Having a problem believing in Hell

[The_Exodus]

Hello,

As the title states, I’m having a huge problem believing that there is a Hell, or at least that certain things the Church considers mortal sins would land you there. The specific “sins” have all been said before; masturbation, apostasy, birth control, missing one Mass. I started to look around at my family and friends. My older brothers and their wives, who have used birth control for years. My atheistic neighbor who is a wonderful family man and helps out around the block whenever he’s asked. My formerly-Catholic-who-turned-evangelical-aunt who is probably the warmest and kindest person I’ve ever known. Catholic doctrine demands that I believe that all these people would go to Hell if they died suddenly right now.

In order for a sin to be mortal, there must be awareness of the fact that what is being done is grave matter. Those on birth control who are unaware, or, who disagree with a clear conscience (if they are not Catholic, for instance), would not seem to be in mortal sin.

Also, birth control and missing one mass are not necessarily mortal sins. Birth control can be justified in the case of irregular periods. And mass can be attended another time during the week, if work gets in the way, sickness, etc.

Catholic doctrine does not demand that you believe these people will go to Hell. It teaches that all goodness, kindness, warmness, etc. come from God as gifts. If these people are truly good people and love God, it is because God is already at work in their hearts, to move them towards him by grace.

alongexpected:

I used to think that Hell was just for murderers and such. Then I got older and learned all the Catholic prohibitions. Really turned me off. How in God’s name can you equate rape or murder with masturbation?

They are not necessarily equated. They are both, however, grave sins when done in full knowledge and consent.

along:

I’ve heard the counter to this; that it’s all God’s law, which has been clearly handed down and taught through the ages and we’re given the choice and all that. But, sorry, I just can’t see it. I can’t see my brother sent to Hell for birth control usage while Pol-Pot (let’s say he made a deathbed repentance/conversion) will eventually make it to Heaven. That makes zero sense.

A man can only make a deathbed repentence if God moves him by grace, for flesh and blood does not reveal these things, but God in heaven. It may very well be the case that God allows Pol-Pot to stay blinded and hardened in his sin, and without the grace of repentence from him.

 

[vz71]

Is the lack of belief in God the same as “turning away from him”?

When faced with the reality of God at final judgement, what kind of preparation is the active disbelief in God going to provide?

A stubborn resistance to the evidence will likely result in a stubborn resistance and self condemnation upon exposure to the reality.
An openness to the evidence will likely result in an ‘a-ha’ moment when shown the reality.

So you have to ask yourself…am I really open to God? Or am I simply resisting the evidences?

Too often I find atheists claiming the evidence is not pursuasive. But the observed reality is that they simply do not want to believe. Either through their own selfishness or their own fear of judgement.

 

[vz71]

But they do not accept the church. This is the whole point here. The dogma says that only members of the catholic church can be saved. The majority of people are not members of the catholic church. So the dogma says that all those people will go to hell. Is the dogma subject to interpretation?

I have often joked with protestants that they all hold a group of people as authorities over everything else.
Specifically, the people that translated the bible.

Protestants hate it. Catholics haven’t an issue as the church is recognized as that authority.

But in short, everything has an interpretation.

Here is one…
The Catholic church has the fullness of God’s truth.
Acceptance of the fullness of God’s truth is what it means to be Catholic.

If you are wise enough to accept it here on earth, and be Catholic…great!
But if not, you are still going to be faced with these truths at judgement.
Acceptance of these would be an acceptance of the Catholic faith and a conversion.
Rejection is effectively a rejection of God’s truths.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

This does declare that every member of all the other religions, along with all the atheists are condemned to go to hell.

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

Clearly, we choose hell by not choosing Jesus.

 

[Senecus]

AlongExpected & Spock:

That mortal sin exists is backed up by Scripture:

John 5:16

“If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that.”

However, an exact list of mortal sin is affected by gravity, knowledge, intent, and action. It’s highly likely adultery is a mortal sin, and most who commit it will not be able to claim a pass due to a lack of the factors noted above. BUT, here is where things get complicated, and many Christians of all persuasions err . . . Sin during our mortal state is only one-half of the coin that Jesus evaluates at the BEMA. Consider the meaning of the scripture below:

Luke 7:47

“Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.”

