Of course some preach about hell. But I think it is obvious that fewer do now than in the past when hell was a central preoccupation of preaching. Preaching is in large part a form of social marketing: by communication, behaviour is changed in large groups. Social marketers will tell us that any social marketing message has to be believable and credible to the audience (irrespective of whether it is true). The fact is that the idea of hell developed in societies in which rulers had absolute power and were vicious in their use of punishment. It seems credible that the most powerful being in the world would be similar to those who rejected his rule. He had infinite power, therefore his punishments would be infinite. The rise of democracies and their constant improvement in tolerance and freedom shows people a different model. There is no longer acceptances that an all powerful ruler would act in such a way. The ruler would, like his subjects, be bound by the law and by the virtues of tolerance, respect, moderation and forgiveness even of those who persist in their rejection of his norms. The idea of hell is therefore rejected. Our cultures have moved past such beliefs. Priests can attract a small congregation of those willing to continue to accept such beliefs, but they cannot mass-market this idea. The potential market is shrinking. The priest will lose credibility by continuing to push it. So they preach on hell less and less. A group of bishops who decide to do an SSPX on the other end of the spectrum and openly reject the traditional concept of hell will find people flocking to them.