Ads


William Doino Jr.

view all featured authors »

The Flight from Hell

During the Second Vatican Council, a little-known moment occurred when Msgr Alberto Gori, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, rose to raise a question. Why, he wanted to know, was so little being said about “the eternity of hell” and the possibility of “personal damnation”?

William Doino Jr.Twenty-five years later, a prominent Cardinal voiced similar concern: “Belief in eternal life has hardly any role to play in preaching today.”

The comment was made by Joseph Ratzinger, now reigning as pope.

What happened?

Christ’s commission to preach the Gospel to all nations and people is a fundamental part of Catholic teaching, as are the “four last things” of eschatology: death, judgment, heaven, and hell. The primary motivation for spreading the Gospel has always been to bring the truth and love of Jesus Christ to those who need it—precisely in hopes of saving their souls. Avoiding hell through baptism and conversion was considered—at least until recently—of paramount importance.

Vatican II called for a new evangelization, and ultimately dealt with eschatology effectively (in Lumen Gentium), developing traditional teaching. But there was a boundless religious optimism in the air which frowned upon any kind of “negativity.” Pope John’s opening speech was celebrated, not just as an opening to the modern world, but a decisive repudiation of the past. In the words of former priest James Carroll:


So thoroughly affirmative was his spirit that his opening remarks to the Council—aptly entitled from their first three words, Gaudet Mater Ecclesia, ‘Mother Church Rejoices,’—were a denunciation of denunciation itself, a resounding critique of those to whom ‘the modern world is nothing but betrayal and ruin . . . prophets of doom who are forever forecasting calamity.’ Even Catholics could hear in that characterization a criticism of the Hell-threatening negativity that had marked the Church for centuries . . . The achievement of Vatican II is the astonishing rapidity with which the ruthless God of omnidirectional damnation disappeared from Catholic life, and with Him the acutely felt dread of Hell—‘infinite pain, infinitely felt, forever.’

Of course, the full text of Blessed John’s speech, and actual documents of Vatican II, offer a far more traditional reading for the attentive, but there can be little doubt that Carroll’s flawed understanding of the Council was accepted by many at the time, and still is.

The trivialization of hell and its dangers is one of the great maladies of post-Conciliar thinking. The British author Piers Paul Read rightly asks: “Why in particular are we so rarely warned that we run a real risk of spending eternity in torment?” Read complains that “while it is right to warn that smoking will cause the death of the body, it is intolerable to point to sins that might lead to the death of the soul.” It is a problem that reaches far beyond the Catholic Church, as seen by the controversy among Evangelicals over Rob Bell’s book, Love Wins.

The modern flight from hell usually takes one of three forms: outright denial, passive indifference, or—indirectly—belief in universal salvation. The latter has become increasingly attractive to certain Christians, for it allows them to declare their full belief in hell and its eternity while at the same time promote the idea (even though they cannot guarantee it) that no one actually goes there. An empty hell is nothing to fear, or spend one’s life trying to teach about, or avoid.

The pull toward universal salvation has been felt by figures as various as Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Jacques Maritain (who speculated the damned could at least be redeemed enough to attain a kind of limbo). More recently, the widely admired Father Robert Barron, in his work, Catholicism, comments:


We can’t declare with utter certitude that anyone—even Judas, even Hitler—has chosen definitively to lock the door against the divine love. Indeed, since the liturgy compels us to pray for all of the dead, and since the law of prayer is the law of belief, we must hold out at least the hope that all people will be saved.

Against this wave of overflowing salvation optimism, however, comes a book with a healthy dose of Christian realism. In seven heavily researched and carefully argued chapters, Ralph Martin’s Will Many Be Saved? accomplishes five things: a) describes how the enthusiasm for universal salvation began, and critiques those encouraging it; b) shows how it is based on a faulty reading of Scripture, Catholic Tradition and especially Vatican II; c) reveals the damage it has done to evangelization and missionary activity; d) lulls people into a false sense of security, minimizing the enormous danger of eternal damnation; and e) proposes a vigorous new pastoral strategy that will reverse these harmful trends.

