Father Barron has forgotten more theology than I’ll ever know, but his universalism regarding all have a reasonable hope to be saved is not backed by scripture and simply bad theology.
CAUTION: Highly technical, nit-picky theological point ahead. Wear suitable eye and head protection. You must be
this tall to ride this ride. Not recommended for pregnant women and people with neck or back problems.
‘Universalism’ and ‘hoping that there are no human souls in hell’ are not identical propositions. The former is antithetical to Catholic theology, while the latter is well within the bounds of what the Church teaches.
There are two flavors of universalism – ‘necessary’ and ‘contingent’ universalism. Necessary universalism claims that it is a metaphysical impossibility that anyone could end up in hell. (This claim is usually justified by virtue of a discussion of the perceived injustice of eternal punishment or by an argument from God’s mercy.) Contingent universalism, on the other hand, offers that while it is technically
possible that human(s) could end up in hell, it is the case that they will not. (Again, from similar arguments.)
However, holding on to the hope that all might be saved is not necessarily universalism. Salvation is an individual proposition: we are not saved – or condemned – as a whole or even as a sub-group of humanity. Rather, each of us is judged individually by God. Therefore, it is a theological impossibility to posit that we are
all judged in one fell swoop. On the other hand, knowing that God wishes all to be saved, we hold on to the hope that God’s mercy might extend to each and every person who has lived or ever will live. We hope that all might turn to God and receive the reward of salvation that faith offers. This, however, is not
universalism (even in its ‘contingent’ flavor).
So, if Fr Barron suggests that we might hope that no humans are (or will be) in hell, he is not endorsing universalism.
Just thought I’d clear that up for ya’ll…
