Our RCIA class has been discussing sin & confession recently, and comments regarding mortal sin and “going to hell” seem to have struck a nerve with one of the candidate’s sponsor. After some heated discussion, I was willing admit that no, in fact, we do not have certain knowledge that anybody is in hell. Likewise, I admitted that, since full knowledge and consent of the will are preconditions for mortal sin, that ignorance, emotions, and mental disorders mitigate the guilt due to sins. I was also willing to admit that we should certainly hope and pray for the salvation of all souls, even those who we suspect may have died impenitent.
On his side, he confirmed the existence of free-will, the existence of hell, and the existence of mortal sin. We both said that it is not our position to judge, and that ultimately we must leave it up God’s ultimate justice and mercy.
But I’m still perplexed by why he was so adamant as to pick this topic to boldly and confidently present his opinions to the class. Since he quoted Fr. Richard Neuhaus, I read a Neuhas article defending the
“unpopulated hell” theory.
What I don’t get, and what I’m asking people to comment on here, is what could be the motivation behind this perspective. Jesus obviously didn’t pull any punches about the risk of hell. If God, in his infinte mercy is going to bring everybody to heaven anyway, what’s the point following God’s law. Neuhaus dismisses this argument as “profoundly wrongheaded and spiritually perverse.” He continues to say that, “one cannot rationally and knowingly choose to live contrary to God’s will, since to do so is contrary to one’s own nature,” which I find to be blatantly absurd given that all humanity, to one degree or another, lives contrary to God’s will.
I’m just dumbfounded as to why this is worth arguing about. I mean, if Jesus taught that hell was a real possibility and we are to act and live as though hell were a real possibility, why bother proclaiming that hell might not be, in actual fact, a real possibility?
