Justice: a heaven and hell question

[Poseidon]

Mike is a guy who’s rotten through and through. He was raised a Catholic and was baptized, had first communion and Reconciliation, but he left all that behind at a young age. He’s been in a gang since he was a teenager, and has taken part in all sorts of criminal activity. He’s helped his gang rob homes, stores, and people, sell drugs to adults and children, has personally killed several people, and has helped with the deaths of dozens of other people. He is 35.

Diana is by all measures an upstanding citizen and overall a great person. She works hard, attends church and is involved in all sorts of church activities, gives a large percentage of her income to charity, volunteers at soup kitchens, helps the poor, and is constantly on the lookout for other good things to do. She is also 35.

However, over the course of a few months Diana becomes unsatisfied with her life, and wants to start living a little more “wildly.” She experiments with drugs, and soon becomes addicted to cocaine. While under the influence she sleeps around, and one of the people she sleeps with is Mike. They get into an argument, which becomes violent, and that night Mike kills Diana. She dies in a state of mortal sin, and thus goes straight to hell.

After killing Diana Mike becomes extremely remorseful, and sees how despicable his life has been. He decides he wants to turn his life around, and starts out by going to Church. A few weeks later he begins talking to the Priest, and after a week of that decides that he wants to go to Confession. He does so, and confesses all his crimes and his evil lifestyle. The priest absolves him, he makes his confession, and walks outside, where he is immediately shot and killed by a member of his gang who is there to prevent him from giving them away. Since he dies in a state of grace he goes immediately to heaven.

My question is how is this just in any way? Over the course of their lives Diana was a much better person than Mike, but because she died at a time when she was sinning she went to hell. Mike, overall, was a horrible person, but he managed to save himself because he died during a time when he was repentant. Essentially, the only point in their lives that mattered was the moment of death. How is that just?

 

[underacloud]

Firstly, we are all called to repentance and Jesus died for this reason - for sinners to be reconcilled with God. Thus, it’s wonderful that Mike may be saved.

Secondly, we do not presume to judge the sins of others. Diana’s sins may seem to be mortal, but only God alone will judge whether they are committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent of the will. If they are, well then Diana has chosen to reject God. God allows free will and one of the consequences of such is the posibility to reject Him. Mortal sin doesn’t come down to a list of rules that you mustn’t break…it’s about whether you deliberately, freely reject God. But we can never presume to know this about another person, only ourselves (and even then we may, through God’s mercy, be mistaken).

Thirdly, none of us knows what happens the instant before death and the capacity for any person, in that instant before judgement, to be touched by God’s infinite mercy and repent.

 

[LilyM]

Let’s put it this way.

You’re watching the finals of the 400 metre hurdles at the Olympics. Runner X is the unbackable favourite - having been totally unbeatable in the year leading up to the Olympics and just getting better and better in the heats and semi finals.

Runner Y has had a poorer preparation, injuries, a short suspension for drugs, one or two poor showings. Just scraped in to the next round at each stage of the Olympics. Understands that the finals is the only race that matters and resolves to give the race everything she can summon up.

Runner X is having a fantastic race in the final and is well ahead of all her competitors -that gold medal is practically in her hand. Runner Y is a place or two back. Until the very final hurdle. The hurdle that she’s been taught in all her years of practice is the one that will win or lose her the race.

At that last hurdle Runner X trips and falls flat on her face, enabling half the other finalists
to pass her. Ultimately in spite of her fantastic early form and fantastic 80% of that final race she wins no prizes, no acclaim, nothing.

Runner Y, equally appreciating the importance of that last hurdle, and seeing X fall, gathers together all her stamina and concentration and jumps it brilliantly - so much so that she sails into the lead on that very hurdle. In spite of everything, she has persevered to the end and the gold is hers.

Is that fair?

Of course. To win that medal it’s not enough to win ALMOST all your races or jump ALMOST all of your hurdles. Perseveringly to the end means to the end. Be in the right place when it counts. If you fail, even slightly, at that critical time you’re done for. And if you make extra effort at that critical time it can do marvels.

The kicker is that we know the end of our particular race can come at any moment. So? We need to be on top of our game at all times, racing to win at all times, because when the crunch comes it will stand us in good stead and we won’t stumble, or not badly enough so as to lose the race.

