Every now and then an older post of mine lights up again with a new bevy of comments. Such is the case with a post I wrote over a year ago entitled, Is God’s Love Really Unconditional?. This sometimes happens because a link is picked up and posted somewhere and people click through. This recent bevy of comments was mostly hostile toward God and faith so I suspect that an agnostic or atheist site posted my article as an example of how naïve believers are etc. That’s OK. I am happy to be a fool for Christ.
One of the comments was rather interesting to me though, and I’d like to see what you think as well. For a little background let me print a paragraph I wrote a year ago and then give you the reader’s comment in response:
MSGR POPE: God’s love never fails. I will go so far as to say that even the souls in hell are loved by God. How could they continue to exist if He did not love them, sustain them and provide for them? God loves because God IS love and that is what Love does, it loves. We may fail to be able to experience or accept that love, and that inability may at some time become permanent for us. But God never stops loving. How could he? God does not merely have love, He IS love. And love cannot NOT LOVE for it pertains to love that it love. God has not stopped loving the souls in Hell. How could He? They surely refused to empty their arms to receive his embrace but God’s love for them has never been withdrawn. How could God not be love?
COMMENTER: Are you trolling Msgr? Where is the love in keeping you alive in hell? It is a lot better to just cease existing than suffer eternal torment. Is that his way of showing love? Let me put a good example. I will let some bad people torture you and your family for your mistakes. They will rape your children, slice them up, but since I LOVE YOU, I will keep them alive, to be tortured again. And you can multiply this example to a trillion, zillion, quantillion whatever illion times and it still doesn’t fit eternity. Do you think I love you?
God a monster? Now, the likely point of our commenter is common to a lot of atheist comments I get. Namely, that our God, the Christian God of the Bible, is a monster, that he is vengeful, punitive and hateful. The point is to make God, and the whole notion of faith, seem unreasonable and untenable, cruel and despotic, especially when squared with the far more “reasonable” and “civilized” notions of humanism.
And yet our commenter has effectively presented a conundrum that can really only be resolved by a kind of nihilism. For, if God keeps the souls in hell alive, then he is vengeful and hateful. But if he slays the wicked, then it would also seem, to most observers, that he is vengeful and hateful. So no matter what he does, God is vengeful and hateful. The only solution would seem to be a kind of nihilism in which we remove all ultimate notions of right and wrong, all notions of consequences, all notions of reward and ultimate justice. This in turn requires that we remove human freedom as well since, no matter what we did, the result would be the same.
This would seem the only way our commenter could envision a God who is not vengeful and hateful. It’s very all or nothing. Either God is vengeful and hateful or he completely removes our freedom and everything associated with it, thereby forcing one solution.
Questions to ponder – Beyond this though there are other questions to ponder, based not only on what the commenter says, but also what I have said. I want to say that I do not write these questions glibly or merely to tweak. They are not rhetorical (merely argumentative) either. What I am trying to do is take up the voice of a questioner who is authentically trying to wrestle with a difficult topic. I think many of the questions I raise have a clear answer, and propose one at the end. But I merely raise them to paint a picture of what might go through the mind of one pondering the matter. So here are some questions that might occur in terms of God and the souls in Hell:
- Is it really a sign of hate or vengeance, rather than love, that God sustains the souls in Hell?
- Does he really keep them alive merely to torment them?
- What is more loving, to sustain them or to slay them?
- Is the description of hell advanced by our commenter over the top or is it accurate? Granted, the torture of my family for “my mistakes” would be wrong since, theoretically they are innocent of my mistakes and would not be in hell.
- But what of the torture of guilty in hell? Is our commenter’s description accurate in this sense? Jesus after all, uses some pretty vivid descriptors of hell where the fire is never extinguished and the worm dies not (Mk 9:48). Where there is wailing and grinding of teeth (Matt 13:42) and where there is torment and thirst (Lk 16:24).
- Are these images of Jesus just allegory (figurative)?
- Are they Jewish hyperbole (exaggeration)?
- Or are they to be interpreted in a literalistic way?
- In other words, is Hell really this bad?
- Are the Biblical descriptions as understood literally the only way to see Hell?
- And if it is, is our commenter right that it would be better for God to slay the wicked?
- If it IS better, is God despotic and vengeful in keeping them alive in this condition?
- Is “killing the patient” ever good therapy?
- Should God just cancel the reality of hell and bring them to heaven?
- If He did, would this also cancel justice?
- If He did, would this violate the freedom and the choice of those who preferred not to live in his Kingdom?
- If it does violate their freedom, is killing them only thing left?
- Is THAT just?
