Can we hope that nobody is in hell?

[rlg94086]

Just to add to that…I sure hope I never find out what Hell is really like!

It doesn’t really fit the fire and brimstone idea of hell, but C.S.Lewis’ rendition of hell in his book “The Great Divorce” makes one understand how there certainly can be a hell where individuals elect to be.

That being said though the hell of Lewis’ book is not souls and bodies burning in an eternal fire. It is more of an eternity of self inflicted misery upon oneself.

Augustine seems to paint a different picture in “City of God”, where he spends a great deal of effort describing how a body can in fact burn for eterninty in horrifying pain and torment. Where the fire is real fire and the worm is a real worm.

Two different respected people, two drastically differing ideas.

Two things are for certain.

1. we do not know.
2. we will not know throughout our lifetime. (short of a private revelation of course)

We can pray and ask for a deeper understanding. We can trust that justice and mercy will prevail and we will be satisfied with what we discover after our earthly life is over. But we will debate hell until our last breath.

 

[rlg94086]

Just to add to that…I sure hope I never find out what Hell is really like!

It doesn’t really fit the fire and brimstone idea of hell, but C.S.Lewis’ rendition of hell in his book “The Great Divorce” makes one understand how there certainly can be a hell where individuals elect to be.

That being said though the hell of Lewis’ book is not souls and bodies burning in an eternal fire. It is more of an eternity of self inflicted misery upon oneself.

Augustine seems to paint a different picture in “City of God”, where he spends a great deal of effort describing how a body can in fact burn for eterninty in horrifying pain and torment. Where the fire is real fire and the worm is a real worm.

Two different respected people, two drastically differing ideas.

Two things are for certain.

1. we do not know.
2. we will not know throughout our lifetime. (short of a private revelation of course)

We can pray and ask for a deeper understanding. We can trust that justice and mercy will prevail and we will be satisfied with what we discover after our earthly life is over. But we will debate hell until our last breath.

 

[KCT]

I think we have to constantly pray for God’s mercy. My dad died almost 2 years ago. As far as we know, he died rejecting the Catholic faith he was raised with. Can God communicate w/ someone who is unconscious? Sure, he’s God. Do I hope God communicated w/ my dad and gave him another chance - of course.

My uncle, also raised Catholic, rejected the Faith. He claimed he did not believe in God. He recently committed suicide. I have to hope that perhaps he was not mentally stable and therefore not as culpable. Only God knows. —KCT

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I remember going through catechist training that point was specifically hammered home. All the pain and suffering that the soul experiences there are not real, only metaphors. I don’t buy that.

I don’t buy that either. I think images of hell can be metaphorical–fire, brimstone, burning, worms, etc–but that the image is referred to or attempts to describe an actual, real affliction which is nonetheless not physical (fire, brimstone, burning, worms, etc.) but existential.

I believe hell is real. I struggle with the idea of an eternal hell as it doesn’t make sense that hell can be eternal in the same way that God is eternal (hell must be indefinite). But I do believe that hell is a real and possible mode of existence (if it can be called existence)–perhaps the eternity of hell is referred to its possibility?

Forgive me for being gruff in my earlier post. I often get a bit peeved when I think that someone is assuming that spiritual experience must conform to material images of it–that a physical hell is more real than an existential hell (which, to me, is next door to saying that a physical rock is more real than the logos of the rock which finds its origin and perfection in the Logos of God) because enduring a furnace must be more painful than mindlessly attempting to rip apart the fabric of one’s own being (because one’s very being has become a source of suffering) while being pursued by the “burning” fire of God’s love which one ceaselessly and fruitlessly attempts to flee.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[bilop]

Remember the three conditions that are necessary for a sin to be mortal. Grave matter, full knowledge, and full and deliberate consent. It is impossible for anyone to know whether or not the conditions have been met except for the person committing the sin himself. Since we cannot know it is certainly not charitable to assume the worst.

Well in the example discussed, we were dealing with serial adultery. Adultery is clearly grave matter. It is a sin against the natural law, so we all know it is wrong, plus we were discussing a christian minister, who should be familiar with the ten commandments, so that gives us full knowledge. And, I don’t know how one can commit repeated adultery with multiple women without full and deliberate consent. Did they all drug him? Use force?