 

[Seira]

I think the bigger question is why wasn’t Mike in jail? Didn’t anybody realise Diana was missing? Law enforcement didn’t investigate? Wasn’t her death suspicious to anyone? Since she was such a stand up citizen before the drugs, I’m sure she would’ve had a lot of family & friends that would’ve been worried sick about her. Why didn’t someone try an intervention?

 

[Hokomai]

It is not just. when you challenge this sort of thing on CAF, we eventually end up with someone telling us “God makes the rules” so harsh lotteries for eternal damnation like this, genocide, allowing an entire creation to fall because someone ate some fruit, inter-generational punishment and so on are all ok. They don’t mean ‘just’ in the sense that you are using it. They mean ‘just’ in the sense ‘God wants it’.

 

[Poseidon]

I think the bigger question is why wasn’t Mike in jail? Didn’t anybody realise Diana was missing? Law enforcement didn’t investigate? Wasn’t her death suspicious to anyone? Since she was such a stand up citizen before the drugs, I’m sure she would’ve had a lot of family & friends that would’ve been worried sick about her. Why didn’t someone try an intervention?

It’s not really important. Mike could have had his conversion while in prison, and then been executed or died some other way. The point is that he was horrible for 99% of his life and good for 1% and was saved, while Diana was good 99% of her life and bad for 1% and was damned.

 

[DJK100]

Mike is a guy who’s rotten through and through. He was raised a Catholic and was baptized, had first communion and Reconciliation, but he left all that behind at a young age. He’s been in a gang since he was a teenager, and has taken part in all sorts of criminal activity. He’s helped his gang rob homes, stores, and people, sell drugs to adults and children, has personally killed several people, and has helped with the deaths of dozens of other people. He is 35.

Diana is by all measures an upstanding citizen and overall a great person. She works hard, attends church and is involved in all sorts of church activities, gives a large percentage of her income to charity, volunteers at soup kitchens, helps the poor, and is constantly on the lookout for other good things to do. She is also 35.

However, over the course of a few months Diana becomes unsatisfied with her life, and wants to start living a little more “wildly.” She experiments with drugs, and soon becomes addicted to cocaine. While under the influence she sleeps around, and one of the people she sleeps with is Mike. They get into an argument, which becomes violent, and that night Mike kills Diana. She dies in a state of mortal sin, and thus goes straight to hell.

After killing Diana Mike becomes extremely remorseful, and sees how despicable his life has been. He decides he wants to turn his life around, and starts out by going to Church. A few weeks later he begins talking to the Priest, and after a week of that decides that he wants to go to Confession. He does so, and confesses all his crimes and his evil lifestyle. The priest absolves him, he makes his confession, and walks outside, where he is immediately shot and killed by a member of his gang who is there to prevent him from giving them away. Since he dies in a state of grace he goes immediately to heaven.

My question is how is this just in any way? Over the course of their lives Diana was a much better person than Mike, but because she died at a time when she was sinning she went to hell. Mike, overall, was a horrible person, but he managed to save himself because he died during a time when he was repentant. Essentially, the only point in their lives that mattered was the moment of death. How is that just?

It is just because these people made their choices. God, through St. Paul, already told you that you need to preserver to the end. The “rules” have been established so to speak. You break the “rules” then you deserve any just punishment you may receive. No one forced them to do anything they made the choices they did and unfortunately it burned them (well Diania anyway). I don’t see a problem in this. We are you trying to absolve people from responsibilty of their actions?

 

[Hokomai]

It is just because these people made their choices. God, through St. Paul, already told you that you need to preserver to the end. The “rules” have been established so to speak. You break the “rules” then you deserve any just punishment you may receive. No one forced them to do anything they made the choices they did and unfortunately it burned them (well Diania anyway). I don’t see a problem in this. We are you trying to absolve people from responsibilty of their actions?

Rules themselves can be just or unjust. That is what the OP is asking. How can this ‘rule’ be considered just? I have answered that it cannot. You have not answered at all.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I think the bigger question is why wasn’t Mike in jail? Didn’t anybody realise Diana was missing? Law enforcement didn’t investigate? Wasn’t her death suspicious to anyone? Since she was such a stand up citizen before the drugs, I’m sure she would’ve had a lot of family & friends that would’ve been worried sick about her. Why didn’t someone try an intervention?

