What exactly does the Catholic Church believe about Hell?

[meltzerboy]

I gather that Hell is defined in Catholicism as the separation from G-d (as it is in Judaism). However, what I’d like to find out is whether Catholics believe in this separation as a physical place or a psychological state of eternal pain and torture. Is the pain due only to the separation from G-d or is there also actual “fire and brimstone”? Is the latter more in keeping with certain Protestant beliefs about Hell? Finally, how detailed is the description of Hell according to Catholic teaching, based on Scripture and Church Tradition?

 

[JRKH]

I don’t know if this will answer all of your questions but HERE is a listing of all the times the term “Hell” is used in the Catechism.
Click on any one to be taken to the full paragraph.

Peace
James

 

[karebear92]

My view of hell is much like paragraph 1033 in the last link, which is also pretty consistent with Judaism, I think.

 

[JRKH]

My view of hell is much like paragraph 1033 in the last link, which is also pretty consistent with Judaism, I think.

I really don’t think that this should be surprising since Catholicism is, in a very real sense, a fulfillment of Judaism and Judaism is the “elder brother” of our Catholic faith.

Peace
James

 

[buffalo]

Hell

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Hell is first of all the state of eternal separation from God, and that separation constitutes the principle suffering of hell. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other dimensions of suffering, just like the Beatific Vision being the principle joy of heaven doesn’t mean there aren’t other joys as well. Indeed, Catholics have generally imagined there to be many lesser torments of hell and joys of heaven.

I would say that for the time being hell is not a place, and heaven is either not a place or only a place for Jesus and Mary. This is because at present the souls of those who have died, with the exception of Jesus and Mary (also possibly Elijah and a handful of others, but that’s debatable) are separated from their bodies. A spirit can only be said to be present in the physical world where it is active. Thus we speak of the human soul being “in” the body, because it animates the body. When it no longer animates the body, the soul still exists but no longer can be spoken of as present in any physical location, unless God allows it to appear to a person or something like that.

In cases like that the spirit may be present somewhere in the physical world, but that place itself is not hell. This is similar to how we can say that the angles are in heaven and also that they are at work on earth, and that the demons are in hell but also “prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.”

Now, eventually all the dead will be reunited with their bodies in the General Resurrection. What those bodies will be like is pretty mysterious, so I wouldn’t say that automatically means those bodies will exist in three-dimensional space, but it may well be that they will. In that case they will have to be somewhere, and wherever that is you could call the location of heaven and hell. I wouldn’t put too much credence in the various images used to describe that state, like clouds and a subterranean cavern or a city with walls and the damned left outside the walls. Who knows, one of these images might be the actual physical reality, but I don’t think we know.

As you’ve gathered there is no detailed description of what hell is like. There is no divinely revealed equivalent of Dante’s Inferno. Generally we figure those who were worse in life will suffer greater punishment, but I’m not sure that even this is doctrine.

Also there’s the idea of Limbo- the Limbo of the Fathers (sometimes equated with the Old Testament Sheol though this would better be identified with hell as a whole, and also equated with the New Testament “bosom of Abraham”) to which good men and women from before Christ’s death went to await salvation by Christ, and the Limbo of Infants to which those who died in Original Sin but without personal sin are said to go and experience perfect natural happiness but never the beatific vision. “Limbo” is a Late Latin word actually of Germanic origin and means “fringe” (related to our word “limb”, a part of the body that emerges from the fringe of our tunic), so it would be the fringe of hell. For those who accept the theory, that would give some structure to hell; at least two major compartments or whatever. But the Limbo of the Fathers has been emptied by Christ’s “harrowing of hell”, and today we recognize that the Limbo of Infants is only one of many theories about what happens to unbaptized babies that is compatible with Catholic doctrine.

Obviously there is diversity between different Catholics and different Protestants on how hell is conceptualized. Protestants would generally reject the idea of Limbo as being insufficiently supported by Scripture, but as I’ve said the Limbo of the Fathers is no more and the Limbo of Infants can be rejected by faithful Catholics if that’s the conclusion they want to come to (I’m skeptical about it myself), so in the end I’m not aware of any substantial difference between Catholic and Protestant on this subject.

