The problem of hell solutions?

[tafan2]

I am curious, what part of Lewis’s thinking about hell are not inline with Catholic doctrine? I thought The Great Divorce was a really good book, and it is possible to interpret that inline with Catholic doctrine (although a couple of liberties need to be made). Also, I think he claimed to not be describing any particular theology with regards to hell and the personal judgement, it didn’t quite fit anyone’s theology exactly.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I also really, really loved The Great Divorce. It’ll probably be a book I reread regularly, along with Screwtape Letters.

The big issues with it’s theology are that it implies that a damned soul can be saved, and that purgatory and Hell are the same thing.

Remember, this is a bus from Hell, and while almost everyone winds up getting back on the bus, the protagonist doesn’t. He stays in Heaven. His choice was made after death, and he chose to leave Hell. That is seriously problematic, and is contrary to Catholic teaching.

Still, I think it’s a great book that everyone should read. It gets down to the heart of why people chose Hell in an inventive, beautifully tragic way.

 

[Ignatiusmeansfire]

Lewis believes that the doors of hell are locked from the inside rather than from the outside. Thus, according to Lewis, if escape from hell never happens, it is not because God is not willing that it should happen. Instead, residence in hell is eternal because that is just what persons in hell have chosen for themselves.

So according to Lewis the only reason that people maintain in hell is because that is what they prefere.

 

[tafan2]

Yes, that is the obvious problem. OTOH, with a simple liberty taken with the book, that seeing hell is given to us immediately prior to death as a means to a final chance at repentance, this problem is then solved. And it also then shows us purgatory, as once one gets off the bus, the hike to heaven is painful.
It cannot also not be used for a Calvinist theology, as it is obvious people are being given a free choice to be saved. It is also not a Lutheran theology, as it is not just faith that is leading one to salvation, one has to be able to turn away from their sinful tendencies.
Again, IIRC, Lewis made it clear it was not written to provide an example of any faith’s exact theology, but that he hoped it could be interpreted to fit any of them.

 

[tafan2]

Lewis believes that the doors of hell are locked from the inside rather than from the outside. Thus, according to Lewis, if escape from hell never happens, it is not because God is not willing that it should happen. Instead, residence in hell is eternal because that is just what persons in hell have chosen for themselves.

So according to Lewis the only reason that people maintain in hell is because that is what they prefere.

Not exactly right. Either from Lewis point of view or from the Church’s point of view. The Church definitely teaches that our will is set once we have died, so from that point of view redemption from hell is not possible exactly because our will is set against God. Which certainly falls in line with “the gates are locked from within”. Lewis never wrote that redemption from hell was possible, as far as I know.

Note: I am not claiming all of Lewis’s views are inline with the Church, there were a couple of glaring problems in Mere Christianity. But I do not think his views of hell were that far off.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I hadn’t considered that approach. I can kind of see it, though I don’t think the book readily lends itself to that interpretation.

 

[esieffe]

Always an interesting discussion, due to the persistent “nagging nature” of the question. Anyway, what I have to offer based on Thomas is just putting things in a different perspective… of sorts. I am just “rewording” that’s all, but I think it might be slightly helpful.

As we have all often discussed, after death, “time” ceases. So people in hell are in the moment, there is only NOW. There is no past, no future, and eternity I think. Same with Heaven. It is a “new spiritual physics.” The only difference is, that the “NOW” cannot expire or move on.

This might just be an absurd nonsensical notion, it just is a theory of mine as to why the afterlife cannot change. A potential flaw of this might be purgatory. Time passes slowly in purgatory, but eventually people are purified and go to Heaven. I wonder how Thomas explains the ongoing process of purgatory from the time they get there till they leave. Interesting stuff.

 

[vsedriver]

let’s say a man of 50, who really did have full understanding of the gravity of masturbation

then yes, this is a mortal sin.

Perhaps it is the gravity of the sin you can’t accept? Humanae Vitae was a huge help to me in this.

 

[tafan2]

As we have all often discussed, after death, “time” ceases. So people in hell are in the moment, there is only NOW. There is no past, no future, and eternity I think. Same with Heaven. It is a “new spiritual physics.” The only difference is, that the “NOW” cannot expire or move on.

I am not for sure this is quiet right. Eternity is the domain of God alone, aeviternity is the domain of angels and saints. This is not the same as time as associated with matter, but it is a sequence of events. I am no expert on this, by any stretch of the imagination, but in aeviternity there is not only NOW.

 

[tafan2]

I have admitted it is taking a liberty with the exact story line. But not that much of one, IMO. And no more of a liberty that any protestant (of varying types, including Lewis’s) would have to play with the plot line for it to fit their view.
All of us see hell but are being called to heaven and can see it in the distance. Seems reasonable to me. Wasn’t the boy a little confused about where he was at the bus stop when he was boarding?