As Dr. Martin notes, section sixteen of Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium makes clear that non-Christians can attain salvation, provided they “seek God with a sincere heart,” and, moved by grace, “try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience.”

It immediately goes on to emphasize, however:


But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and served the world rather than the Creator . . . Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence, to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord’s command, ‘preach the Gospel to every creature’ (Mk. 16: 16) takes zealous care to foster the missions.

In other words, the salvation of non-Christians is possible, but by no means certain, and precisely because they are misled (“very often”) by evil, the need to evangelize them remains as imperative as ever.

These sentences are frequently ignored by those who invoke Vatican II, as are the footnotes to section seventeen of Lumen Gentium, which cite three powerful papal statements on the missions—Maximum illud (1919), Rerum ecclesiae (1926), and Fidei donum (1957), by Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII respectively. In Maximum illud, Benedict XV exhorted missionaries to “carry light to men who lie in the shadow of death and to open the way to heaven for souls that are hurtling to destruction.”



But such are not words heard often in Catholic catechesis nowadays, even though they are fundamental to authentic Catholic teaching.

In response to those who say we should hope that all men are saved, Dr. Martin replies, of course we should—but need to do so remembering original sin, free will, and what Christ and the apostles said about hell, judgment, and the sufferings of those who remain in defiance of God:


There are obvious problems with proposing that all these texts be interpreted as simply ‘existential’ warnings for the ‘now,’ and that nothing can be claimed on their basis about the future. In fact. it is virtually impossible, just on the basis of a grammatical/literary analysis, to interpret these passages as anything other than declarative statements about what in fact will happen in the future and what will be the outcome of the choices that people make.

Both John Paul II and Pope Benedict have stressed the abundance of Christ’s’s love and mercy, but also taught that he is a God of perfect justice who holds evildoers accountable.

Perhaps the greatest argument against the over-confident universalists is their inability to explain why, in world of universal salvation, Christianity would retain any meaning at all. Martin explains:


Jesus makes clear Christianity is not a game or an optional enrichment opportunity but a precious and urgent opportunity to find salvation and escape damnation. In fidelity to the teaching of Christ this is what motivated two thousand years of heroic missionary work and the heroic witness of countless martyrs.

It is that same fidelity which should inspire us to proclaim the truth of Jesus Christ today, everywhere and without compromise, for, in the words of the Acts of the Apostles, “there is no other name under Heaven granted to men, by which we may receive salvation.”

William Doino Jr. is a contributor to Inside the Vatican magazine, among many other publications, and writes often about religion, history and politics. He contributed an extensive bibliography of works on Pius XII to The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.

RESOURCES

Will Many be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization by Ralph Martin (Eerdmans, 2012).

Pope John XXIII’s Opening Speech at Vatican II, October 11, 1962.

Vatican II: The Essential Texts, edited by Norman Tanner, with an introduction by James Carroll (Image, 2012).

“Difficulties Confronting the Faith in Europe Today,” by Joseph Ratzinger, L’Osservatore Romano, July 24, 1989, reprinted in Communio.

The Rhine Flows into the Tiber: A History of Vatican II by Father Ralph M. Wiltgen (TAN Books, 1985).

Hell and the Bible by Piers Paul Read, Ignatius Insight.

Bell’s Present Heaven,” by Edward T. Oakes, First Things, October, 2011.

The Population of Hell by Cardinal Avery Dulles, First Things, May 2003.

Who Can be Saved? By Cardinal Avery Dulles, First Things, February 2008.

Crossing the Threshold of Hope by Pope John Paul II (Knopf, 1995).

“Benedict XVI Invokes the Judgment of God on this World” by Sandro Magister, Chiesa, February 11, 2008.

Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.

Comments:

10.8.2012 | 3:58am
When I was younger, I found it near impossible to believe that anyone would choose to be separated from God as opposed to loving God and all that He loved.

However, as I grew older, a tad more wiser, I now see how entrenched evil can be
and how it will always blame the Creator and never itself for the selfishness it
seeks to thrive upon.

We are absolutely free - we may not have the infinite power to implement all of our
desires but there is nothing limiting our desires and our wantoness is seeking to have
them fulfilled no matter the cost to anyone else or to ourselves.