Both had free will. Diana used her free will to turn her back on God, whom she once apparently believed in (I’m assuming she really did believe, and wasn’t just going through the motions because that’s what she’d always done. Did she really believe in the first place?).

Mike on the other hand is the modern prodigal son. He never really believed in the first place, despite being raised as a Catholic etc. But later his conscience got the better of him, and he repented.

He chose good over evil at the end, whereas Diana chose evil over good at the end.

However I doubt whether he’d go straight to heaven, even if he was in a “state of grace.” He’d have had a hell of a lot of character modification to go through before he was fit for heaven. For someone from his background, despite his reconciliation, I think he’d still spend a fair bit of time in purgatory - a lot of time actually.

Diana’s story reminds me a bit of a certain person who used to attend my wife’s church (Baptist). From time to time I’d see this person leading the singing, but as time went by I had this peculiar sense, that she was just going through the motions. The next thing I knew, the spouse had been abandoned, and I think there was infidelity in the equation as well.

I haven’t seen this person back since. And as far as I know her faith is no longer practised. Yet the choice was “free”. It’s an abyss we can all fall into.

 

[DJK100]

Rules themselves can be just or unjust. That is what the OP is asking. How can this ‘rule’ be considered just? I have answered that it cannot. You have not answered at all.

Actually, I answered the OP orginal question on whether the situation was just. You have tried to insert is the “rule” just into the discussion when the OP was asking if the situation was just. Just so we are clear.

I think you are mistaking just with harsh. You feel the rule is too harsh but how can it be unjust when it is applicable to everyone equally? We all start at the same starting point with the same rules so the 'justice" is there and the same for all. You are just interperting the “just rule” as being in your opinion as “too harsh,” but that has nothing to do with the justice of the situation – ie they both had a chance to repent.

I would say that it would be unjust if it only applied to one person but not the other. However, this is not the case. So I reiterate both the situation (for the OP) and the rule (for Hokomai) are just.

 

[Hokomai]

Actually, I answered the OP orginal question on whether the situation was just. You have tried to insert is the “rule” just into the discussion when the OP was asking if the situation was just. Just so we are clear.

I think you are mistaking just with harsh. You feel the rule is too harsh but how can it be unjust when it is applicable to everyone equally? We all start at the same starting point with the same rules so the 'justice" is there and the same for all. You are just interperting the “just rule” as being in your opinion as “too harsh,” but that has nothing to do with the justice of the situation.

I would say that it would be unjust if it only applied to one person but not the other. However, this is not the case. So I reiterate both the situation (for the OP) and the rule (for Hokomai) are just.

Justice is not the same concept as equality before the judge, or the equal application of a law. For example, a law saying Catholics are banned from Mass would be unjust, even if everyone who attended Mass was to be punished equally.

 

[DJK100]

Justice is not the same concept as equality before the judge, or the equal application of a law. For example, a law saying Catholics are banned from Mass would be unjust, even if everyone who attended Mass was to be punished equally.

It would be in this situation because you are setting it up for one group of people only. If you applied it to the whole world then those breaking the law would be getting what the justly deserved according to your concept of justice. I may say that it is too harsh but it is not unjust based upon the “rules” that have been established. If by choosing to break that rule I would be setting myself up for whatever punishment may be waiting for me.

 

[Hokomai]

It would be in this situation because you are setting it up for one group of people only. If you applied it to the whole world then those breaking the law would be getting what the justly deserved according to your concept of justice. I may say that it is too harsh but it is not unjust based upon the “rules” that have been established.

So a rule saying no one could attend Mass would be just, but one affecting Catholics along would be unjust?