Again, I do not judge the state of anyone’s soul. But it certain cases, we can clearly see mortal sin, and it is dangerous to not call it what it is.

God Bless

 

[Nick]

Well in the example discussed, we were dealing with serial adultery. Adultery is clearly grave matter. It is a sin against the natural law, so we all know it is wrong, plus we were discussing a christian minister, who should be familiar with the ten commandments, so that gives us full knowledge. And, I don’t know how one can commit repeated adultery with multiple women without full and deliberate consent. Did they all drug him? Use force?

These are all assumptions. No matter how likely you think it is that the conditions were met, we cannot know with certainty. It is not charitable to assume that you know what was going on in this person’s mind and soul.

Again, I do not judge the state of anyone’s soul. But it certain cases, we can clearly see mortal sin, and it is dangerous to not call it what it is.

God Bless

By saying that you can clearly see mortal sin you are judging the state of a person’s soul at the time the sin was committed. I think it is very unwise to speculate on whether anybodies sin was mortal or not. We should focus on determining the state of our own soul as we cannot know what is happening with others. Why cannot we just say that if this story is true then his actions were seriously wrong, and not get into trying to determine the state of his soul?

I think this post on the AAA forum is relevant here: Can Catholics judge others?

 

[NoPlaceLikeRome]

Actually, while I agree fully that adultery is wrong, according to what I was taught (admittedly summarily) this past semester about natural law, it would seem that adultery is not part of it. Maybe look it up somewhere, but I think that natural law includes a lot fewer things than you’d think, and you can’t keep deducing principles from it as if it were geometry; basically IIRC main precepts would be Perpetuate the species by generating and educating children; self preservation. Very basic type things. Could be wrong though.

 

[Greg27]

Grace & Peace!

Palamas, I think “modern and non judgmental” must be code for something here, because I can’t understand in what way a description of hell as freely willed and limitless conscious self-annihilation is non-judgmental or modern.

Look at Origen on sin (which he describes as the conscious removal of the creature from the remembrance of God–in other words, annihilation)–that’s not modern. Sin, Satan, Lucifer, demons, heaven, hell, purgatory can all exist–just because hell may not be a place of everlasting barbecue presided over by grinning demons ala folklore or Dante does not mean that the reality of hell as a state of being (is heaven a place? is God circumscribed by space and time?) is not equally (though I would argue that it is more) hellish.

There is such a thing as metaphor. We can stop at it and take it for the real, or we can seek to understand the reality which it attempts to describe. That’s neither moder, nor non-judgmental. Those two terms have nothing to do with the process.

Not everything that you don’t agree with is de facto an artifact of unholy modernism. Perhaps you just don’t agree, or are unwilling to consider it.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

For me, there is another way to understand this. For Catholics, God or the Absolute is unconditioned Being. The Absolute, as Gregory of Nyssa painted it, contains the fullness and plenitude of infinite Being. For the soul that is blessed, after death there is a never-ending assimilation into God rather than a static state of beautitude and happiness. For the soul that is damned, or chooses to be damned, that being is outside God’s unconditioned Being and instead falls more and more into absolute nothingness and non-existence, which is the ‘fire’ of true hell.

I agree a lot with Gregory of Nyssa’s analysis rather than the Western focus which emphasizes hell as a place created to serve God’s glory and justice. I don’t believe hell is a real ‘place’ in the sense God has created a material prison full of demons and fire; I think that image is too corporeal and concrete for spiritual realities and because it describes a mystery descriptions of hell are basically symbolic.

Hell then in my view is being outside of God’s prescence and his unconditioned and infinite Being. Outside of God, as Meister Eckhart said perceptively once, there is nothing. And to be thrown into that nothing by making a final and absolute ‘No’ to God’s love, mercy and graces is a terrifying prospect. This ‘nothing’ outside of God’s infinite Being is in my view what Jesus refers to when he says ‘Go to the lake of fire you cursed, prepared for the devil and his angels.’

I’ve experienced hell myself a few times here an an ‘existential’ state and it is basically falling into this ‘nothing’, which is basically one bereft totally of beauty, grace and hope, but which comes from the inside; the door out is locked from the inside, by the person’s free choice. After death, a person’s choice to reject God and his grace simply continues for eternity, and this state of nothingness into which the damned soul is plunged continues forever. For me, that prospect is far more scary than a hell or purgatory of real physical fire and torments.