So, yes there is a Hell, we create our own personal Hell and in due time we may
find ourselves sharing it with all those who have no love for anyone, not even
themselves.

I do not understand why the Church and all Christian denominations don't make
this absolutely clear to their congregations.

I feel sorry for the "Liberals" who spend their time trying to convince people that
they cannot turn forever away from God and the Sacrifice of His Son and the
Charity and Compassion of the Holy Spirit - why do they so undervalue our freedom
to choose anything but God - look at the world around you and see what choices
people make day in and day out and tell me why you think that suddenly upon
dying they will only choose to be perfect in their compassion and charity ?
10.8.2012 | 6:43am
Michael PS says:
In part, I believe that many theologians grasped at de facto universal salvation as a relief from wrestling with the intractable problems of predestination and grace, efficacious and merely sufficient that had pitted the Molinists against the New Thomists for the last four centuries.

Père Réginald Marie Garrigou-Lagrange was the last major theologian to uphold the doctrine of Divine Predilection, a doctrine that most modern Catholics would consider pure Calvinism.

If hell is not a live option, such questions become purely academic.
10.8.2012 | 8:24am
Sheila says:
Maybe most people simply cannot reconcile a just and loving God with the idea of "'infinite pain, infinitely felt forever". All justifications I have ever read about the role of free will and original sin just don't appear convincing enough. Of course my intelectual rationalization of something is hardly relevant to the reality of God's justice, but that could explain the lack of enthusiasm in the christian community for the idea of hell.
10.8.2012 | 9:47am
Dan Deeny says:
Very interesting! Why would the Christian and Jewish God, the God of the Bible, the God of infinite mercy, infinite justice, infinite beauty, infinite love, knowingly create a soul that He knew would suffer eternally? Doesn't make sense. Such a god sounds more like Moloch, a sadistic god, one of the Aztec gods, one of the Cathar gods, maybe even John Calvin's god.
This problem seems to encourage the belief in Purgatory. We have Free Will and thus can be tricked by Lucifer. We go to Purgatory to pay our debts, to be purified.
10.8.2012 | 9:48am
bill bannon says:
A key problem system wide is the "Judas may have made it...you don't really know" school which is not just Fr. Barron and the above named theologians. It includes the last two Popes in low venue statements on Judas which were identical to Fr. Barron's statement.
Our pathology is that our leaders have little regard or reference to Christ's words about Judas which were all dire and not appropriate for a soul which was ultimately bound for glory. St. Justin Martyr stated that when the past tense is used in prophecy in the Bible that prediction will surely happen. An example is Isaiah in 53:2 saying, "and we have seen him and there is no sightliness in him" and Christ had not come yet nor had a face yet to describe. Christ talking to His Father likewise prior...prior to Judas sinning, says, "Those whom you gave me I guarded and not one of them perished except the son of perdition."
Even if you finesse "perished" into "was destroyed", you are still not in range of the reward ( let's face it ) of purgatory if Judas is a "son of perdition" to boot. Keep in mind Trent's Council said you could know a person is in hell by revelation... and Scripture is Revelation with a capital R. Those people who by order of God have disgusting post death symbols in Scripture are probably also in hell...Jezebel (eaten by dogs) and Herod ( Acts 12, eaten by worms)...but that's for theologians to ponder.
10.8.2012 | 11:03am
Richard says:
I often puzzled, in my younger years, over how a finite offense could merit infinite punishment. Then, watching people persist in willful destructive behavior no matter what, I became less confused.

If the will is free, it seems impossible to only create souls that will choose the good (God). Some will persist in rejecting God. This presents God with a dilemma. He is the lover of souls. When he creates an immortal soul, he creates it out of love and intends it for eternal felicity. In creating it immortal he has made a promise that he cannot break. But the soul is free. It can reject the divine lover, and God, respecting the freedom of the soul, will not rape the will of that soul. He allows us the dignity of our choice, even if it is not the good of the soul the soul chooses.

