Glad for Hell?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PatrickSebast
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PatrickSebast

Guest
On occasion I have heard fellow Christian and Catholics mention Hell with a sort of gladness. In an almost appreciative tone of the idea that their ‘sacrifices’ of not attending wild parties and having abundant sex is going to spare them the fate of all those sinners. Now this on its own bothers me a little, I find it more or less impossible to properly love and cherish my neighbor while finding contentment in the idea that they will be punished for their lifestyle. However it seems even St. Thomas Aquinas held a view similar to this saying that those in heaven would rejoice at the suffering of the souls in Hell. Now when the ideas are coming out of the mouths of fundamentalist evangelicals I can at least understand where they are coming from, but when they come from Catholics, especially such a well known Saint, I have issue with that?

Is it really moral to find comfort in the idea of Hell?
 
Can you please give the exact quote from Thomas Aquinas?

Thanks. 👍
 
Patrick,

This is what I found in the Summa. Did you find something different?

Article 3. Whether the blessed rejoice in the punishment of the wicked?

I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such:** and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked.** Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Patrick,

This is what I found in the Summa. Did you find something different?

Article 3. Whether the blessed rejoice in the punishment of the wicked?

I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such:** and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked.** Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.
Click to expand...
Well, all that means is that they will see both the positive and the negative side of it.
It certainly does not mean that they will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked for its own sake, but rather that they will feel very grateful to have been spared. (Also it is important to note that this passage does not mention anything about the saints rejoicing in this way during life.

Anyway, Hell doesn’t have so much to do with punishment as respecting the choices of those who end up there. I was reading in a book yesterday about how entering heaven is not a matter of finding a gatekeeper kind enough to let one pass, but rather about having the qualities necessary to remain there- perfect love of God and renunciation of love of self. Very thought-provoking 🙂
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Patrick,

This is what I found in the Summa. Did you find something different?

Article 3. Whether the blessed rejoice in the punishment of the wicked?

I answer that, A thing may be a matter of rejoicing in two ways. First directly, when one rejoices in a thing as such:** and thus the saints will not rejoice in the punishment of the wicked.** Secondly, indirectly, by reason namely of something annexed to it: and in this way the saints will rejoice in the punishment of the wicked, by considering therein the order of Divine justice and their own deliverance, which will fill them with joy. And thus the Divine justice and their own deliverance will be the direct cause of the joy of the blessed: while the punishment of the damned will cause it indirectly.
Click to expand...
There’s another, more troubling statement on the topic in Question 94, Article 1 of the Supplement (newadvent.org/summa/5094.htm):

I answer that, Nothing should be denied the blessed that belongs to the perfection of their beatitude. Now everything is known the more for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous. Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.
 
The quote I read from another post on this forum and seem to see several times in google searches, but don’t know the exact location of in the Summa is:

That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly, they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell.

Perhaps he didn’t say it at all and it is just widely attributed to him, and it is certainly more understandable in the light of the first quotation posted.

Either way, while I would be happy to find that St. Aquinas did not hold any beliefs of the sort the question of whether it is acceptable for a Christian to show joy at the possibility of their neighbors going to hell.
 
Patrick

Either way, while I would be happy to find that St. Aquinas did not hold any beliefs of the sort the question of whether it is acceptable for a Christian to show joy at the possibility of their neighbors going to hell. **

I just don’t see it as charitable. We should not rejoice in the prospect of anyone’s damnation, and only spiteful people do. While we are living, we should only be praying for those who appear to be in danger of damnation. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” That includes praying for each other, not being glad that others are going to hell when they die. :eek:
 
I really think that the critical thing here is that St. Thomas is discussing the way things are after death, and not during life.

This in no way constitutes a statement that rejoicing at anyone’s suffering is acceptable during life.

We should remember that there is no way for us to fully understand life after death until we get there.
 
Also the word “enjoy” as used by St. Thomas (and he didn’t use English, even 13th century English!) did not necessarily mean ‘enjoy’ the way we use it today with a connotation of delight and self satisfaction. Rather it most probably meant a full awareness.

I DO wish people would stop assuming that translations from centuries ago using words which carry a particular definition or slant TODAY somehow mean that the CURRENT definition use was retroactively known and deliberately used THEN.

I mean, come on. Who really thinks that the “Gay 1890s” or “Gay Par-ee” were all about homosexuals? Well, if we can understand that the word ‘gay’ meant something quite different at one time, I think we can understand that other words (prayer, worship, enjoy, until etc. to mention just a few) could also have quite different meanings as well!
 