Edit: Purgatory could technically be considered a temporary part of Hell, but these days at least is generally presented as a separate reality. Obviously most Protestants do not believe in Purgatory, though acceptance of it has become more popular among Protestants through the works of C.S. Lewis.

 

[meltzerboy]

Hell

Thank you, Buffalo. The Catholic Encyclopedia contains a h— of a lot of information about Hell! (If my humor is beyond the pale here, I apologize in advance for offending anyone. It is, after all, a serious subject.) Pardon my ignorance, but I assume the Catholic Encyclopedia is an authoritative source but not as much so as the Catechism in these matters. Is the latter thought to be divinely inspired Church teaching?

 

[meltzerboy]

I don’t know if this will answer all of your questions but HERE is a listing of all the times the term “Hell” is used in the Catechism.
Click on any one to be taken to the full paragraph.

Peace
James

Thanks, James, for these references from the Catechism.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Thank you, Buffalo. The Catholic Encyclopedia contains a h— of a lot of information about Hell! (If my humor is beyond the pale here, I apologize in advance for offending anyone. It is, after all, a serious subject.) Pardon my ignorance, but I assume the Catholic Encyclopedia is an authoritative source but not as much so as the Catechism in these matters. Is the latter thought to be divinely inspired Church teaching?

The Catholic Encyclopedia is an interesting window into the more or less mainstream opinions of English speaking Catholic theologians one hundred years ago. It’s certainly not Church teaching, and in my opinion all too often the authors of the articles use the encyclopedia as a medium for advancing their own theories and opinions, which we see in this article.

The Catechism is not divinely inspired, but it has been presented by the Church as a “sure norm” for teaching the faith. I believe our current Pope said somewhere, before his election, that the teachings presented in it are not given extra authority be being in the Catechism, but certainly it’s full of quotes from authoritative sources, like Sacred Scripture (which is divinely inspired), Fathers of the Church, later Doctors and theologians, the old Roman Catechism, and many Church documents from Popes and Ecumenical Councils. Magisterial documents like Papal encyclicals and documents of Ecumenical Councils are not inspired but generally demand our assent, and in some cases are protected by the chrism of infallibility.

 

[meltzerboy]

Hell is first of all the state of eternal separation from God, and that separation constitutes the principle suffering of hell. That doesn’t mean there aren’t other dimensions of suffering, just like the Beatific Vision being the principle joy of heaven doesn’t mean there aren’t other joys as well. Indeed, Catholics have generally imagined there to be many lesser torments of hell and joys of heaven.

I would say that for the time being hell is not a place, and heaven is either not a place or only a place for Jesus and Mary. This is because at present the souls of those who have died, with the exception of Jesus and Mary (also possibly Elijah and a handful of others, but that’s debatable) are separated from their bodies. A spirit can only be said to be present in the physical world where it is active. Thus we speak of the human soul being “in” the body, because it animates the body. When it no longer animates the body, the soul still exists but no longer can be spoken of as present in any physical location, unless God allows it to appear to a person or something like that.

In cases like that the spirit may be present somewhere in the physical world, but that place itself is not hell. This is similar to how we can say that the angles are in heaven and also that they are at work on earth, and that the demons are in hell but also “prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.”

Now, eventually all the dead will be reunited with their bodies in the General Resurrection. What those bodies will be like is pretty mysterious, so I wouldn’t say that automatically means those bodies will exist in three-dimensional space, but it may well be that they will. In that case they will have to be somewhere, and wherever that is you could call the location of heaven and hell. I wouldn’t put too much credence in the various images used to describe that state, like clouds and a subterranean cavern or a city with walls and the damned left outside the walls. Who knows, one of these images might be the actual physical reality, but I don’t think we know.

As you’ve gathered there is no detailed description of what hell is like. There is no divinely revealed equivalent of Dante’s Inferno. Generally we figure those who were worse in life will suffer greater punishment, but I’m not sure that even this is doctrine.