I have often yearned for a realm of justice, where wrongdoers were confronted with the fact of their wrongdoing, and the consequences, and where the victims of the innumerable deprivations and cruelties were made whole. This is the Christian eschaton. This realm of wrong confronted, good beatified, victims raised to eternal happiness, and the imperfectly cleansed purified by purgatory, presumes both the mercy and justice of God. God's mercy saves many sinners from the consequences of their sins, but this can only happen if the sinner accepts God and the divine mercy. Otherwise, even God can do nothing.

In Sister Faustina's apparition, Christ said that he was an abyss of mercy and the worst sinner had the greatest right to escape to that mercy. But Christ also said that he who does not accept the divine mercy must face the divine justice. Christ, in these apparitions, says that at the moment of death he calls to each soul three times to turn to him. The least scintilla of assent is enough to save the soul. But those who insist on rejecting mercy are given what they have so persistently chosen. This is a grave doctrine, but it is hard to fault God for his place in it, particularly after his self giving in the agony of the Crucifixion to save us from the perversity of the human will.

Best,

Richard
10.8.2012 | 11:15am
Paul says:
I believe the universal hope of some (Balthasar and Neuhaus, to name two) is mischaracterized by some. It is not a doctrine, nor does it presume upon God. Neuhaus, for instance, never advanced belief in a definitely empty hell. But he advanced the quite logical possibility that hell is in fact empty (even if it was quite possible that it turn out otherwise).

Moreover, it's historically naive and anachronistic to consider universal hope as recent in origin (say as being rooted in Vatican II or distortions of Vatican II or in liberal Protestantism). Gregory of Nyssa was among the early fathers who clearly subscribed to a strong hope in universal salvation. Augustine refers to those who believe in universal salvation (or "that no one will be punished eternally) in De civitate dei. He refers to those who hold the position as "Certain merciful brethren" (i.e., fellow Christians) with whom he must "engage in peaceable debate," even though he disagrees with their conclusion. He distinguished this position (of universal hope for human persons) from the "condemned" position attributed to Origen (though what Origen actually held is a matter of some debate)--that "even the devil himself, and his angels, after suffering the more grievous and protracted punishments which their sins merit, will be released from their torments." Origen, says Augustine, was condemned by the Church for this and other errors. But hope of universal human salvation is characterized by St. Augustine as a "very different error." From the context, it is clear that Augustine thinks belief or hope in universal human salvation is erroneous but not condemned by the Church. And it is worth noting that while Origen may have been anathematized (or, more aptly, that certain of his teachings may have been), Gregory of Nyssa was NOT.

Having been on both sides of this debate, I think something of a charitable and peaceable spirit (as commended by Augustine) should be directed towards those who hope for the salvation and reclamation of each and all. Most importantly, I think those who disagree should avoid the error of calling such hope new or modern. Nor should they simply say it was clearly heterodox in the early Church--the fact that Gregory of Nyssa was never condemned and Augustine's distinction between the condemned Origenist position and the position of hope for universal human salvation suggest that it was not.
10.8.2012 | 11:32am
David Nickol says:
I wonder if even those who believe in the death penalty (or perhaps even torturing to death someone who committed a particularly heinous crime) could bring themselves to relegate someone to ETERNAL TORMENT. The idea of anything going on for all eternity boggles the mind, but the idea of eternal torment is particularly difficult to imagine. Is there any sin for which a billion years of suffering, or a trillion, or a quadrillion is not enough? Eternity isn't just a long time. It is never ending. How can the worst person who ever lived merit quadrillion years of suffering?

And what puzzles me is why people are allegedly "fixed" at the point of death. Does free will end at death? Why can't a person who has died repent of his or her sins?

It is difficult to believe that God created the universe largely to populate hell.
10.8.2012 | 12:57pm
FrH says:
One need not reach as far as "Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Jacques Maritain" to find advocates of "Dare we hope?" One could even find articles (or columns) in _First Things_ at least raising the possibility, authored by RJN himself. I happen to think he's quite wrong on the point and the above article correct, though.
10.8.2012 | 1:59pm
Artaban7 says:
Dan Deeny,

I think your question "How does...infinite love, knowingly create a soul that He knew would suffer eternally?" makes a classic logical mistake. Namely, knowledge of a thing is not the same as causation.

