How easy is it to go to Hell?

[Magnanimity]

Yes, but there’s also no shortage of great minds that have rejected universal salvation. You cannot use the number of people who ascribe to a belief as proof for your position without allowing the same metric to be used as proof for my position. (Either way, such argument is logical fallacy, as the number of believers has no impact on the validity of a position.)

Charity is always the order of the day, isn’t it? Lack of unanimity/consensus of the Fathers should, if anything, give us pause on this issue. There is nothing that I wrote that should suggest to you that I offered this historical fact as “proof” of any POV on this issue. The only thing that is established by this historical testimony is that there is no “consensus of the Fathers” on this issue.

 

[stpurl]

In your opinion.

Are humans finite creatures or infinite?

If they are infinite --if we exist for eternity–then our actions have an infinite capacity just as our thoughts do.

I know this is probably a scary thought. The whole ‘rationale’ if you will for believing that there is no ‘infinite hell’ --though nobody appears to have trouble claiming an ‘infinite heaven’ is that, "but we can’t be sent to ‘infinite hell’ for ‘finite sins’.

Really? Then I guess we can’t be sent to ‘infinite heaven’ for ‘finite good actions’ now can we?

I guess that in eternity somehow you posit people moving from one place to another. “I’m bored with pitchforks, I’ll do a good deed and go up to heaven”.
“I’m bored of praising God. I’ll push an angel off a cloud and go down to hell”… .

BUT if one realizes that one’s actions arise from one’s (infinite) soul, along with one’s thoughts, and that the ramifications of those actions against an infinite God likewise will either (if evil) go on infinitely if NOT repented at death, or be ‘cleansed’ through Christ’s sacrifice and thus infinitely show His positive grace and our cooperation with it–then ‘infinite heaven’ and ‘infinite hell’ make infinite sense.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

That certainly sounds convenient. You’ll have to pardon my incredulity at such a finding in an age so dedicated to self indulgence.

 

[Inquiry]

In this case, it’s an either-or. There is no tertium quid. To claim that there is no limit to the ramifications of your actions is not rational. The only reasonable belief regarding human actions is to acknowledge their intrinsic finitude (even when considering the long term consequences of those acts). To claim otherwise would seem to engage one in fantastical exaggeration. There is no magical way that I can see to move from finitude to infinity.

Interestingly enough, I agree with this. In a finite lifetime I don’t think we can possibly sin enough for infinite punishment. Even though God Himself is infinite, we simply cannot understand him on that level, so since understanding of the nature of our sin is an important part of our culpability we are simply too limited to earn any kind of eternal punishment or reward.

However… I still err on the side of Hell being eternal.

Hell may not make sense to me as an eternal punishment, but it does make sense as an eternal consequence. Sometimes actions and decisions have certain inevitable consequences that would be unthinkably excessive if they were actually punishments. No judge or jury would ever give someone the death penalty for jaywalking, for instance, but if the man in question is hit by a bus he’s just as dead.

If someone gets himself into a position that they cannot escape on his own and where he will never accept God’s help, what are the consequences for that? Even if every drop of debt that man has is wiped completely clean, if he keeps his back to God how would he leave? And what else would we call that state of being both perpetually trapped and separated from God?

Don’t get me wrong, I am open to the possibility that Hell is temporary - that God may reach even the unreachable through methods known only to Him. Yet I cannot envision those methods nor see how He could reach the unrepentant without overriding their free will, so I can’t rely on that possibility.

 

[Magnanimity]

Are humans finite creatures or infinite?

Although I cannot defer to St Thomas on questions of Hell (as he simply received St Augustine’s opinion on Hell as if it were dogma), I can defer to Aquinas on philosophical questions like infinity and how it pertains to created beings. Humans can have no essential infinity, as they are delineated. As in, there is a terminus to themselves. Your terminus is your mind/body unity. Yourself doesn’t just bleed over into and merge with all other bodies, right?

There can be “relative infinity” in created objects, in the sense that their potentialities are practically unlimited. But there can be no essential infinity. As Aquinas says, “because a created form thus subsisting has being, and yet is not its own being, it follows that its being is received and contracted to a determinate nature. Hence it cannot be absolutely infinite.”

though nobody appears to have trouble claiming an ‘infinite heaven’

Nobody has trouble with this because everyone understands that when Aquinas says that we were made for beatitude, he is correct. We were not created for endless torment and suffering. We were created for beatitude. So Heaven is, quite literally, your destiny–what you were made for.

go on infinitely if NOT repented at death

Although this is the typical line of reasoning presented by Catholics, there is actually no rational reason for insisting that change cannot occur post-mortem. In fact, there is every reason to believe that change is intrinsic to our mode of being, to include changing one’s heart/mind. To believe that minds/hearts that are destined for Hell are frozen is an unjustified assumption. There is no rational reason for believing that memory, introspection and reasoning cease to occur in Hell. If these intellectual powers persist after death (and there is no reason to believe otherwise) then the changing of one’s heart/mind remains ever-possible.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

there is actually no rational reason for insisting that change cannot occur post-mortem

By this logic it would be possible for someone in Heaven to choose to sin and reject God. If this is true, then Heaven cannot be said to be unending any more than you claim that Hell cannot be said to be unending.