Basically this and other verses in the NT says “love overcomes many sins.”

SO, it is wrong of Catholics, Baptists, Nazarenes, or any other Christian to “Judge” what will separate us from God. We all are not fully aware of the whole situation, the whole coin, and whether perfect contrition or formal confessions occurred before death.

While we can say we should fight against the temptation to dwell overly on thoughts of sex, . . . . we should not pre-determine we are capable of judging the outcome of any sin, even including “theft”, “murder” etc. Remember King David. He paid a price for his “mortal sins”, but that didn’t include separation from God.

 

[Spock]

A person’s conscience is what is above all binding, even if that conscience opposes certain teachings of the Church.

Agreed. (We have a quite a few agreements lately. Most gratifying. ) Just curious: even if that disagreement is with a declared dogma?

But, each person is responsible for searching diligently after truth. It may very well be the case that one’s conscience is malformed, and this due to moral negligence.

Well, that brings up a pragmatic question: “how can such a search take place?”. For a catholic it is simple: look at the cathecism. But for anyone else?

The Church is a visible body, but it is also invisible. No person can be deserving of eternal life without God’s grace, and God’s grace may work on people outside the Church in unseen ways.

That is confusing. What the heck is the “invisible” part of the church? How can one be part of the “invisible” church if one is not part of the “visible” one?

Further, simply being a member of the Church, if that means “entering its doors on Sunday” is not a guarantor of salvation.

Another agreement! But, what about the opposite? Someone who does not participate, who does not go confession? Last time I looked the Bible said that one cannot be saved by works alone.

 

[Spock]

When faced with the reality of God at final judgement, what kind of preparation is the active disbelief in God going to provide?

If it happens, no one can “disbelieve” any more. But it is “too late” by then - at least according the the catholic teaching.

Too often I find atheists claiming the evidence is not pursuasive. But the observed reality is that they simply do not want to believe. Either through their own selfishness or their own fear of judgement.

Oh, brother. You can really look into their minds and see that they “subconsciously” accept the “evidence”, but stubbornly reject it?

 

[Pieman333272]

So, even if someone honestly believes that the teaching is wrong, it is still binding?

Yes, it still holds true.

But they do not accept the church. This is the whole point here. The dogma says that only members of the catholic church can be saved. The majority of people are not members of the catholic church. So the dogma says that all those people will go to hell. Is the dogma subject to interpretation?

No, it doesn’t It says all of them will not directly enter heaven if they reject the Church when given knowledge of it. They can go to hell of varying severities or purgation of varying lengths.

 

[vz71]

If it happens, no one can “disbelieve” any more. But it is “too late” by then - at least according the the catholic teaching.

How so?
If the life is well led and the person spent that life following the truth to the best of their abilities, then when faced with the ulimate truths of God at final judgement they will be well prepared.
If they have not, and their ‘lack of evidence’ argument is really a cover for sefishness or fear, then they will be in a poor position when placed before judgement.
The judgement is our final decision, God or self.
And as stated earlier, how we live our lives will determine that decision.
Perhaps it would help to think of it as a test.
At judgement, you take the test.
It is too late to prepare for the test. Either you have prepared yourself to accept God or you have not.

Oh, brother. You can really look into their minds and see that they “subconsciously” accept the “evidence”, but stubbornly reject it?

No, I am no mind reader.
All I can do is look at the best evidence given.
Is there a reason the statement would make you defensive?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I don’t understand…one unconfessed mortal sin is a Hell-sentence. Is that not Catholic doctrine?

Yes. I know my previous post was lengthy, did you read it and understood it?

A mortal sin is an act of rejection of God. If you reject God you cannot be with God.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It sure is, but it is “impolite” to bring it up. Nowadays it is politically (or theologically) correct to say: “we cannot make a judgment who is hell-bound”. This was not always the case, but recently the rhetoric is tuned down somewhat. Read more about it here: godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/PopeCalls.htm … in a tongue-in-cheek “news” article.

Its not about political correctness but better understanding of what sin is. Because sin relies so much on our own intention instead of the act itself, it is truly hard to say for sure that a sin is deliberate and thus a grave sin. That is why Jesus says we should not judge. There’s so many factors that goes into every decision of every action of man, only God knows for sure what each person intended.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not quite, friend.