Just because God knows what will happen to the soul doesn't mean that He causes it to happen. Just because you know your child will one day die doesn't mean you will him/her to die, or are the cause of their death.

God may send the end of the movie that is our life, but he isn't the one who writes the entire script. We still have free will.
10.8.2012 | 2:12pm
Don Roberto says:
God has little use for automata. He created us in His image, with free will. Tragically, a soul whose free-will decisions lead to bad habits, and thence to a damaged character, may in the end become so wicked that it cannot stand the sight of God, and therefore flees willingley into hell. God is outside of time, which is not an easily grasped concept, so the notion that it's cruel to create a soul, knowing its destiny "in advance," is naturally confusing to us. (One way to think about the damned is that they, or at least the part of them that anyone would be at all interested in, are gone, as if they never existed. Jesus spoke thus of Judas: "Better for him had be never been born.")

God save us from sin and evil! And may all of us in this coming Year of Faith (beginning October 11), renew our efforts to spread the Good News.

Pope Benedict XVI has three "laws" for the evangelization the Church is calling us to: constant prayer, humility, and a willingness to accept the cross. †
10.8.2012 | 2:17pm
harry says:
One who ends up in Hell after believing during his Earthly life that Hell would be "infinite pain, infinitely felt, forever," will be in no position to complain that "I would have behaved differently if somebody would have told me Hell would be *this* bad." Regardless of how bad Hell actually turns out to be, whether it be better or worse than we imagined, we have been warned in stark terms that we will wish we weren't there. It is a good thing, and for our benefit, that Hell is described as something terrible.

I suspect that Hell is separation from God and the frustration that comes with not ever being able to fulfill our true reason for being, which is, by way of sharing in God's divine life, to forever happily, lovingly respond to God's love and the love of others. How that frustration and loss will "feel" in terms of physical pain is impossible to say -- but we can be sure that we won't like it, and that we won't be able to credibly complain that we had no idea that that Hell would be *this* bad.

Not making clear the reality of Hell, and that ending up there is a real possibility since we have a free will, is a disservice to Christians and to everyone else. It also needs to be made clear that nobody is "sent" to Hell. Those in Hell are there because they freely chose to not respond to the light and grace God gave them. They knew better than to behave in the way they behaved, doing evil and/or failing to do good. More often than not when damnation is mentioned in the Gospels, it is the result of sins of omission, not of commission.
10.8.2012 | 2:50pm
"The primary motivation for spreading the Gospel has always been to bring the truth and love of Jesus Christ to those who need it—precisely in hopes of saving their souls."

I think you have this backwards. Christ of course brought a message of His Love. But when asked what it meant to love, Christ answered keep the Commandments.

The 1st primary motivation for spreading the Gospel, as Christ taught it, was to do His Will and the Will of His Father.

The 2nd primary motivation for spreading the Gospel is like the first; to save the soul's of His children.

They way you word the primary motivation, to those without "ears to hear" it comes across as if an emotional type love and truth for them to tap into.

Love is sacrifice of ourselves to another. Charity is sacrifice directed and motivated to God.

So our "primary motivation" is properly out of our love, our obedience, to Christ and His Father.


Saving the souls of His children is His Will.

Our primary motivation is True Charity.

It is only through Charity can we Hope to be filled with His Love for those souls.
\
It is only through Charity can we be filled with the Grace necessary for the grave and difficult task He asked us to do.

It is only through Charity, True Charity directed in action and language to Him, will our words properly Love His Word.

Prior to Vatican II theological language was becoming more and more filled with humanist language, e.g. the "dignity of man" replaced the language that pointed to God and the sacredness of man as a soul with a body.

After Vatican II this "Catholic-Humanist" language exploded in usage by those who ignored Vatican II's clear teaching of prior dogma and tradition and embraced what they felt was the "spirit of Vatican II".

The language of many with great evangelical spirit have through their love of fashion and novelty lost their grasp of the Language of God and His Word.