Pope Benedict wrote about eschatology in one of his books and his concept of what hell is, is basically existential rather than material.

 

[GandalfTheWhite]

I wish no one would end going up in hell.
I hope that a great number of people will not end up going to hell.
I know that many people will end up going to hell.

 

[bilop]

These are all assumptions. No matter how likely you think it is that the conditions were met, we cannot know with certainty. It is not charitable to assume that you know what was going on in this person’s mind and soul.

By saying that you can clearly see mortal sin you are judging the state of a person’s soul at the time the sin was committed. I think it is very unwise to speculate on whether anybodies sin was mortal or not. We should focus on determining the state of our own soul as we cannot know what is happening with others. Why cannot we just say that if this story is true then his actions were seriously wrong, and not get into trying to determine the state of his soul?

I think this post on the AAA forum is relevant here: Can Catholics judge others?

I can’t buy this logic. If I go out and commit adultery it is mortal sin. If any Christian commits adultery it is mortal sin. Adultery is always grave matter, any Christian knows it is wrong (10 Commandments), and you can’t do it unintentionally unless you are literally out of your mind, having lost control of your actions.

It doesn’t matter how much people try to convince themselves things are not wrong, that doesn’t lessen culpability.

What we can’t judge is the ultimate state of a person’s soul. We can’t judge repentence. We can judge actions.

God Bless

 

[bilop]

Actually, while I agree fully that adultery is wrong, according to what I was taught (admittedly summarily) this past semester about natural law, it would seem that adultery is not part of it. Maybe look it up somewhere, but I think that natural law includes a lot fewer things than you’d think, and you can’t keep deducing principles from it as if it were geometry; basically IIRC main precepts would be Perpetuate the species by generating and educating children; self preservation. Very basic type things. Could be wrong though.

St. Thomas would not agree with you.

newadvent.org/summa/2100.htm

Article 1. Whether all the moral precepts of the Old Law belong to the law of nature?
I answer that, The moral precepts, distinct from the ceremonial and judicial precepts, are about things pertaining of their very nature to good morals. Now since human morals depend on their relation to reason, which is the proper principle of human acts, those morals are called good which accord with reason, and those are called bad which are discordant from reason. And as every judgment of speculative reason proceeds from the natural knowledge of first principles, so every judgment of practical reason proceeds from principles known naturally, as stated above (94, A2,4): from which principles one may proceed in various ways to judge of various matters.
…
It is therefore evident that since the moral precepts are about matters which concern good morals; and since good morals are those which are in accord with reason; and since also every judgment of human reason must needs by derived in some way from natural reason; it follows, of necessity, that all the moral precepts belong to the law of nature;…

 

[Nick]

I can’t buy this logic. If I go out and commit adultery it is mortal sin. If any Christian commits adultery it is mortal sin. Adultery is always grave matter, any Christian knows it is wrong (10 Commandments), and you can’t do it unintentionally unless you are literally out of your mind, having lost control of your actions.

It doesn’t matter how much people try to convince themselves things are not wrong, that doesn’t lessen culpability.

What we can’t judge is the ultimate state of a person’s soul. We can’t judge repentence. We can judge actions.

God Bless

I feel like we are going around in circles here. There are all sorts of potential mitigating circumstances that can reduce culpability. Since we cannot know wether these mitigating circumstances existed it is not charitable to assume that they did not, and therefore conclude that a mortal sin has definitely been committed. I agree with you that we can and should judge actions, but what you are saying is that we can judge the state of a person’s soul based on seconhand information, and that is neither charitable or realistic in my opinion. I don’t see how you can conclude with any degree of certainity that a mortal sin has been committed unless the person who committed the sin himself directly tells you that he indeed committed a mortal sin, or if you are a priest in the confessional and by way of asking questions you are able to help the penintent determine his or her culpability.

 

[palmas85]

I feel like we are going around in circles here. There are all sorts of potential mitigating circumstances that can reduce culpability. Since we cannot know wether these mitigating circumstances existed it is not charitable to assume that they did not, and therefore conclude that a mortal sin has definitely been committed. I agree with you that we can and should judge actions, but what you are saying is that we can judge the state of a person’s soul based on seconhand information, and that is neither charitable or realistic in my opinion. I don’t see how you can conclude with any degree of certainity that a mortal sin has been committed unless the person who committed the sin himself directly tells you that he indeed committed a mortal sin, or if you are a priest in the confessional and by way of asking questions you are able to help the penintent determine his or her culpability.