In striving to resolve these sorts of questions we might start by saying that Hell is not unjust. In a way, hell has to be since God ultimately respects our freedom to choose him and his kingdom or not. That hell is eternal would seem caught up in the mystery of who we are, and that, at some point, our choice becomes forever fixed and definitive. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him….. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” (CCC #1033). Note that we “self-exclude” ourselves in some definitive way. Mysteriously, Hell is the final choice of some who finally reject God and the values of his Kingdom, such as mercy, love of the poor, chastity, worship and so forth. It is we who do this, not God who wants no one to perish but all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).
But what of the sufferings of Hell? Could God not at least turn down the temperature a bit? Our commenter has surely honed in one of the great mysteries of hell: its sufferings and why God seems content to allow it. Here too the Catechism may be of some help in sorting through the problem. While acknowledging the fiery descriptions of hell in the Scriptures, the Catechism finally states: The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs. (CCC # 1035)
Note that the chief punishment is not the fire etc., but eternal separation from God, who alone can be the true fulfillment for what we long. As fleshly creatures we tend to want to focus on fire, and worms not dying, on tormenting thirst etc. But all of that is secondary, and may well flow from the primary suffering, which is the self-imposed and adamant desire of the soul to permanently live apart from God. The fire may not be literal fire and the worms etc., may be descriptive of a kind of fiery anger, a self consuming hatred that knows no depth. The thirst may describe the longing that results from having eternally rejected the medicine of God who alone is true and living water. The gnashing of teeth may be a symbol of the anger of the souls in Hell. But all of this results from the primary suffering the self-imposed exile of the soul from God.
The vivid descriptions of hell in Scripture are surely meant to get our attention. Here too the Catechism is helpful:
The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few (Mt 7:13).” (CCC # 1036)
In the end the only ways for God to resolve the situation of hell would be to disregard the free choice of the damned and force them into his presence, or to kill them.
As for killing them, we live in strange times and in the culture of death wherein Death is an oft recommended “therapy.” Inconvenient children, unborn children with prenatal diagnosis of handicaps, the suffering and the seriously sick, are all to be “treated” by death, according to many in our culture. A strange and sick therapy indeed.
And in the end if God were to kill the souls in Hell He would be saying to them, and to us, you really only DO have one choice. Love me, choose me, or die, cease to exist. Is that really a choice? Is that really to love God if, in the end we there is only one lasting choice?
We are left ultimately with the mysterious reality of hell and can only conclude that, in the end hell has to be.
Here’s an interesting take on similar question:
Simple logic dictates that if your premise is faulty, then your conclusion is going to be as well.
And our dear commenter’s premise is not merely off by a degree or two in his or her conception of God, rather, in that caricature of God, that premise is about 180 degrees off, making the conclusion the exact opposite of what the truth is.
Agreed
Along the line of justice questions:
What is a monster doing calling any souls to heaven?
Is a hard life still more life than any one of us were ever due to receive?
If I follow the way of the cross suffering each step, is that anywhere close to repayment for the hope of eternal life offered by Him whom I follow?
“Our greatest cross is the fear of crosses.” -Cure d’Ars
All of this is well stated!
My general understanding comes from the implication of the fact that God is love.
This means that God is himself Heaven for the good and Hell for the bad.
After all God is everywhere.
A human analogy would be like: Light is ‘heaven’ for those who want to play but ‘hell’ for thieves.
The idea that God create(s/ed) Heaven or Hell need to be clarified because it is mislead.
God bless
I would like to add in case I am not clear that there is a much clear video on youtube by Fr. Barron concerning this issue :
Yes, I think you are clear. THe Video from Fr. Barron is good too. There is something of a problem with the theory I think though in that the Scriptural admonition is “Depart from Me ye accursed….” not “endure my presence ye accursed. Further, the catechism speaks of hell as a self-exclusion from God. Thus, I understand the image you are making and someone further down the comments also makes about fire. But I struggle to reconcile it with what Scripture and Tradition assert. I do not say it cannot be reconciled, only that it would tend to be a different paradigm.
The catechism speaks of hell as self-exclusion from God as you said, but if God is existence itself, then wouldn’t hell be the exclusion from existence?
God is existence, life, truth, love.
All these are one, the One living God, perfect integrity: eternal life.
We creatures are called to this perfect integrity. However, when we refuse it, we remain unholy, imperfect and do not really hold together.
Sin start with a lie and through the lie, disintegration begin. This possibility to exist without having the truth is a foretaste of Hell. Because even today God is everywhere and we are in God. We only suffer because we do not embrace the whole of God but parts of him. And this is the ‘departure’ from him even while we are in him.
So it seems that departure from God is departure from blessed integrity. We are still there but in scattered parts and therefore suffering. Jesus said that the worm will never die perhaps to point to the permanence of the state of disintegration if we die unrepentant.
