Question: If Hell is populated with many damned souls, should this be a consideration for bringing children into the world?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God’s plan is a nebulous term and I was not clear.
Some years ago I read a bit about Blessed John Duns SCOTUS. He asked the famous question," Would Jesus have come anyway, had Adam not eaten the apple?"
His scriptural support for his argument ( for God’s plan) was Ephesians 1:3-4. From that passage, God’s plan for us begins and is fully formed at creation. We don’t come into existence until billions of years later. Adam!
With relation to Jesus coming he basically argued Jesus was first plan according to God’s will. Not a mop up billions of years into creation because one man exerted his will. Man’s will is not stronger than GODS WILL!
He cited John 1:1-17 and Colossians 1:15-19, to illustrate the Supremacy and PRIMACY OF CHRIST. And that Christ’s incarnation was first plan.
As in that argument I say also, how can our will overcome God’s will when God’s will is so clear in Ephesians.
I see this situation as SCOTUS, as a conflict of wills, not JUST man’s free will. That latter argument leaves out God’s will.
 
Last edited:
Mijoy2 said:
I imagined feeling that pain for all eternity. Simply cannot be
Click to expand...
Mijoy2 said:
I understand the controversial nature of this. i.e. The Ralph Martin / Bishop Barron disagreement. The apparent clear view of this from the CCC. The stance of Augustine and other’s. But the logical holes in the eternal damnation concept for many (if not most) puts me in a position of self battle - logic vs faith. It doesn’t seem it should be this way.
Click to expand...
Very good points. Too often, this debate isn’t personalized for those whom we love the most—the prospect that they are in hell isn’t ever present on our minds—we just consider the unspecified “other.” For example, one can consider a family of children wherein one of them commits suicide after a long bout with depression, and let’s say that this child didn’t particularly practice any religious faith though the family was Catholic. Would anyone in that family be an Augustinian with regard to his/her view of hell and the fate of their poor child? Not bloody likely.
 
These appear to be lifted from here, which is fine. The last one I’ve dealt with elsewhere here at CAF. It’s the theological opinion of the emperor Justinian and should be regarded as such. The anathemas of Justinian are not attributable to this truly (East and West) ecumenical council. As for the writings of popes, we are aware that they may be little more than theological opinion.

Vatican I - the question remains, of course, whether anyone has ever committed a mortal sin–an act that would actually cut off God’s grace from that person. Needless to say, not all Catholics believe that this has ever happened, though it’s left as a ‘real possibility.’

This leaves Lateran IV - honestly, I don’t know what to make of this council. It’s not properly “ecumenical,” as it was limited to the western church. It also has a lot of bizarre things to say about Jewish people, which has been previously discussed here at CAF. This one is a bit mysterious to me. Not sure how to take it. I wouldn’t regard any of the statements made about Jews or Muslims to be infallible. But, the questions of theology? Maybe. Maybe not. This one is the most problematic for Catholics, but Von Balthasar, De Lubac and others were fully aware of these documents and still maintained the hope for all the be saved, in the end.

There simply is no knock-down drag-out document one can point to that establishes the truth of either side of this debate. One must go beyond documents to reason and conscience, it seems to me. All added together (promulgated teachings, reason and conscience) are rather firmly on the side of those who maintain confidence in the hope for all to be (ultimately) reconciled to God. Not necessarily looking for more engagement from you on this issue, Thomas. Just wanted to acknowledge that I missed this post from you yesterday and wanted to respond.

Peace!
 
Last edited:
There is another layer of issues here. Real important issues. And it has to do with the conflict this creates with the fundemental nature of restorative justice and Divine Union. This being our perception of God and how it affect having a relationship with God.
That’s our purpose! Relationship. You see it in Song of Songs, John of the Cross and the mystic accounts. Going back to Psudo-Dyonysius, through Saint Therese and Edith Stein who we spoke of today.There is one thing in common they describe. An intimate relationship. That is the destiny our faith speaks of.
I agree with others who believe a frightening and seemingly cruel God is not conducive to intimacy. I have never been able to reconcile perfect love and that vision of most going into flames. Beginning with grade school. And I am not alone.
 
Last edited:
Yes, so very true! Great points, and not to be overlooked! I have made this point in just about every thread on hell that I’ve participated on CAF. It never really gets a great answer. I’ve said here, for example , "Our wills are oriented toward good(s), even when there is something lacking in the object/activity sought, such that it’s disordered or ‘less than the best.’ Still, even in these situations, human wills are oriented toward some good, toward one’s own happiness [beatitude].