Also there’s the idea of Limbo- the Limbo of the Fathers (sometimes equated with the Old Testament Sheol though this would better be identified with hell as a whole, and also equated with the New Testament “bosom of Abraham”) to which good men and women from before Christ’s death went to await salvation by Christ, and the Limbo of Infants to which those who died in Original Sin but without personal sin are said to go and experience perfect natural happiness but never the beatific vision. “Limbo” is a Late Latin word actually of Germanic origin and means “fringe” (related to our word “limb”, a part of the body that emerges from the fringe of our tunic), so it would be the fringe of hell. For those who accept the theory, that would give some structure to hell; at least two major compartments or whatever. But the Limbo of the Fathers has been emptied by Christ’s “harrowing of hell”, and today we recognize that the Limbo of Infants is only one of many theories about what happens to unbaptized babies that is compatible with Catholic doctrine.

Obviously there is diversity between different Catholics and different Protestants on how hell is conceptualized. Protestants would generally reject the idea of Limbo as being insufficiently supported by Scripture, but as I’ve said the Limbo of the Fathers is no more and the Limbo of Infants can be rejected by faithful Catholics if that’s the conclusion they want to come to (I’m skeptical about it myself), so in the end I’m not aware of any substantial difference between Catholic and Protestant on this subject.

Edit: Purgatory could technically be considered a temporary part of Hell, but these days at least is generally presented as a separate reality. Obviously most Protestants do not believe in Purgatory, though acceptance of it has become more popular among Protestants through the works of C.S. Lewis.

Thanks, Aelred Minor, for your always-learned comments. Does the Church still speak of Limbo for unbaptized infants? I had thought that was no longer the case, as you suggest. The Jewish concept of Purgatory is a little different in that the atonement or cleansing of the soul may or may not be possible, as well as the period of cleansing lasting no more than one year.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Thanks, Aelred Minor, for your always-learned comments. Does the Church still speak of Limbo for unbaptized infants? I had thought that was no longer the case, as you suggest. The Jewish concept of Purgatory is a little different in that the atonement or cleansing of the soul may or may not be possible, as well as the period of cleansing lasting no more than one year.

A few years ago the International Theological Commission published a paper expressing the position that the theory of Limbo is not necessary and we can still hope for the full salvation of unbaptized babies.

It’s important to note that, first, Limbo was never formal Catholic doctrine and I know for a fact that some Catholics expressed disbelief in Limbo before this paper came out. Second, the International Theological Commission, though connected to the Vatican, is not (currently, or at the time this paper came out) an arm of the Magisterium. It has no teaching authority in the Church, just the ordinary scholarly authority of its members. And third, even the ITC paper acknowledges that Limbo “remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.”

On the other hand presumably Pope Benedict XVI could have stopped the paper from being published and certainly from it being made available on the Vatican’s website, so the fact that he didn’t suggests he may agree with its conclusions, and even apart from his office he is a very well respected theologian.

Therefore, if a Catholic wants to continue believing in Limbo, he or she may do so, though it might be a good idea to give the ITC’s arguments consideration. Personally the theory that makes the most sense to me is that God miraculously gives babies a chance to choose or reject him immediately before their deaths and that choice determines their eternal destiny, but I’d wager fewer Catholics believe in that than Limbo. The most common two approaches I’ve seen from fellow Catholics (and I’ve done no polling and statistics, of course), especially since this paper has come out, is either to assume all babies go to heaven or simply express hope that they do and leave it at that.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The Catholic Encyclopedia is an interesting window into the more or less mainstream opinions of English speaking Catholic theologians one hundred years ago. It’s certainly not Church teaching, and in my opinion all too often the authors of the articles use the encyclopedia as a medium for advancing their own theories and opinions, which we see in this article.