AMDG
10.8.2012 | 3:07pm
Dan Deehy: "Why would the Christian and Jewish God, the God of the Bible, the God of infinite mercy, infinite justice, infinite beauty, infinite love, knowingly create a soul that He knew would suffer eternally?"

Perhaps Deehy can ask Him, if he gets to meet Him. Personally, I think it very limited reasoning to believe a God worth believing in would think like we do. Put simpler, if your assumption is, "If I were God, I wouldn't do that," then you're on the wrong track.

For me, it all comes back to free will, which Sheila has difficulties with. If God predestined us all to heaven, would it really have any meaning? What does free will mean in the presence of an omniscient God? For my part, I've chosen to believe there is no greater gift that God could have given us. And He is true to it for eternity. If I freely choose not to be with Him, He will grant that. It will hurt like Hell, but I will no doubt rationalize it continuously, claiming it is all His fault. More likely I will want to be with Him, but consider myself not worthy and refuse His Presence for a time. Then there are the few, in my mind at any rate, who know only too well they are not worthy but accept His love for what it is, unconditional and unending. We call those last Saints.
10.8.2012 | 3:38pm
bill bannon says:
David Nickol,
Aquinas explained it this way but tentatively even for him: in serious sins, there are two turnings...an defective turning toward mutable good...and a turning away from the Eternal God. It is the second turning that causes the eternity of hell. The degree of hell is about which sins and how many etc. But the eternity is about the turning away from Him who is eternal. In another place Aquinas says: " The fornicator does not intend to depart from God but to enjoy carnal pleasure, the result of which is that he departs from God."
The physical torment of hell cannot be so painful that it upstages the pain of losing God...that Friend that chose to suffer hours of crucifixion for me in order that I not go to hell.
10.8.2012 | 4:09pm
"But woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born." If Judas ever makes it to heaven, or even some kind of natural state of happiness, Jesus must just have been joking.
10.8.2012 | 4:38pm
Joe Z says:
Perhaps the greatest argument against the over-confident universalists is their inability to explain why, in world of universal salvation, Christianity would retain any meaning at all.


I don't really get this. I think this is, if anything, the weakest argument against the von Balthasar - type position. The arguments from Scripture (including from Christ's own words) seem, at least on their face, to indicate that some will go to Hell, so that seems much stronger to me.

This argument, that there would be no point in Christianity if nobody goes to hell, is really strange. Surely all the positive meaning of Christianity is unchanged, even if God's mercy wins out in every particular case. Think about the two kinds of contrition: which one is "perfect" and which one is "imperfect"? The latter is contrition from fear of hell (and purgatory); the former is contrition that comes from a love of God and sorrow at having wronged Him.

I see that Christianity has to mean, if it means anything, that God saved us from death by sending His son to redeem us (John 3:16). So it has to really mean something that all would die in the definitive sense if it weren't for Christ. But what does Fr. Barron, for example, say that would conflict with that?

I should say that on the whole I think this article is timely and important: we should hear the Church's teaching about hell, and we almost never do.
10.8.2012 | 4:38pm
Gil says:
The trivialization of hell is in fact the trivialization of sin.
10.8.2012 | 7:03pm
Don Roberto says:
David, rest assured that God is just. And the word "eternity" is probably misleading in this case. Think of it in terms of escaping this world to a realm where we are not limited my time as we are in this life. "Eternity" is more like a final state where we have made the irrevocable decision to give our allegiance either to God or to His nemesis.

As for the end of free will, no doubt God gives us all the chances we need. Some may turn around while they lie in a coma, perhaps even after "brain death." But at some point it becomes clear even to those lacking omniscience, that Hitler, or [insert sinister person's name here] is never going to benefit from a 2nd (or 49,000th) chance, and the gate is shut, by the unrepentant sinner himself.

Pride is the biggest problem. We must always be humble enough to accept His love and the guidance He lovingly provides through the Church, the Holy Word and His saints. †
10.8.2012 | 7:59pm
Thomas R says:
I think there are different forms of the one issue. I think some people say "we don't know he's in Hell" (Whether it be Judas or Hitler or whatever) as a recognition that God decides who's in Hell and we're not to condemn. Or at least I think that's how I've used it and I definitely think some people go to Hell.