TedDC

**There’s another, more troubling statement on the topic in Question 94, Article 1 of the Supplement (newadvent.org/summa/5094.htm):🙂

I answer that, Nothing should be denied the blessed that belongs to the perfection of their beatitude. Now everything is known the more for being compared with its contrary, because when contraries are placed beside one another they become more conspicuous. Wherefore in order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.**

I don’t see this as more troubling. It’s more like celebrating one’s own salvation rather than delighting in the damnation of others. More like, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” One is allowed to rejoice in one’s own salvation, yes?
 
On earth, we must be appalled at the thought of damnation, because (1) it is always a real possibility for us in this life, and (2) charity demands that we desire and work for the salvation of others. In heaven, we will love those on earth far more perfectly than we could or do in this life, and intercede for them. But the damned are beyond charity, and beyond the help of prayer.

In heaven, we will possess knowledge and understanding far beyond what we have here. Among the things we will know and understand, we will know who has been damned; and we will understand how they came to be damned. In particular, we will see very clearly that they are damned through their own fault. We will see that during their lives on earth, they chose to be the enemies of God, and chose to die that way; and since we will love God as perfectly as we possibly can in heaven, we will be content to see His enemies receive the eternal punishment they have brought upon themselves. Also, in seeing the punishment of the damned, we will see the justice of God, which is also a source of contentment.

This, I think, is how we will still be happy in heaven, even if people we loved on earth go to hell.
 
We’d all do well to remember the parable of the publican and the sinner.
 
40.png
Phoooiee:
I really think that the critical thing here is that St. Thomas is discussing the way things are after death, and not during life.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it would be a grave sin to hope anyone in this life would be damned. We should hope for even the most horrible of persons to cease and repent of their wickedness. However, repentance and the acceptance of mercy is impossible after death (and God can’t make 4-sided triangles), thus there is only room for justice or lack of it in the hereafter. If justice is a good thing, we ought to rejoice in the damnation of the eternally wicked (not as the punishment itself disconnected from its source and reason, but as it is justice).

I honestly don’t see what is so problematic, and it frankly kind of disturbs me that such a large segment of society would have a big problem with what St. Aquinas is saying. I hope it is simply an imprecise reading of this work which is causing the difficulties. To think such a way seems to be treating of Divine Justice as something ugly and evil. Sure, at one time people seemed to have a big problem with Divine Mercy theologically (Pharisees), and now this problem seems to manifest itself in the typical human condition (and still often horribly so), some tiny segments of heretical or schismatic Christendom and other faiths. However, it seems that much of Christian theological thought among the masses of mankind (not the Church herself) has lately decided to get rid of the concept of justice altogether. Divine Mercy ‘trumps’ Divine Justice (kind of), sure, but when there can be no room for mercy, Divine Retribution is said to remain and it is either good or bad. Since it certainly is not the latter, it is therefore a cause of joy since it is good, for all good things are a cause of joy and all bad things a cause of unhappiness.

Look, if it is not a cause of joy for righteous fury to find its proper place then we ought not be happy at putting to death the part of us that is sinful, nor ought we be happy at God for condemning the devil and his ilk. Fury has its proper place in the human condition as well, and God did not provide it to us for our unhappiness, we just so often use it improperly.
40.png
PatrickSebast:
I find it more or less impossible to properly love and cherish my neighbor while finding contentment in the idea that they will be punished for their lifestyle.
Click to expand...
St. Aquinas would probably agree with you. He is not advocating that you hope for your neighbor’s damnation no matter how grave their sin be, though I believe he advocates that you ought to hate their sinful nature so you can love them as a person and aid them to overcome their evil.
 
Let’s also not forget that St. Thomas’ writings are not the inerrant Word of God like scripture is.

I hesitate to say this about someone who was a lot smarter than I am, but…he may not have been entirely accurate or correct on everything he wrote. Or like others have said, it’s probably being interpreted differently.

If there is a conflict between anyone’s writings and Holy Scripture or Church Teachings, defer to the Scripture or Teachings.

If Scripture says that God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone, I find it hard to believe that Saints could as well.
 
AHapaka:
he may not have been entirely accurate or correct on everything he wrote.
Click to expand...
He wasn’t, and even he said he differed all his work to the Holy Church. However, I think he is 100% right here.
If Scripture says that God takes no pleasure in the death of anyone, I find it hard to believe that Saints could as well.
Click to expand...
Two things that I hope shall clarify the issue:
1.) He is talking about the afterlife and thus after the fact of ultimate choice (i.e. even God cannot work a change in the beings on pain of contradiction)
2.) Even St. Aquinas specifically mentions God’s distaste with the punishment itself, it is only the punishment with the justice annexed to it that God loves and we ought as well.

