, inaccurate and slanderous claims...
http://www.beliefnet.com/frameset.asp?pageLoc=/story/101/story_10199_1.html&boardID=3 6097</font>[/QUOTE]Thanks Carole
<---The Chior
I want to make mention of another Bible verse that Lutherans use a lot to defend the marriage of pastors:
1 Timothy 3:2-4
"Therefore, a bishop must be irresproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not agressive, but gentle, not contenious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity,"
Some translations say "husband to one wife," but that carries the same meaning. What is that meaning? Luther took it that God is commanding that bishops be married. However, that is not the case, for that is cleared up in the following verse, 5:
"for if a man does not know how to manage his household, how can he take care of the church of God?"
Realize that children come with marriage. If a bishop is married, he will likely have children; this doesn't add weight to the Protestant arguement. Note also that marriage is one of but MANY things a bishop must "be."
However, it never commands him to marry. It says "married only once" or "husband of one wife." This is condemning divorce as an option. A divorced man cannot be a bishop. Do you not know any unmarried pastors? Not all men are married, because some people are simply called to be single, and thus being married is surely not a requirement. What is a requirement is being able to manage your own life, practicing what you preach. A divorced man surely has no right to condemn divorce! Thus, a bishop, if married, must adhere to this law. This does not mean that he has to be married.
How can this be? Firstly, celibacy is a discipline. Father Jeffrey here at St. Joseph's made this abundantly clear to use in RCIA. It's a discipline of the church, and if for some reason, it was determined to be the cause of something horrible, the church could drop this discipline. However, they have not come to this conclusion, and being chaste is an honorable thing.
There are exceptions. Married, ordained Lutheran ministers, for example, if they become Catholic, can become priests...and still be married! However, Catholics follow St. Paul in that if a priest's wife dies, he cannot be married. "Huband of one wife."
Again, no man is denied marriage, because no man is forced into priesthood. There are SO many offices that one can hold in the church; priest is but one of them. Furthermore, no priest who still feels that he was called to this position by God will have problems with celibacy. It's a gift of God that they can remain so focused to His church.
I also ask you to read Titus 1:5-9. This is almost a repeat of what Timothy said, except the marriage issue is not here. If it was imperative that they be married, why wouldn't Titus carry the same message?
[ March 06, 2002, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: DojoGrant ]
1 Timothy 3:2-4
"Therefore, a bishop must be irresproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not agressive, but gentle, not contenious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity,"
Some translations say "husband to one wife," but that carries the same meaning. What is that meaning? Luther took it that God is commanding that bishops be married. However, that is not the case, for that is cleared up in the following verse, 5:
"for if a man does not know how to manage his household, how can he take care of the church of God?"
Realize that children come with marriage. If a bishop is married, he will likely have children; this doesn't add weight to the Protestant arguement. Note also that marriage is one of but MANY things a bishop must "be."
However, it never commands him to marry. It says "married only once" or "husband of one wife." This is condemning divorce as an option. A divorced man cannot be a bishop. Do you not know any unmarried pastors? Not all men are married, because some people are simply called to be single, and thus being married is surely not a requirement. What is a requirement is being able to manage your own life, practicing what you preach. A divorced man surely has no right to condemn divorce! Thus, a bishop, if married, must adhere to this law. This does not mean that he has to be married.
How can this be? Firstly, celibacy is a discipline. Father Jeffrey here at St. Joseph's made this abundantly clear to use in RCIA. It's a discipline of the church, and if for some reason, it was determined to be the cause of something horrible, the church could drop this discipline. However, they have not come to this conclusion, and being chaste is an honorable thing.
There are exceptions. Married, ordained Lutheran ministers, for example, if they become Catholic, can become priests...and still be married! However, Catholics follow St. Paul in that if a priest's wife dies, he cannot be married. "Huband of one wife."
Again, no man is denied marriage, because no man is forced into priesthood. There are SO many offices that one can hold in the church; priest is but one of them. Furthermore, no priest who still feels that he was called to this position by God will have problems with celibacy. It's a gift of God that they can remain so focused to His church.
I also ask you to read Titus 1:5-9. This is almost a repeat of what Timothy said, except the marriage issue is not here. If it was imperative that they be married, why wouldn't Titus carry the same message?
[ March 06, 2002, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: DojoGrant ]
I'd like to add these verses as well:
1 Corinthians 7:27
"Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife."
Marriage is not looked down upon by St. Paul at all, but he makes it clear that while marriage is wonderful in God's eyes, it is not something impartive at all.
Furthermore, for those who refer to priesthood celibacy as the "doctrine of devils" mentioned in the Bible, St. Paul says,
"I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the same of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction."
Celibacy is not a restraint. It's to keep earthly distractions away from a man who is here to adhere to the Word of God.
1 Corinthians 7:27
"Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife."
Marriage is not looked down upon by St. Paul at all, but he makes it clear that while marriage is wonderful in God's eyes, it is not something impartive at all.
Furthermore, for those who refer to priesthood celibacy as the "doctrine of devils" mentioned in the Bible, St. Paul says,
"I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the same of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction."
Celibacy is not a restraint. It's to keep earthly distractions away from a man who is here to adhere to the Word of God.
T
tulpje
Guest
Grant: I know Carole from another board. She was a Lutheran, for a short time converted to Muslim only 2 months ago and suddenly pops up out of no-where claming to be a devout Catholic. Somehow, I just seriously doubt this whole Catholic thing. I think that she really did become a Muslim, but got so much flack from us Lutherans(especially me) that she made the whole Catholic thing up. She and I have had a few not so pretty "discussions" concerning Muslims worshiping the Christian God and going to heaven. Needless to say, there is no love lost between us As I have pointed out in other threads, the Catholics share in this philosophy regarding Muslims also.
tupje
(little tulip)
As I have pointed out in other threads, the Catholics share in this philosophy regarding Muslims also. tupje
(little tulip)
Let's not get off on the third tangent of this post, but I have to say, that the Catholic Catechism never says that Catholics believe Muslims as they are are saved and will be in heaven. Is says this:
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator..."
Does the 'plan of salvation' mean the same thing as 'they will be saved?' No, it doesn't. Muslims are in the right step for Christian brotherhood. They have 1/3 of it down, which is more than those who reject God in His entirity. Catholics desperately seek to bring our Muslim brothers into the faith with Christ, and so they are included in the "plan of salvation." Does Christ not love us all and wish for ALL to be saved? If so, how can Muslims be excluded from that plan? If all means all, it means all. This does not say they WILL be saved, but being loving Christians, we HOPE that something will happen in their lives and that they WILL be saved.
Do you wish for them to be saved, or have you already condemned them?
"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator..."
Does the 'plan of salvation' mean the same thing as 'they will be saved?' No, it doesn't. Muslims are in the right step for Christian brotherhood. They have 1/3 of it down, which is more than those who reject God in His entirity. Catholics desperately seek to bring our Muslim brothers into the faith with Christ, and so they are included in the "plan of salvation." Does Christ not love us all and wish for ALL to be saved? If so, how can Muslims be excluded from that plan? If all means all, it means all. This does not say they WILL be saved, but being loving Christians, we HOPE that something will happen in their lives and that they WILL be saved.
Do you wish for them to be saved, or have you already condemned them?