First of all, you have to know it’s a mortal sin - so a liberal who never read up on Catholic moral theology who masturbates wouldn’t **probably **go to hell for that - perhaps something else, but not that.

Not so fast. One who does that craves for the plessures of the flesh and thus crave for something that is against Godliness. What the Church teaches is that genuinely good people who may not have known God can still be saved if by their actions and their intentions conform to God’s goodness. For example, Buddhists. If a Buddhist was born and raised in Tibet and never knew about Christianity but was a very good Buddhist in a sense that he rejects attachment to material things and believes in caring for all living things, then that is in line with God’s goodness. That person can be saved despite not being baptized nor even being inside a Catholic church his entire life.

Some actions are by themselves grave matter. A disordered desire for sex is one of them.

Also, it doesn’t have to be confessed. It **should **be confessed, but in issues where that isn’t possible, true repentance would also work. Also, it’s not like you never have the chance to confess- you can walk in any Saturday, or sometimes even more commonly, once you’re in the Church, and oftentimes priests come to hospitals to give confessions to the sick.

Now, here’s the bulk of the issue - hell is merely a state of eternal separation from God - not a place of suffering but a place of shame and indifference. However, one does “reap what you sow” in hell, and I believe, as do others, that hell has different “levels” of suffering.

Hell is indeed a place or state of suffering as Christ said that there will be gnashing of teeth. There may not be a physical fire, but Christ tried to make us understand the pains of hell and what is more painful than being burned alive?

 

[alongexpected]

Not quite, friend.

First of all, you have to know it’s a mortal sin - so a liberal who never read up on Catholic moral theology who masturbates wouldn’t **probably **go to hell for that - perhaps something else, but not that.

Also, it doesn’t have to be confessed. It **should **be confessed, but in issues where that isn’t possible, true repentance would also work. Also, it’s not like you never have the chance to confess- you can walk in any Saturday, or sometimes even more commonly, once you’re in the Church, and oftentimes priests come to hospitals to give confessions to the sick.

Now, here’s the bulk of the issue - hell is merely a state of eternal separation from God - not a place of suffering but a place of shame and indifference. However, one does “reap what you sow” in hell, and I believe, as do others, that hell has different “levels” of suffering.

I understand all that. So let me re-phrase. One unconfessed sin that is of grave matter, done with free will and full knowledge, and has had ample time to get confessed, is a Hell-sentence.

 

[vz71]

I understand all that. So let me re-phrase. One unconfessed sin that is of grave matter, done with free will and full knowledge, and has had ample time to get confessed, is a Hell-sentence.

Are you trying to say “rejection of God” without actually using the words?

 

[Betterave]

I understand all that. So let me re-phrase. One unconfessed sin that is of grave matter, done with free will and full knowledge, and has had ample time to get confessed, is a Hell-sentence.

There was nothing wrong with your original formulation. The problem arises is when you try to connect that statement with your OP. Your OP is a non sequitur because you haven’t shown that any of the people you mentioned are in fact in a state of mortal sin.

As for God’s grace not “making sense” - you might be well-advised to tread lightly when making accusations against the living God. Be careful not to confuse “that makes no sense” with “I don’t understand.”

 

[fide]

Are you trying to say “rejection of God” without actually using the words?

Hello vz,

I don’t think you mean to, but are you in effect identifying all mortal sin with an explicit rejection of God? I don’t think you want to say that - do you? All choices of men are, in their own eyes, for some perceived good. Thus one can knowingly commit adultery, for example, without wanting to reject God - and without consciously rejecting God - yet by embracing the seeming good of an evil act.

Those “fundamental opticians” of recent memory sought to admit of only one mortal sin - that of a fundamental life-rejection of God. In doing this, they effectively set aside the ultimate wrongness of all specific sinful acts, as long as one’s “fundamental option” was OK and oriented toward God. This view is condemned by the Church, and by JPII in particular:

In point of fact, man does not suffer perdition only by being unfaithful to that fundamental option whereby he has made “a free self-commitment to God”. With every freely committed mortal sin, he offends God as the giver of the law and as a result becomes guilty with regard to the entire law (cf. Jas 2:8-11); even if he perseveres in faith, he loses “sanctifying grace”, “charity” and “eternal happiness”. As the Council of Trent teaches, “the grace of justification once received is lost not only by apostasy, by which faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin”