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Greater than our own reasoning which we know is flawed is that He has declared this through His Holy Church.

 

[Latin]

Don’t get me wrong, I am open to the possibility that Hell is temporary - that God may reach even the unreachable through methods known only to Him. Yet I cannot envision those methods nor see how He could reach the unrepentant without overriding their free will, so I can’t rely on that possibility.

Inquiry, God is able to reach us at any point of his will without overriding our free wills.
.
NO ONE SAY NO TO GOD’S INVITATION TO HEAVEN

Fallen man cannot redeem himself, (De fide). – It is God’s responsibility to save ALL OF US.
.
CCC 298 Since God could create everything out of nothing, he can also, through the Holy Spirit, give spiritual life to sinners by creating a pure heart in them. 148
And since God was able to make light shine in darkness by his Word, he can also give the light of faith to those who do not yet know him.
.
For every salutary act internal supernatural grace of God (gratia elevans) is absolutely necessary, (De fide).

.
St. Augustine on Grace and Predestination

(1) I. On human interaction with grace: Every good work, even good will, is the work of God.
.
De gratia Christi 25, 26: "For not only has God given us our ability and helps it, but He even works [brings about] willing and acting in us; not that we do not will or that we do not act, but that without His help we neither will anything good nor do it"
.
De gratia et libero arbitrio 16, 32: "It is certain that we will when we will; but He brings it about that we will good … . It is certain that we act when we act, but He brings it about that we act, providing most effective powers to the will."
.
St. Thomas teaches that God effects everything, the willing and the achievement. S. Th.II/II 4, 4 ad 3:

308 The truth that God is at work in all the actions of his creatures is inseparable from faith in God the Creator.
God is the first cause who operates in and through secondary causes:
"For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
Far from diminishing the creature’s dignity, this truth enhances it.
.
Aquinas said, "God changes the will without forcing it . But he can change the will from the fact that he himself operates in the will as he does in nature,” De Veritatis 22:9. 31. ST I-II:112:3. 32. Gaudium et Spes 22; "being …
.
St. Thomas teaches that all movements of will and choice must be traced to the divine will: and not to any other cause, because Gad alone is the cause of our willing and choosing. CG, 3.91.
.
There is a supernatural intervention of God in the faculties of the soul, which precedes the free act of the will, (De fide).

2022; The divine initiative in the work of grace precedes, prepares, and elicits the free response of man.
.
God bless

 

[TheLittleLady]

“Every good gift and all good things come from above, from the Father of lights”.

The staunch atheist may not recognize that the good things they have are from God, just as I can give a gift anonymously, does not change the who the giver is.

 

[Magnanimity]

Yet I cannot envision those methods nor see how He could reach the unrepentant without overriding their free will

The answers, perhaps ironically, are both found in statements by Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

“Lord, you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you.”

“man’s last end is happiness; which all men desire…God is the last end of man and of all other things”

Free will, though a good, can never be considered a high enough good that we can allow people to destroy themselves and others on account of it. We don’t just sit idly by while people we love are behaving in destructive ways do we? Do we say, “oh well, that person is free, and freedom is almighty and inviolable, so I can’t intervene…” Nobody thinks like that toward loved ones, and no one can love us more than God does.

Hell may not make sense to me as an eternal punishment, but it does make sense as an eternal consequence. Sometimes actions and decisions have certain inevitable consequences that would be unthinkably excessive if they were actually punishments.

I don’t think so. Take the example of a loved one of yours overdosing on drugs and dying as a consequence. It’s true that the consequence was severe (and natural), but you’re still not ok with it. You don’t settle yourself in your heart and mind on the matter. You hope to see that loved one again one day, and your heart breaks at the seeming injustice of a life cut short. That is to say, something in you rejects what has happened. And rightly so. We were all made for beatitude. We cannot abide the thought of human hearts being indefinitely restless because they can never rest in God–can never achieve the end they were created for. Nor should we abide such.

 

[Inquiry]

Latin, you list a lot of good points about how God is absolutely essential to our redemption, how even when we do evil He will bring good from it, and how every time we do anything good, from praying to repenting is something we can only do because he calls us to.

Yet all of that works one direction. None of it in any way takes away the ability of men to choose to go against God. He grants us the ability to choose yes, but that means we can choose to not accept His help. You’ve established His necessity to our salvation, but not that He will override us if we choose not to take it.