Has justice so fallen in the minds of the modern man that it is now considered something ugly?
 
Dranu said:
Has justice so fallen in the minds of the modern man that it is now considered something ugly?
Click to expand...
Modern (and perhaps not-so-modern) man often seems to view “justice” as synonymous with “punishment”.
 
TedDC said:
Modern (and perhaps not-so-modern) man often seems to view “justice” as synonymous with “punishment”.
Click to expand...
Whereas true justice would be synonymous with healing, which is something Christ can do when we embrace Him. True justice seeks to cure the illness, not kill the patient. Justice that is not tempered with love, is not justice. It is retribution.

We need to remember that we will not only be judged by how little we sinned, but we also will be judged by how much we love, and that includes loving fellow sinners with all their imperfections. I often find that the latter aspect is missing on this forum.
 
OraLabora said:
Whereas true justice would be synonymous with healing, which is something Christ can do when we embrace Him. True justice seeks to cure the illness, not kill the patient. Justice that is not tempered with love, is not justice. It is retribution.
Click to expand...
Retribution is not evil, and presumably we call God good for judging the wicked who are condemned to Hell correct? The possibility of ultimate healing is in this life only with purgatory to work what has ultimately been determined.

True, and the point must be made (surely St. Aquinas does not deny it), it is evil in this life to hope for another to be damned insofar as their repentance is possible, and that is the sin of unrighteous hate which we must hate :D. We must hope for the very worst of sinners to ultimately die to their sin and enjoy, by God’s Grace, a blessed life of eternal happiness (and I mean the worst of sinners!)
We need to remember that we will not only be judged by how little we sinned, but we also will be judged by how much we love, and that includes loving fellow sinners with all their imperfections.
Click to expand...
True, that is altogether right. Indeed, St. Aquinas does not seem to be denying that, and we will also be judged on how much we have righteous fury (the act not so much the feeling), for we are called to hate sin, even if we are called to love the worst of sinners.
I often find that the latter aspect is missing on this forum.
Click to expand...
And here by your act of rebuking such sinners of hate you are indeed loving them. We of course should not see the mere strong rebuking of sinners (as you are doing presently) as lack of love but rather the fulfillment of it. Of course, some of the rebuking done by people might not necessarily be done with an eye to their neighbor’s good and so the rebuker’s good of loving God’s justice becomes tainted with a disregard for one’s neighbor, and I think God favors the regard for one’s neighbor as a higher priority than being the harbinger of his justice, which is His ultimately. We all easily fall into this sin, but I think some of us (especially in modernity) also fall into a certain disregard for neighbor and a weak distaste for God’s justice (and don’t rebuke at all for those reasons) which is even worse still as its fault is two rather than one (Certainly there are also just circumstances for not rebuking a sinner though)
 
I would hope that even the worst sinner would at least end up in Purgatory. That would mean at worst I would end up there as well and not in eternal damnation and that would apply to most or all of my friends and relatives as well.

But there may be some folks who are truly wicked and who would not repent even in the face of eternal damnation. Given the choice these folks would choose Hell rather than be with God.

We can not all be saints (at least saints immediately), but I would hope that we would all be repentant sinners at the very least.

I make a distinction between sinners and wicked. I hope the Lord does likewise.
 
'Sinners, such as those of whom I have just spoken, are placed in this life in order to augment virtues in My servants, as the devils are in Hell as My justiciars and augmenters of My Glory; that is, My instruments of justice towards the damned, and the augmenters of My Glory in My creatures, who are wayfarers and pilgrims on their journey to reach Me, their End.

They augment in them the virtues in diverse ways, exercising them with many temptations and vexations, causing them to injure one another and take one another’s property, and not for the motive of making them receive injury or be deprived of their property, but only to deprive them of charity.

But in thinking to deprive My servants, they fortify them, proving in them the virtues of patience, fortitude, and perseverance. Thus they render praise and glory to My Name, and My Truth is fulfilled in them, which Truth created them for the praise and glory of Me, Eternal Father, and that they might participate in My beauty.

But, rebelling against Me in their pride, they fell and lost their vision of Me, wherefore they rendered not to Me glory through the affection of love, and I, Eternal Truth, have placed them as instruments to exercise My servants in virtue in this life and as justiciars to those who go, for their sins, to the pains of Purgatory.

So you see that My Truth is fulfilled in them, that is, that they render Me glory, not as citizens of life eternal, of which they are deprived by their sins, but as My justiciars, manifesting justice upon the damned, and upon those in Purgatory.

Thus in all things created, in all rational creatures, and in the devils is seen the glory and praise of My Name.’

God to St. Catherine of Siena
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top