Veritas Splendor 68​

 

[Brooklyn]

QUOTE=ConstantineTG;7499232]Not so fast. One who does that craves for the plessures of the flesh and thus crave for something that is against Godliness. What the Church teaches is that genuinely good people who may not have known God can still be saved if by their actions and their intentions conform to God’s goodness. For example, Buddhists. If a Buddhist was born and raised in Tibet and never knew about Christianity but was a very good Buddhist in a sense that he rejects attachment to material things and believes in caring for all living things, then that is in line with God’s goodness. That person can be saved despite not being baptized nor even being inside a Catholic church his entire life.Some actions are by themselves grave matter. A disordered desire for sex is one of them.

I recently did a study on the matter of those who have genuinely never heard of the Gospel and can still be saved. Of course, that is true. But the Church in its 2000 year history has saturated the world with the Gospel, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone in human society who has not heard of Jesus Christ and that Christians believe he died to save mankind. So although this is true, it applies to very few people, and certainly next to no one in western society.

However, one way or another, each person will have to make a decision to accept Christ as his/her Saviour. How that is done is a mystery known only to God, but it must be done. No one can “default” into heaven.

Hell is indeed a place or state of suffering as Christ said that there will be gnashing of teeth. There may not be a physical fire, but Christ tried to make us understand the pains of hell and what is more painful than being burned alive?

According to the secret of Fatima, the revelations to St. Faustina, St. Catherine of Siena and others, there is actual fire and torment in hell. And our Lord said that there would be weeping and Jesus Christ talked of hell in Mark 9 as “where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.” You could say this is all allegorical, and I am not going to argue because it’s just not worth it. But at the same time, I don’t think you can just discount these words.

My big problem with threads like this is they tend to downplay the seriousness of sins and the fact that because of original sin, we are all cut off from God. People seem to feel that if someone is basically good and not hurting others, then that person deserves to go to heaven. Has any one ever read what the Apostle Paul said: "as it is written: “There is no one just, not one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. All have gone astray; all alike are worthless; there is not one who does good, (there is not) even one.” Romans 3:10-12. He took this from Psalms 14.

Any “good” that we do is less than filthy rags compared to the goodness and greatness of God, and we are completely unworthy to be in his presence. None of us deserve heaven. We were all born in sin and we live in sin. But because of the great love and mercy of Jesus Christ, because God the Father sent his only Son to die for us, we have access to eternal life in heaven with him. It has nothing to do with us.

St. Faustina tells us that Jesus calls out to each person throughout their lives. Every choice we make, every action we take, every word we speak, we either choose to listen to him or not (consciously or unconsciously). Thank God, he is the only one who can say whether we have chosen rightly or not. And Christ is so merciful, that even if we have ignored him our whole lives but choose at the last moment to repent and turn to him, we will be saved. But we cannot be saved by any “righteousness” of our own. We are all on the path to hell because of the original sin of our parents. The question is, will we listen to Christ and let him pull us out of the filfth of our sin.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I recently did a study on the matter of those who have genuinely never heard of the Gospel and can still be saved. Of course, that is true. But the Church in its 2000 year history has saturated the world with the Gospel, and you would be hard pressed to find anyone in human society who has not heard of Jesus Christ and that Christians believe he died to save mankind. So although this is true, it applies to very few people, and certainly next to no one in western society.

Its not as simple and straightforward as that. Not just because you may know or have heard of Christianity is not a genuine knowledge of Christianity. Lets turn the tables here for a bit, everyone in the world knows about Islam, but how many of us actually knows about Islam besides the general knowledge and stereotypes? General awareness is different from intimate knowledge. Not just because one has access to a Bible in a bookstore means he will buy it. God is merciful enough that He acknowledges that some people may not have been taught properly His message though no fault of their own.

However, one way or another, each person will have to make a decision to accept Christ as his/her Saviour. How that is done is a mystery known only to God, but it must be done. No one can “default” into heaven.