Deacon Greg Kandra recently posted that God loves the Devil and *prays* for him:
http://www.patheos.com/community/deaconsbench/2011/02/20/in-the-e-mail-a-dissenting-view-of-sundays-homily/
He insinuates that we should do the same, but I feel that he is wrong on that account:
http://defend-us-in-battle.blogspot.com/2011/02/pray-for-our-enemies-but-not-devil.html
We aren’t called to love the Devil, nor pray for him are we? There really is no point for us to do so, based on a conception of love that adheres to the Catholic understanding of what love is, and its purpose, correct?
I’m certainly not an expert, just a sinful man, trying to be saint with God’s Grace… what I have read and studied from Church’s Teachings and Catechism is the following:
Hell is eternal: Rev 14, 11; 19, 3; 20, 10; Is 66, 24; Mk 9, 43.45.47
We cannot say souls or demons in hell will be “freed” at some point: Denz 211: “If anyone says or holds that the punishment of the demons and of impious men is temporary, and that it will have an end at some time, that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men, let him be anathema”
It is my understanding that in the Byzantine tradition the term “pray people/souls out of hell” was sort of common, yet it appears that hell/purgatory was not very clear explained when they meant one or the other, in result we (Catholic Church) believe that when they (Byzantine tradition) pray a sould out of hell they were referring to purgatory and not hell.
Russian Orthodox Church does pray and believe on praying souls out of hell, and then again it looks like the conception/definition of hell is different from what we (Catholics) understand.
St Gregory of Nyssa and St Isaac of Syrian talked about universal salvation, ideas that were condemned as heretical in the 5th ecumenical council.
Intercessory Prayers are needed and are “good” for souls in purgatory, people in Heaven don’t need them and for people in Hell are “useless” (they chose to be there – free will).
At then end it looks like the idea is to resemble the question of: “Can God create a squared circle?” – God is all Powerful and HE can do all things, yet He respects our free will and natural law, why? because HE loves us… in fact “… For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life…” Jn 3, 16
Shalom!
Yes, I think Jair is correct here. I suppose we could pray for the damned but I am not sure what good it would do at least insofar as their fundamental problem. Thanks Jair for a lot of information in your reply.
It is a sin to pray for the damned and demons because it rejects certain doctrines.
See the Council called by Pope Zachary in 745 AD for more info on the heresy.
Acquinas says that the faculties of angels are so very much higher beyond ours, and they are permanent. Once an angel made a choice to be good or bad, that choice was permanent. So, when the devil and his band rebelled, that choice to reject God was permanent and their destination was, as well. It is the nature of angels, how God created them, that leads to this status – it is not in their being to ever change their minds once they have decided either to follow God, or rebel. And so, prayers will do no good – they have chosen against God permanently.
Whatever “torment” there is in Hell, it is something that those who are in it do to themselves. God has much better things to do with His time than to spend it reaching down into the abyss, stoking the “fires.” (And it should be noted that Jesus uses two contradictory descriptions of Hell — hot fire vs. cold night.)
Besides, He really doesn’t have any rational reason to retaliate with tortures in that way. After all, He is all-powerful — even the most evil sins in all the world do not hurt Him one tiny bit. To say that God would be resentful and want to punish us, tit-for-tat, is to say that somehow He can be hurt by us, that we have power over Him and He is not so all-powerful after all.
No, God is too busy celebrating in joy at the wedding feast in the new shining city with all the faithful to spend His time down in Hell hurting people. Anybody whose is hurting down there is hurting themselves, especially since they are the ones who insisted on going there. God invited them to the party, but they turned Him down and decided to do their own thing instead. And since God does not cause that self-created torment, since people create that torment for themselves against His will and desire, even if He were to take away that torment, they would still find a way to recreate it for themselves.
Is the “torment” eternal? Well, what is meant by “eternal”? In Spe Salvi, Pope Benedict points out that eternity in heaven would not be an endless succession of days because even in heaven being bound to time in this fashion would itself be a torment after awhile. Rather, eternity is outside of time. It is both a singular moment, as well as perpetuity, combined. That would suggest that there would not be a consciousness of infinite days of anguish. Rather, just as Dante depicts Satan being encased in ice in the middle of Hell, perhaps the damned are frozen in that moment?
Besides, it would not be possible for things (and people) that have once existed to then never exist. If anything exists, it gets its existence by and through God. And God is eternal. Once something exists in Him, it exists eternally in some fashion through Him. To say that God could nihilize a person, to make it so that they would not exist in the future, would necessarily mean that they did not exist in the past either. And that would be a lie. God being truth, such a lie could not be.
Look, the best way to approach the issue of Hell is not to rail against God for being some mean sadistic monster. Instead, the best way to approach it is to NOT GO THERE and to convince other people NOT TO GO THERE. Don’t blame God for you making the wrong choice.