The Catechism is not divinely inspired, but it has been presented by the Church as a “sure norm” for teaching the faith. I believe our current Pope said somewhere, before his election, that the teachings presented in it are not given extra authority be being in the Catechism, but certainly it’s full of quotes from authoritative sources, like Sacred Scripture (which is divinely inspired), Fathers of the Church, later Doctors and theologians, the old Roman Catechism, and many Church documents from Popes and Ecumenical Councils. Magisterial documents like Papal encyclicals and documents of Ecumenical Councils are not inspired but generally demand our assent, and in some cases are protected by the chrism of infallibility.

I meant charism of infallibility. No, there is no magical chrism of infallibility that we pour on Papal encyclicals and documents of Ecumenical Councils to protect them.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

A few years ago the International Theological Commission published a paper expressing the position that the theory of Limbo is not necessary and we can still hope for the full salvation of unbaptized babies.

It’s important to note that, first, Limbo was never formal Catholic doctrine and I know for a fact that some Catholics expressed disbelief in Limbo before this paper came out. Second, the International Theological Commission, though connected to the Vatican, is not (currently, or at the time this paper came out) an arm of the Magisterium. It has no teaching authority in the Church, just the ordinary scholarly authority of its members. And third, even the ITC paper acknowledges that Limbo “remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.”

On the other hand presumably Pope Benedict XVI could have stopped the paper from being published and certainly from it being made available on the Vatican’s website, so the fact that he didn’t suggests he may agree with its conclusions, and even apart from his office he is a very well respected theologian.

Therefore, if a Catholic wants to continue believing in Limbo, he or she may do so, though it might be a good idea to give the ITC’s arguments consideration. Personally the theory that makes the most sense to me is that God miraculously gives babies a chance to choose or reject him immediately before their deaths and that choice determines their eternal destiny, but I’d wager fewer Catholics believe in that than Limbo. The most common two approaches I’ve seen from fellow Catholics (and I’ve done no polling and statistics, of course), especially since this paper has come out, is either to assume all babies go to heaven or simply express hope that they do and leave it at that.

Limbo, to me, always seemed illogical. If the final cause, the reason why we exist, of our being is to be with God and in Him for eternity having the Beatific Vision, anything less would be hell, even limbo. If anything, they would occupy the lowest degree of the Beatific Vision without having merited eternal rewards in heaven. Also we are called to absolutism, but not accepting that there could be exceptions to the rule and special cases is going to far. After the age of reason, yeah the rules should start being set and applied to the child but the unborn is another ballpark.

 

[JRKH]

Thanks, James, for these references from the Catechism.

You are welcome.

Thank you, Buffalo. The Catholic Encyclopedia contains a h— of a lot of information about Hell! (If my humor is beyond the pale here, I apologize in advance for offending anyone. It is, after all, a serious subject.) Pardon my ignorance, but I assume the Catholic Encyclopedia is an authoritative source but not as much so as the Catechism in these matters. Is the latter thought to be divinely inspired Church teaching?

In order to prevent any possible misunderstanding, I would not use the term “divinely inspired” for the Catechism. The reason being that some who read here may take such terminology as saying that the Catechism is on the same level as the Bible and we don’t want to get sidetracked.

As “Aelred Minor” states, the Catechism is presented as a “sure norm” of Catholic teaching. It is copiously annotated with references to other documents which themselves may have other references attached to them.
The Catechism, by it’s approval by the Church IS an authoritative source for authentic Catholic teaching.

The Church has the authority to “Bind and Loose” and we, as Catholics, need to be bound by what is in the Catechism.

Hope this helps.

Peace
James

 

[followingtheway]

However, what I’d like to find out is whether Catholics believe in this separation as a physical place or a psychological state of eternal pain and torture.

It’s an actual physical place which has of course, elements of eternal pain and torture. So practically both.

Is the pain due only to the separation from G-d or is there also actual “fire and brimstone”?

Actually according to a vision of Sister Faustina, both are punishments in Hell, but of course seperation from the Lord is the primary one. There are 6 other ones (such as “fire and brimstone”).

Is the latter more in keeping with certain Protestant beliefs about Hell?

Actually yes.