 

[RealisticCatholic]

But i have not yet recieved a satisfactory and logic answer in accordance to Catholic doctrine. CS Lewis is reasoning that the doors of hell are closed from within. Which i could see as reasonable, but our father in church made it clear that Lewis angelican views is not in line with Catholic doctrine in this matter.

Not true; this view is perfectly in line with Catholic thought. The Catechism states hell as a state of definitive self-exclusion. That’s a fancy way of saying the same thing.

But even then, that doesn’t really solve the issue. Because if we were made for God and made to desire goodness, then it seems no fault could truly merit hell — how could someone knowingly choose a lesser good over a higher good (definition of sin), if the higher — highest Good, God — would be the only thing that could fulfill a human?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I’ll be honest, I don’t remember a little boy character in the book. Good excuse to reread it. ^^

 

[tafan2]

Probably my bad memory, not yours. Perhaps he wasn’t a boy, just that his mother was there also. I too need to read it again. Think I will do that, I just happen to be between books (finished a really good one over the weekend). Will get back to you in a few days about my interpretation.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

The Heresy of Hell as Self-Inflicted Charles Robertson , a bit long, but I’ve just finished reading it, and thought it was very good.

I don’t think that article was helpful. It compounds the problem for me. The idea of God having to eternally punish someone for a finite mortal sin is related to a mythic and anthropomorphic view of God.

I don’t agree with the article that the foundation of the Catholic Church is threatened if hell isn’t conceived of as a punishment by God. I just don’t see how that follows at all…

 

[esieffe]

Thanks. Just to be clear, when I was talking about now, I meant after death. Syntax really, but what confuses me, is that Thomas or someone has said that purgatory and hell are in close proximity.

Is it that our “will” is fixed and time continues? If time does not continue, then how does that explain the “process” of purification in purgatory?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I recall one story where is was a mother who was damned, and one of her other children, or nephews… possibly just an angel… came in the place of her son. She refused to go anywhere because it wasn’t her son, and wanted to see her son and take him back with her to live with her. She was told that he was too far into the mountain to come back at that point, and that she would meet up with him if she began the journey. She wasn’t willing to, so she got back on the bus.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

In purgatory, our wills are already set on God, they’re just not perfectly able to live out his will due to the remaining effects of sin, and our attachment to it. The souls in purgatory embrace the pains their purification because it is moving them closer to God.

In Hell, our wills are permanently set against God, so we lack the ability to be purified. The pains they suffer are not efficacious because they won’t let go of their sin.

 

[RealisticCatholic]

Yeah this is just…

hard to accept.

Hard to accept in the sense it doesn’t make coherent sense. Mortal sin’s requirement of full knowledge and consent of the will are probably never sufficient enough in most cases. When does someone ever commit masturbation, for example, willy-nilly “just 'cause.” Isn’t it mostly due to suggestion or passion? Not many acts are perfectly free.

What about sufficiently free? That’s anyone’s guess, and people have different understandings of the freedom necessary for a mortal sin.

The third condition is the most difficult to meet –complete consent of the will. It means not having any impediments to the free use of the will.Impediments may be external (such as being constrained, forced, or threatened to do something against one’s will) or internal (such as strong passions or feelings, strong unconscious motivations, psychological disorders, addictions, deeply engrained habits, and strong situational fear, duress, and depression).

Not infrequently, the above impediments to complete consent of the will are influential in the commission of certain grave sins, which would mitigate the mortal nature of the sin. In this case, the sin in question would not threaten the salvation of the penitent and confession would not be required in order for complete reconciliation with God to be restored. However, one should try to make recourse to the sacrament as soon as possible, if such sins are committed.

https://www.crediblecatholic.com/pdf/M10/BB10.pdf#P1V10C3T1

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Isn’t it mostly due to suggestion or passion?

Yes, it is frequently due to an overabundance of passion, or, in the case of an addict, and overwhelming urge to engage in an activity that borders on physically debilitating.

I say that as an addict, and I also say that making the final decision to engage in that act makes me liable to damnation.

I certainly hope that I am not fully culpable for my actions, and that God will tell me as much at my judgment, but it would be idiotic to assume such.

The point is, most people can’t truly know if they met the three criteria for an act such as masturbation to be a mortal sin, so it is better to assume that you did and act accordingly.

What’s more, your what-if scenario here doesn’t really make sense. If someone doesn’t meet the criteria for it to be a mortal sin, then they will be judged according to that reality. If they did, and they did not repent, then they will be damned. We’re not claiming that everyone who has ever masturbated is damned, only that it is grave matter which makes you liable to damnation if certain criteria are met.

If someone commits a mortal sin, they are choosing to cut themselves off form God. If they commit a grave sin, but not in a mortal degree, then they will be judged accordingly.

 

[CRV]

The idea of God having to eternally punish someone for a finite mortal sin is related to a mythic and anthropomorphic view of God.

You’re entitled to your opinion.

Personally I accept that the punishment for a mortal sin is for eternity, an eternity of torment and punishment.

So perhaps it is for the best if we agree to disagree.