 

[Magnanimity]

By this logic it would be possible for someone in Heaven to choose to sin and reject God.

I thought we just got done defending eternal-Hell with reference to freewill. Where does this powerful human freewill go in Heaven? Man is no longer free there? If so, was his freedom here not essential to him but illusory?

I think that Aquinas gives satisfactory answers to your question here, but the logical possibility of using one’s freedom in a less-than-the-best way is ever before us. Right?

 

[Inquiry]

Without free will our choice to accept God is meaningless. It is the difference between Him having loving and unique family members, and Him playing with dolls.

If I reject God, He loses me one way or the other. He can let me go and not be with me. He can override me, in which case he doesn’t have me He has a simulacra. He can recreate me completely with the exception of my choice to reject Him, in which case He doesn’t have me just someone who is just remarkably similar. In none of those three cases does He get me.

To be clear, that’s not meant to demonstrate my power anymore than a four year old demonstrates power with a temper tantrum. That power to choose is still His gift to me, not my own.

Is there another option I cannot think of? Sure. Likely, even. But since I cannot think of it and I can’t see where it has been revealed to us, is it good for me to presume?

 

[MiserereMeiDei]

Where does this powerful human freewill go in Heaven?

Man doesn’t lose it but he does lose any temptation to evil. His will is fixed on good/God

but the logical possibility of using one’s freedom in a less-than-the-best way is ever before us. Right?

a less-than-the-best way is a description of degrees of good which does not include choosing the absence of good, which is neither available in heaven, nor would it be a temptation to those with the beatific vision.

The choice between good/God and evil/no God is made in this life. You can reject the teachings of the Church but you aren’t going to change them. Rejecting them is an example of choosing evil/no God.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I thought we just got done defending eternal-Hell with reference to freewill. Where does this powerful human freewill go in Heaven? Man is no longer free there? If so, was his freedom here not essential to him but illusory?

In one sense it could be said that the will is not free in the afterlife in the same way it is free in this life. It is locked in based on how it was used during life. The choices were freely made, and the ultimate sum of those choices is finalized with a final assent to or rejection of God. The wills are not overridden or removed, simply “fixed.” We see much the same in this life. As Godly people grow in their love for God they become less and less inclined to sin, and as sinful people grow in sin they become less and less inclined to repent. We can see Godly people fall by the bad influence of others, and we can see sinful people repent through the influence of others and God’s life-long call to repentance.

That final decision when we die is the last opportunity to move towards or away from God. After that point a person’s free will becomes fixed because there are no longer any external factors to influence it one way or the other. The person is still free, but there is nothing left in/around them that can pull them in any direction other than the one they’ve chosen.

You must remember that repentance is only possible as a grace from God. Without that grace we cannot repent. In Hell, a person has no access to that grace because they have willfully and finally chosen to reject it, and as such they are incapable of repenting.

I think that Aquinas gives satisfactory answers to your question here, but the logical possibility of using one’s freedom in a less-than-the-best way is ever before us. Right?

Wrong. It is open to us here in life because there are good and bad influences in life that can lead us in one direction or the other. This is not true in the afterlife. There is nothing in Heaven that would tempt us to sin and there is nothing in Hell that would lead us to repentance (not even the sufferings, as numerous damned souls have attested). As such, there is no way for the will to move from one extreme to the other. Hence, a damned soul can never repent and will be damned forever, and a saved soul can never sin and will be saved forever.

 

[Magnanimity]

Without free will our choice to accept God is meaningless.

I daily operate with the confidence that I am not free to love or not love my children. I have never felt free in these regards. I have felt compelled to love them. It’s not even a real option to do otherwise, despite what anyone might say. And it will always be this way, I’m confident in believing. I equally do not feel free to stop loving my best friends in the whole world (of which I’m lucky to have two). I will consistently love all these folks, and the possibility of turning my backs on them doesn’t even enter in. This reality often reminds me of our Lord’s words, “If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more with your heavenly Father…”

The longer and deeper I go with this debate in the church’s history, the more I’m struck by a sense that it was likely no accident that the West attached itself to a view of human autonomy, guilt and independence whereas the East found solace in the dignity of the human person and humanity’s interdependence.

Did you know that St Gregory of Nyssa’s eschatology has Christ enter human history for the purpose of saving humanity itself? As in, St Gregory never thinks of salvation in individualistic terms (this person is saved, that person isn’t, that other person is…). No, for him, salvation history is that of saving the human race–the totality. On the Eastern view of concupiscence (but not Augustinian original sin and inherited guilt) combined with the imago dei, as well as, so I must believe, a sense of human interdependence–that we’re all in this together–he is able to work out an eschatology of salvation of the whole race, from beginning to end. No one gets left behind. That’s an extraordinarily beautiful vision and one worthy of a God who is love. It is far from evident to me that St Augustine’s vision is equally worthy.