I do struggle with the idea of Hell as eternal torment. It's biblical, and in the religious visions, but it is hard to wrap my mind around. Now the idea that it's eternal torment because the person is tormenting themselves is something I could see, but I'm not even sure that fits the biblical/traditional ideal.
10.9.2012 | 1:35am
Mike Rapkoch says:
Is it really that hard to conceive of damnation? When I was a kid the nuns drilled hell into us. I don't recall a lasting sense of fear, but it must have been there since I still have it all these years later. Anyone who has really fallen into sin has suffered the pains of hell--a deep, brooding emptiness which is like fire. At Adoration that sense of burning seems to change so that the greater fear is in not seeing Jesus face to face for all eternity. An even greater fear is the fear of mercy. Not the same fear as the loss of heaven, but a profound realization that to receive mercy has its own pain. It is the love of God so great that He died for us, and even though we spit on Him daily, drive the nails into His hands and feet, and drive the lance into His heart, he is longing, thirsting, to forgive us. That is a joyful bur dreadful pain. In a strange way this seems even more painful than hell. I think of the times when my Dad disciplined me, and I see the pain in his eyes, and the thing that melts me is the sadness in Mom's eyes. The sadness of God, the sadness of Mary. That hurts.

Ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc and in hora mortis nostrae
10.9.2012 | 4:35am
Michael PS says:
Harry wrote, "I suspect that Hell is separation from God "

Some of the Eastern fathers, notably St Isaac of Syria take the opposite view. For them, God himself is both heaven and Hell, reward and punishment. All men have been created to see God unceasingly in His uncreated glory. Whether God will be for each man heaven or Hell, reward or punishment, depends on man's response to God's love.
10.9.2012 | 10:03am
Richard says:
Dear Michael PS

St. Isaac's view is certainly theologically coherent, but in the Western tradition I have heard it argued that the presence of God for the damned would be greater torment than separation. Also, Western mystics are, as far as I know, unanimous in depicting hell as separation in darkness.

Both views make sense to me.

Best,

Richard
10.9.2012 | 12:20pm
ron a. says:
Eternal bliss vs. eternal pain. Loving God and Just God. The Absolute Truth: man's only freedom is his freedom to choose Jesus Christ, and, this is possible only by his willingness to accept God's abundant grace---and believe. He will only position himself to accept this grace if he, in truth, through humility and obedience, accepts who he really is. Otherwise, naturally, there is the defensive inclination to harp on this idea of a "merciful" God (solo attribute) who would not permit eternal damnation. This is the God they need to continue on their merry way of disobedience and denial.

I suggest it is not spiritually healthy to talk about this all-Merciful God who saves all. It betrays who we are.
10.9.2012 | 4:26pm
Peg says:
I have sometimes come across fictional characters who believe in God but reject him out of ambition, pride, jealousy or anger----Dr. Faustus, or the Salieri character in Milos Forman's "Amadeus", for example. These do not lazily fall away from a lukewarm faith, or unintentionally depart from God while giving in to temptation (per Bill Bannon's description above). They most definitely reject God. I wonder if such people exist in real life ( short of mentally ill people) and if so, well, "where are we going and why are we in this hand basket?" seems apt.
10.10.2012 | 1:18am
Hell's been extinguished. The address formerly known as 666 wound up underwater during the collapse of the housing bubble a few years back.

In all seriousness, I am not a person of faith. That a created piece of evil real estate is still thought to be needed in the 21st century is most bizarre to me.

Does anyone have a photo of this place? What do utilities run considering all the saunas?

Mike, friendly atheist.
10.10.2012 | 4:02pm
ron a. says:
Friendly Mike from Alaska---Where your thought goes underwater is with the term "needed".
10.10.2012 | 6:05pm
ron a.,

Last I checked, 666 Back Alley Way is inextricably part of Yahweh's Divine Plan. How can you say it isn't needed from a sophisticated theological point of view? I vaguely remember Cardinal Pell of Australia recently lamenting that without Hell there is no ultimate justice. So please, elaborate.

Mike, not a person of faith.
type the text above in the box below

Links

Blogs

Find Us

Contact