Definitely. What the Church teaches is that those who through no fault of their own gained an intimate knowledge of God can still be saved through God’s mercy. But this doesn’t mean a child born and raised an atheist is free to rape or murder. What is excused is the lack of awareness of the true nature of God, not every sin possible. In fact, part of this teaching is that the Church acknowledges that some people in the past even prior to the incarnation of Christ has found God through His creation. But because they were deprived of divine revelation, they did not understand as well as the Jews and later on the Christians. Some of this recognition of God translated into pagan religions. That is why you’ll see some familiar elements with older religions with that of Christianity.

According to the secret of Fatima, the revelations to St. Faustina, St. Catherine of Siena and others, there is actual fire and torment in hell. And our Lord said that there would be weeping and Jesus Christ talked of hell in Mark 9 as “where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.” You could say this is all allegorical, and I am not going to argue because it’s just not worth it. But at the same time, I don’t think you can just discount these words.

My interpretation is they were given a vision of hell that can be understood by humans. Because hell, like heaven, is a spiritual place and not a physical place, much of it is beyond our own limited mortal reasoning. Also, God will not show them something beyond their own reasoning. The spiritual world is far beyond our current understanding becasue we are limited in comprehension to the physical world. So God merely translates it to us. Heaven is not a place among the clouds with pearly golden gates as well.

My big problem with threads like this is they tend to downplay the seriousness of sins and the fact that because of original sin, we are all cut off from God. People seem to feel that if someone is basically good and not hurting others, then that person deserves to go to heaven. Has any one ever read what the Apostle Paul said: "as it is written: “There is no one just, not one, there is no one who understands, there is no one who seeks God. All have gone astray; all alike are worthless; there is not one who does good, (there is not) even one.” Romans 3:10-12. He took this from Psalms 14.

Any “good” that we do is less than filthy rags compared to the goodness and greatness of God, and we are completely unworthy to be in his presence. None of us deserve heaven. We were all born in sin and we live in sin. But because of the great love and mercy of Jesus Christ, because God the Father sent his only Son to die for us, we have access to eternal life in heaven with him. It has nothing to do with us.

But those who did not know God and does good is still saved by Christ. Because they are good and they have shown the capacity to accept God and do what is pleasing to God. We’re not downplaying the role of the salvation Christ has bought for us. Because we believe in God’s mercy, we belive that a geniunely good person who just happens to be not a Christian will end up in hell just because he isn’t baptized. God is God, He is beyond the Sacraments. His saving power is beyond it.

…continued…

 

[ConstantineTG]

St. Faustina tells us that Jesus calls out to each person throughout their lives. Every choice we make, every action we take, every word we speak, we either choose to listen to him or not (consciously or unconsciously). Thank God, he is the only one who can say whether we have chosen rightly or not. And Christ is so merciful, that even if we have ignored him our whole lives but choose at the last moment to repent and turn to him, we will be saved. But we cannot be saved by any “righteousness” of our own. We are all on the path to hell because of the original sin of our parents. The question is, will we listen to Christ and let him pull us out of the filfth of our sin.

I agree, but through circumstances that most people can’t control, many do not receive the the proper word of God. So why will they suffer for it? Again, there is no conclusive argument that they will enter heaven. The only thing the Church teaches is that God is indeed merciful and can choose to save those who did not get to know Him in their earthly lives through no fault of their own. How and why, we don’t exactly now. Remember the parable of two sons? One acknowledged their father but did not do his will. The other disregarded the father but later on did what he asked. Being a Christian is acknowledging The Father. But thats only one part of it. Those who actually do the will of The Father are the ones to be saved.

 

[vz71]

I don’t think you mean to, but are you in effect identifying all mortal sin with an explicit rejection of God? I don’t think you want to say that - do you?

Well…
If you are aware an action is a serious transgression against God
AND you are completely free to choose not do it
AND you commit the sin…

With the three explicit conditions necessary for a mortal sin I fail to see how it can be viewed as anything but a rejection of God.
Anything less, and it may not be a mortal sin.

All choices of men are, in their own eyes, for some perceived good. Thus one can knowingly commit adultery, for example, without wanting to reject God - and without consciously rejecting God - yet by embracing the seeming good of an evil act.

Sadly, I am involved in a thead in which abortion is being discussed.
The abortionist is guilty of the worst king of acts. It is difficult to imagine that he perceived some good in the things he was doing.
At this time I cannot agree that every choice is toward some perceived good.