OK, I’ll bite on this one. Outside of mental illness or impairment due to alcohol or drugs, I know a stretch, but in the interest of fairness I’ll admit that possibility, what mitigating factors would exist that could posssibly excuse adultery or extramarital sex of any type for that matter?

 

[Nick]

OK, I’ll bite on this one. Outside of mental illness or impairment due to alcohol or drugs, I know a stretch, but in the interest of fairness I’ll admit that possibility, what mitigating factors would exist that could posssibly excuse adultery or extramarital sex of any type for that matter?

There could be a variety of factors that diminish culpability. Each person and situation is different and since we don’t know the particulars it seems the charitable thing to do is to hope that there existed some of these factors that dimish culpability.

The Catechism says in 2352

…To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

We have no way of knowing wether or not these conditions took place in the situation of Dr. King, but I think it is charitable to hope that they did.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

In all probability Judas is in Hell. Why?

Jesus said “It would have been better for that man if he had never been born”.

That would not be true if he were in Heaven or even if he stayed in Purgatory until the final judgement.

It would only be true if he were in Hell.

 

[Nick]

Posted by Jerry-Jet:

In all probability Judas is in Hell. Why?

Jesus said “It would have been better for that man if he had never been born”.

That would not be true if he were in Heaven or even if he stayed in Purgatory until the final judgement.

It would only be true if he were in Hell.

Post #4

See Crossing the Threshold of Hope by John Paul II

The problem of hell has always disturbed great thinkers in the Church, beginning with Origen and continuing in our time with Sergey Bulgakov and Hans Urs von Balthasar. In point of fact, the ancient councils rejected the theory of the “final apocatastasis,” according to which the world would be regenerated after destruction, and every creature would be saved; a theory which indirectly abolished hell. But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt 25:46). Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard. This is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man. The silence of the Church is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith. Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, “It would be better for that man if he had never been born” (Mt 26:24), His words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation.
At the same time, however, there is something in man’s moral conscience itself that rebels against any loss of this conviction: Is not God who is Love also ultimate Justice? Can He tolerate these terrible crimes, can they go unpunished? Isn’t final punishment in some way necessary in order to reestablish moral equilibrium in the complex history of humanity? Is not hell in a certain sense the ultimate safeguard of man’s moral conscience?

 

[Nick]

In post 72 above, I quoted from the CCC 2352. I thought I should mention that this paragraph is discussing masturbation, but I think that the conditions mentioned that reduce culpability could also be applied to other sins as well
.

 

[palmas85]

There could be a variety of factors that diminish culpability. Each person and situation is different and since we don’t know the particulars it seems the charitable thing to do is to hope that there existed some of these factors that dimish culpability.

The Catechism says in 2352

We have no way of knowing wether or not these conditions took place in the situation of Dr. King, but I think it is charitable to hope that they did.

That is what we used to call a big time cop out my man, big time. I asked you a very simple question, very simple indeed. You know the answer as well as I, Are you saying to avoid the truth and hope that somehow someway the truth isn’t the truth for charitys sake? Please.

And the section you quoted deals with a very specific action which generally is used to mitigate the conduct of adolescents. I somehow doubt that it is applicable in this case, but hey to each his own.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

That is what we used to call a big time cop out my man, big time. I asked you a very simple question, very simple indeed. You know the answer as well as I, Are you saying to avoid the truth and hope that somehow someway the truth isn’t the truth for charitys sake? Please.

And the section you quoted deals with a very specific action which generally is used to mitigate the conduct of adolescents. I somehow doubt that it is applicable in this case, but hey to each his own.

If the question is not “can we hope that nobody is in Hell?” but “can we hope that X, who was a notorious sinner, is not in Hell?” the answer is an emphatic and unreserved yes.
Only God can really judge, and we can pray for anyone who has died, with the exception of a saint.

 

[fin]

if we do not have the hope that nobody is in hell, then what is the point of us praying the Fatima prayer in between decades of the Rosary? Of course we can hope. I do.