So my curiosity is always this: toward what, in hell, does a human will orient itself? Unless there are goods in hell, such a state is, I think, incoherent with what we know about how human wills function vis-a-vis the good. This is the DB Hart line of reasoning, but really, any Aristotelian could ask the same question."

The final end of man is beatitude. It is literally the very things he was made for. It is that state toward which he is every inclining (even when he doesn’t know it). And final beatitude can only ultimately be found in the Good (God).
 
Last edited:
Precisely. People spew doctrine. Put a name on that doctrine, the name of an individual who fills your heart. The name of an individual who you could not even stand the thought of suffering an hours worth of heartache or a minutes worth of physical pain and all of a sudden that doctrine is reduced to nothing but ugly painful brutal words that you can’t stand to fathom.

Hopefully, there is more to the story. More to God’s plan.
 
No. I trust God. If I could, I would have 100 kids of my own right now. Scratch that. 1000. Not one bit of concern because I trust God.
 
Last edited:
The teaching is that Jesus himself said ," you know not when the hour comes." So, they effectively say to late in the doctrine.
Hart gets into how it is irrational to begin with to set ones will so that there is complete rejection of God. It isn’t free will at all he argues. ( Is there a possibility of free will to exercise the most profound irrationality?)
This is an argument akin to the doctrine of mens rea. ( Ironically created by SaInt Augustine in a sermon)
If you opperate with " diminished capacity" you do not opperate with true free will.
What is most frustrating in discussing these issues with people is the sort of uniform capacity to reason we all supposedly have. We envision this " theoretical" person who we have no investment in empathetically.
But humans don’t opperate this way. Their minds do not. When have CCC sections that recognize conscience. But even there, they find ways to make you culpable for your own malformed conscience.
But an unformed or underformed conscience is an insufficient mind /spirit to self correct. And so on.
 
Last edited:
The more to the story is God. His perfect love. His complete lack of imperfection.And we are not the only Catholics to imagine being told incoherent ideas about God.
If you ever saw a child close his mouth and shake his head no, when mom tried to shovel a spoonful of terrible tasting medicine in, that is how I was when I finally took my time and read Aquinas reason how those in heaven would feel joy when contemplating the damned. I still won’t let that spoon in.
He moves about in his argument, but to sum up part, he describes what crudely mimics amnesia at best, and at worst, a loss of our worldly love( in our case for a child in this OP).
That is a loss of who we are in essence. That love is part of what " brings you to the dance" so to speak.
 
Last edited:
You must have a big bank account. With 1000 kids, you will require staff. In fact you might require a few wives.
 
Knock and the door is open.
For everyone that asks received, and every seeker finds. And for those who knock THE DOOR SHALL BE OPEN.
Who among you would give your child a serpent if he asked for fish. Or a rock if he asked for bread.
If you who are evil can give good things to your children,
Imagine what the Holy Father will give those who ask him.
If it is not exact sorry.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
It isn’t free will at all he argues. ( Is there a possibility of free will to exercise the most profound irrationality?)
Click to expand...
This is a great point, and Hart is very skilled at arguing against the Modernist notion of human freedom as a blank slate theory. We are not, by any stretch, blank slates who are completely free to choose X or not-X at any time and under any circumstances. This view of human freedom comes to us out of the Modern Era in the West, and is a deeply mistaken view of human will and liberty. I personally like the language that another scholar (Brad Jersak) on the side of ultimate reconciliation uses—he calls it “freed” will. As in, God and reunion back to Him is the only thing to free our wills from the various destructive encumbrances we succumb to. So, as you say, to behave irrationally (outside of your natural end) is to be not free. In some sense, it’s evidence of you being enslaved to something besides the good/Good.
Maximus1 said:
But even there, they find ways to make you culpable for your own malformed conscience
Click to expand...
Believe me, I know it! There is an overemphasis within Catholicism on the punitive and juridical. The way I see this poor emphasis in the western church is that it is a product (in some sense) of the western world of the Modern Era and Europe’s own overemphasis in juridical/punitive approaches to its citizens during the 1500’s thru the 1900’s. There’s far too much finger-wagging and ascribing of (individual) guilt in the western church since the Schism.

I would say, as you alluded above in a separate post, that the west still has a lot to learn in terms of thinking of Christ as entering into history in order to save humanity itself, not just this or that particular, individual human. Another ailment of Western European Modernism is its hyper-focus on the individual (to the exclusion of the group).
 