 

[petras52]

Your topic is one that I wondered about for a long time. We all are imperfect and sin at times. Imagine normally good “charlie catholic”, who has a bad day, gets mugged and killed by long time hood “nasty nate”. Nate gets sentenced to execution but has years to ponder his fate regarding the afterlife. He figures, “what do I have to lose”, has a “conversion”, and is saved. Meanwhile poor charlie, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time , didn’t have even a minute to “get right with God”, is “feeling the heat”…regarding justice, I can’t figure it out but I am confident God can “sort it out” in the end…

 

[Alindawyl]

The reason why the scenario given in the original post seems unjust to many is because so many non-Christians (and unfortunately so many Christians as well) have an inaccurate understanding of judgment, justification, and salvation. Salvation is all too often portrayed in a legalistic manner, as if it were a matter of moral accounting. God is seen as a cosmic bookkeeper, tallying up everyone’s good and evil actions as if they were assets and liabilities. When we die, they think God does a sum of both columns. If more good deeds were done, then that puts us on the “asset” side and God sends us to heaven. If more evil deeds were done, then that puts us on the “liability” side and God sends us to hell.

I do not know where these concepts of judgment and salvation come from, but they are most definitely not what the Catholic Church teaches.

According to the Church, we aren’t saved based on doing more good deeds than evil deeds and we are not damned based on doing more evil deeds than good deeds. We are saved based on having sanctifying grace, on being open to receiving the love of God and wanting to share love with others. We are damned based on not having sanctifying grace, on not being open to receiving the love of God and not wanting to share love with others. Good deeds in and of themselves do not save, because good deeds can be done whether or not someone has sanctifying grace. Evil deeds in and of themselves do not damn, because evil deeds can be repented from.

Sanctifying grace is freely offered by God to everyone, no matter how good or evil that person acts. A person filled with sanctifying grace can choose to throw it all away and turn to sin. A person living a life of sin can choose to turn away from that sin and repent. The internal disposition of the person at the end of their life is what determines their eternal fate, not the mere quantity of good or evil deeds performed over the course of that person’s life. And since that disposition is their choice, of course it’s perfectly just for someone who does good deeds most of their life to end up in hell if they sin mortally without repenting, and of course it’s perfectly just for someone who does evil deeds most of their life to end up in heaven if they repent of all the mortal sins they have ever committed.

 

[Poseidon]

Let’s put it this way.

You’re watching the finals of the 400 metre hurdles at the Olympics. Runner X is the unbackable favourite - having been totally unbeatable in the year leading up to the Olympics and just getting better and better in the heats and semi finals.

Runner Y has had a poorer preparation, injuries, a short suspension for drugs, one or two poor showings. Just scraped in to the next round at each stage of the Olympics. Understands that the finals is the only race that matters and resolves to give the race everything she can summon up.

Runner X is having a fantastic race in the final and is well ahead of all her competitors -that gold medal is practically in her hand. Runner Y is a place or two back. Until the very final hurdle. The hurdle that she’s been taught in all her years of practice is the one that will win or lose her the race.

At that last hurdle Runner X trips and falls flat on her face, enabling half the other finalists
to pass her. Ultimately in spite of her fantastic early form and fantastic 80% of that final race she wins no prizes, no acclaim, nothing.

Runner Y, equally appreciating the importance of that last hurdle, and seeing X fall, gathers together all her stamina and concentration and jumps it brilliantly - so much so that she sails into the lead on that very hurdle. In spite of everything, she has persevered to the end and the gold is hers.

Is that fair?

Of course. To win that medal it’s not enough to win ALMOST all your races or jump ALMOST all of your hurdles. Perseveringly to the end means to the end. Be in the right place when it counts. If you fail, even slightly, at that critical time you’re done for. And if you make extra effort at that critical time it can do marvels.

The kicker is that we know the end of our particular race can come at any moment. So? We need to be on top of our game at all times, racing to win at all times, because when the crunch comes it will stand us in good stead and we won’t stumble, or not badly enough so as to lose the race.

Interesting analogy, but it seems to fall short to me for a couple of reasons. In a racing scenario, it is your overall performance that is what matters. You can run a brilliant first half of your race and a miserable second half, but in the end neither of those halves is what matters - it’s your overall time that makes all the difference. You can fall flat on your face at the end, but if you have enough of a lead you may be able to get up and cross the finish line before someone passes you.

If I were to turn Mike and Diana’s lives into a race, then Diana would be out ahead from the very beginning. She’s pretty much sprinting along, and runs an amazing race until the last few meters, where she trips, sprains her ankle and has to crawl across the line.

Mike runs a lousy race. He barely even jogs, and walks most of the time. However when he sees the finish line up ahead he sprints, and finishes strong.