And yet, here we are over in the West, prone to high visions of our own autonomy, giving priority to the individual, and coming up with visions that would imagine that we are so utterly and completely free that we can actually thwart the desire of God (and thwart our own natural end).

All of this is really amazing stuff, the deeper you go down the rabbit-hole.

 

[childinthefaith]

I was watching this video from Catholic Answers on youtube “Will God Send You To Heck?” and at 40 seconds into the video, he says that those in Hell choose it. I’m kinda confused on what that part means, does that mean that it is hard for a Catholic to go to Hell? Since I’m sure no Catholic wants to be there. Also to what extent is God merciful? Let’s say someone is a pretty good Catholic, goes to mass every Sunday, confesses every month or so but has a problem with lying or masturbation/lust, and they die before they confess would God send that person to Hell or does God allow that person to still go to Heaven? And I know we can’t say for sure who can and can’t go to Heaven or Hell but this is just an example. Thanks

In direct reply to the question, I say it is quite easy to go to hell.

Having said that, if a baptized Catholic dies with mortal sin that has not been absolved, that is, as I understand it, where they’re heading.
The “wide” and narrow path in Scripture makes it pretty clear.

However, here I must say from personal experience, as a convert who once did mostly serve God out of fear of hell, that avoidance of Hell shouldn’t be the key focus of why we are Catholics. Of course we desire to avoid hell, but we should desire Heaven so very much that we focus on doing things that are nowhere near mortally sinful, and therefore won’t have to concern ourselves with the proposition constantly.

As a kid, I heard many pentecostal preachers beating pulpits warning of the rapture and how bad hell would be if we were not ready. That is NOT a good reason to be a Christian, especially a Catholic Christian, the fear of Hell.

We have a God who loves us, wants us to be with Him after this life, and all we have to do is love Him back and follow his commandments. Simple equation.

I say all of this because the title of your post made me think that you may be overly focused on Hell and avoiding it. Don’t focus on that. Focus on being a good Catholic, loving God back for creating you, and live a good life. Heaven follows. Stay clear of mortal sins. Only 7, not that hard to remember them. Treat those like deadly snakes within striking range cause they can kill your soul, forever.

Best wishes.
Blessings,

 

[Inquiry]

I’m very glad that you and God have built you up to the point where you can’t choose not to love your family and friends anymore. That’s fantastic to hear and it makes my day. I love seeing that in people.

Having seen parents choose not to love their children - having been on the receiving end of it, in fact, and having to make the decision to continue to love them anyways- I know it is very much a choice people can and do make.

Clearly God considers us on more than just the individual level, otherwise the Church wouldn’t be the Bride of Christ. Just as clearly, though, He sees and values us on an individual level too. The salvation of all does not come at the cost of the diminishment of some.

 

[Leek]

. Similarly, it is a great offense to insult the Pope than to insult a priest, bishop, or layman.

This doesn’t seem right. It should be a greater offence to harm a more vulnerable person than one who has power to harm you for the offence.

 

[Magnanimity]

Aquinas defines love as “to will the good of the other, as other.” It’s a good starting point. It probably doesn’t go quite far enough. I’ve recently begun to amend it to: to love is to will and work for the good of the other, as other, and as myself. Loving requires working, though feelings of goodwill is a baseline, I suppose. And if you can see that “the other” is just as valued and beloved of God as yourself, then you’re well on your way to seeing the human race as a totality. But, as a Westerner myself, I know it’s hard to get there.

He sees and values us on an individual level too.

But there’s a further question to answer here, isn’t there? In this valuation you speak of, is He valuing you as part of a greater whole? Or, are you an autonomous end in yourself? Do we follow Kant in his extreme Western rationalism where we must believe that “every rational being must act as if he were by his maxims at all times a lawgiving member of the universal kingdom of ends?”

Autonomy? Or mutual interdependence and co-identification of the race? It’s a question we all must answer. And stating that God values individuals does not an answer make.

Although not all of us have experienced extreme familial dysfunction personally, we’ve known folks close to us who have. I’m sorry to hear about your situation. However, whatever we may say about the behavior of children or parents or siblings, suffice it to say that we don’t know the content of the other’s mind and heart. I know that children and parents have “cut off” each other, but we don’t know what’s in the deepest chambers of anyone’s hearts and we can’t see how it’s going to end. I can imagine that a child makes a choice that it’s best to not “be around” a particular parent, but the feeling of goodwill toward that parent does not stop. Or, if it does, it’ll reboot again later on.

I’m rather drawn to the Aristotelian insight that “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim,” (NE, opening lines). In a manner of speaking humanity is ever oriented toward the good. Humanity is ever oriented therefore toward God (who is the Good) irrespective of whether or not this is known by the agent.

The salvation of all does not come at the cost of the diminishment of some.

I’m sorry, friend, but you lost me on that one.