Last edited:
You identify a number of things I agree with.
" The faith has become an evacuation plan for the next life," is something I think is observant. The idea that much of Christianity boils the entire ministry of Jesus into the last 48 hours.
Another observation is that Protestantism, the reformations and counter reformations contracted the faith in addition to schism, which I have heard " dilute" as a description that makes sense.
There is no doubt that the time of Church fathers is attractive. ( at least to us) The breath of Orthodox religious thought was great. . To compete for souls in Europe, the Churches great thinkers and theology contracted after Protestantism developed. They introduced Sola Scriptura and we responded with emphasis on infallibility to an extent.
We went from a faith that embraced mystery and contemplation to one that dissected and tried to define minutia.
Which gets to what modernism is. The 20th Century saw a reintroduction of the ideas of the Church fathers, mystics, and the ideas of men like Teilhardt de Chardin. . It is not modernist. It is orthodox. But it was also unfamiliar so you see reaction as if it is modernist. Or worse, relativist. Your posts have been met with this and there is an element of frustration because Catholics are naturally wary of the unfamiliar.
Your recognition that Christ was sent to humanity is unfortunately a rare one. There is a perennial tradition, but here you see not only pushback from laity, you see it in the comments of teachers and academics. Merton is an example. There is a line from the movie DANCES With Wolves where a soldier says to Costner," You gone Injun! Didn’t ya?" For Merton, similar criticism rose as he ventured into dialog with Eastern faith leaders. de Chardin was banned initially. The nouvelle theologie members met refraction… Rahner was confronted with pre-censorship. Luckily they proposed ideas in a much safer time than Maximus the Confessor.
I realize it isn’t easy to deal with a large flock. The Church must be concerned with people first and I cannot help but believe they percieved the laity modestly.
The idea of nobody will, without the threat of hell is pretty modest. A Pope like Francis challenges maturity in faith, and it is met with perception of inauthenticity.
We admire the rugged individualism and a compulsive need for winners and looser. What could be more incompatible with Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
" The faith has become an evacuation plan for the next life," is something I think is observant
Click to expand...
Oh, too true, and sadly so. Thomas Keating referred to this contemporary tendency of Catholics as a desire to purchase from God some “fire insurance.” As in, I believe and do all the right things and God (in exchange) gives me my golden ticket to heaven to escape the fires of hell. :man_facepalming:t2: It’s just such a shame that such folks consider their relationship with God in this way—transactional, as if you’ve made a business deal…
Maximus1 said:
To compete for souls in Europe, the Churches great thinkers and theology contracted after Protestantism developed. They introduced Sola Scriptura and we responded with emphasis on infallibility to an extent.
Click to expand...
I couldn’t agree with you more. This is absolutely a valid way of reading Modern European religious history. I would only add the context of the scientific revolution to fill out the historical picture. The Modern West is flatly paltry compared to the ancient (or even medieval) church. The contemporary Catholic world has been slow to see this, but it’s happening here and there, as you say.
Maximus1 said:
The 20th Century saw a reintroduction of the ideas of the Church fathers, mystics, and the ideas of men like Teilhardt de Chardin. . It is not modernist. It is orthodox. But it was also unfamiliar… The nouvelle theologie members met refraction…
Click to expand...
What is amazing to me is that De Lubac, Congar and Von Balthasar saw their movement as Ressourcement (return to the sources). The strict Thomist Garrigou-Lagrange maligned “c’est nouvelle theologie.” As if it could ever be “new” to return to the Sources!!! The Scriptures, the Fathers, this is all new innovation?! :man_facepalming:t2: As you say, it’s this ongoing tension in the modern world, a tug of war between strict traditionalists (whatever that is) and anything seen as progressive (whether or not it actually is progressive). And this embattling lingers to the present day, unfortunately for all of us.
But, the silver lining is that the contemporary church lives in the wake of the CC highly honoring key figures of the Ressourcement (eg, De Lubac and Von Balthasar). They have not been rejected by the church but have rather been esteemed, thank God. And little people like me get to be reintroduced to what should never have been lost to the Catholic Church—to Sts Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor, to Pseudo-Dionysius and Origen, and all trying to make it somehow fit with the great Aquinas (which, in the spirit of Hart, I think it does all fit).
 
Last edited:
Science is coming back. Especially the Science involving consciousness
 
Hell won’t be simply a state forever. There will also be the resurrection of the body.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top