Who “won” this race? By any racing standards Diana clearly won, because she crossed the finish line first, because her average speed over the course of the race was much faster than Mike’s. However, the judges in this race don’t care about any part of the race except the finish, and they rule that Mike won because he was running faster when he crossed the finish line.

I hope you can see the connection between the race and Mike and Diana’s lives. Diana’s “average goodness” over her life was far greater than that of Mike, but none of it mattered because she was being bad (running slowly) when she died (end of the race). Mike was terrible for his whole life, but because he was being good (sprinting) when he died, he won the cosmic jackpot of heaven.

 

[Poseidon]

Actually, I answered the OP orginal question on whether the situation was just. You have tried to insert is the “rule” just into the discussion when the OP was asking if the situation was just. Just so we are clear.

I think you are mistaking just with harsh. You feel the rule is too harsh but how can it be unjust when it is applicable to everyone equally? We all start at the same starting point with the same rules so the 'justice" is there and the same for all. You are just interperting the “just rule” as being in your opinion as “too harsh,” but that has nothing to do with the justice of the situation – ie they both had a chance to repent.

I would say that it would be unjust if it only applied to one person but not the other. However, this is not the case. So I reiterate both the situation (for the OP) and the rule (for Hokomai) are just.

You are confusing justice with equality. A legal system can be perfectly fair but still have unjust laws. For example, if a law was made saying that anyone who wears a red polo shirt should be stoned to death, the fact that the law is upheld for everyone equally doesn’t make it just. It is equal but still not just.

 

[Poseidon]

It is just because these people made their choices. God, through St. Paul, already told you that you need to preserver to the end. The “rules” have been established so to speak. You break the “rules” then you deserve any just punishment you may receive. No one forced them to do anything they made the choices they did and unfortunately it burned them (well Diania anyway). I don’t see a problem in this. We are you trying to absolve people from responsibilty of their actions?

No, my point is that ultimately what decided their fate was the time of their death, not their actions. If both of them had been hit by cars a year earlier then their ultimate fates would have been reversed, and if they had both lived a year longer then their fates could have been different again. Maybe they both would have gone to heaven, or maybe they both would have gone to hell. It seems that it was a fluke of chance that decided where they would spend eternity.

 

[petras52]

No, my point is that ultimately what decided their fate was the time of their death, not their actions. If both of them had been hit by cars a year earlier then their ultimate fates would have been reversed, and if they had both lived a year longer then their fates could have been different again. Maybe they both would have gone to heaven, or maybe they both would have gone to hell. It seems that it was a fluke of chance that decided where they would spend eternity.

Agreed…it seems you can conclude from some of the other posts that salvation is at least partially dependent on luck and the timing of our death in so far as whether we are in the state of grace. I think most folks agree that we are all imperfect and fail, sometimes seriously so at some point. If salvation is solely determined by the state of our soul at the moment of death, than I guess it doesn’t matter from a salvation standpoint how bad or good we have been the other 99.99% of the time.

 

[FaithBuild18]

I don’t think we can conclude that simply because one mortally sinned before death, that they are necessarily “in a state of mortal sin.” God transcends time, he knows the full weight of our actions and the true intentions of our heart.

However, I don’t necessarily find it unjust, if the situation you presented actually does happen. We know not the day or the hour and it’s no excuse to say that we wanted to be wild for just a day, or that we didn’t know we were going to die right after being wild. Justice requires responsibility. The bottom line is she was incredibly irresponsible to chose, at any point in her life, to do such a thing. The fact that she happened to choose those actions at the worst of all times is a risk we all take when we chose to sin, and it is a responsibility we must own up to. Sin, is NEVER acceptable, and as your example demonstrates, is fully capable of destroying our souls. Have you ever noticed how harshly Christianity of all types fear, demonize, admonish, despise, and downright hate sin? Because it has the capacity to do THIS.

That said, I imagine it to be most likely that our judgement is not based upon our understanding of chronological time. It is possible that dying in a state of mortal sin may just refer to the summed condition of our soul when we die, meaning it takes EVERYTHING into consideration. Somebody correct me if this hypothesis goes against doctrine.

The same application of justice towards Diana could also apply to Mike should one chose to belief that argument.