You wanted your freedom so bad — well, you got it. You are free to choose heaven or hell. But you are going to have to live (or die) with the choice you make.
Amen: NOT TO GO THERE! THanks for this Bender. Thanks too for the reminder about the deeper and truer meaning of eternal.
Once again Father, you have given me knowledge that I did not have before. Thank you so very much for these lessons. I’m sure I am one of many who is benefiting from them.
THanks for reading!
i think we cannot confuse the nature of God with the Will of God. on the nature of God, God is Love, and Love exists, eternal and infinite – everywhere, every when, even in the midst of hell, Love is there. no, Love is not merely there, Love IS. on top of that God also loves. God is Love (noun), and God loves (verb).
on the Will of God, if God so willed, He could pluck a soul out of hell. but He won’t disregard free will and the choice that was made to spend eternity separated from Him, would He?
and on the ravages of hell, well, they made their choice.
and through it all, God still loves them.
THanks I appreciate your raising the distinctions here between will and nature, being and doing, etc.
Justice is why Heaven and Hell exist, and justice is love.
Yes, ultimately justice and mercy are alike with God.
Msgr,
Thank you for a thoughtful and interesting post. As I read it, another question is raised for me. How is it that our choice for or against God can become permanently fixed at some point in time? If Hell is eternity to spend contemplating the fact that one has separated oneself from God, especially without the distractions of the temporal world to mask the pain of one’s choice, how can any soul possibly not regret their decision and wish to make a different choice? And so perhaps what the original questioner was really asking is, how could a loving God deny a soul in Hell the chance to repent and make an alternate choice (even if they would have to spend a reeeeally long time in Purgatory) to open themselves to God’s love?
I would appreciate hearing your thoughts. I am an adult convert to Catholicism and my RCIA class certainly never got into questions like these!
Sasha,
You ask an extremely good question, and one whose answer ultimately resides in the nature of the relationship between the soul and the body. The theological debate on this has been thriving since Paul, but the answer appears to be thus.
Every human soul is created specifically for a specific human body at the moment of its conception. That soul is of a different substance than the body (a spiritual, not a physical, one), and as such does not inherently possess faculties of sense (sight, hearing, touch, etc.). A soul, therefore, can only interact in the physical world in which we live through the use of the body to which it is joined. It is also the soul’s duty to live the holiest life it possibly can, exercising its capacity to act in this world through its body. The body has its own appetites, to be sure, and they necessarily influence the choices that a human person (soul+body) makes, but ultimately the praise or blame for the life a human person lives in this world will be assigned to the soul.
It follows that when the soul is separated from its body (i.e., death), it loses its capacity to interact in this world in the sorts of ways that allow it to choose to perform moral or immoral acts. Without its body, the soul’s ability to interact with other persons and creatures is nonexistent; as a result, it loses its ability to change the state of its relationship with the rest of creation; and as a result of that, the state of its relationship with God becomes frozen in the state that existed at the very last moment of the person’s life. Whatever reward or punishment the soul incurs at the moment of death is thus fixed and immutable, because the soul has forever lost its capacity to change the state of its relationship with God (i.e., there is no reincarnation, and even if there were, a soul is created for one specific human body, so whatever the soul would do in the second body would not pertain to what it did in the first – which means the same soul would be rewarded/punished twice, which is not possible).
This should be a rallying call for us all: When we die, the book of our life emphatically closes. We never know when our death will occur, so we must strive at every moment to preserve the kind of relationship with God that will result in the reward of heaven rather than the punishment of hell, since there’s no going back later.
Thanks Ross for a very interesting and illuminating explanation. However, your explanation does not address one thing – that our bodies and souls are reunited at the time of the last judgment. Doesn’t this mean that Sasha’s original question is still valid? Won’t the souls of the damned have been reunited with their bodies? Doesn’t this mean that yes, they will be able to regret their choice and consequently, wish to be given the chance to make a different choice?
I eagerly await your reply.
Recent convert to The Church. I was always under the impression that the only people who will be raised again into glorified bodies are the righteous. In other words, the judgement would occur on the souls, then those judged righteous would have their souls reunited with their bodies and the unrighteous would remain as souls and never be reunited with their bodies. Any thoughts? Clarifications?
Thanks Sasha. I would like to add, that we are also dealing with something mysterious here insofar as our decision becoming defintiive (final) at some point. In the story of the rich man and lazarus, the rich man goes to hell and is in torment. But interestingly he does not ask to come to heaven but to have Lazarus sent to Hell. Further he still fails to see Lazarus’ dignity. THus, despite acknowledging he is in a bad place, be does not seem willing or able to change. This ultimate fixity of our will is a mystery but it does seem taught to us by God. The Fathers of the Church likened the matter to clay on a potters wheel. As long as it is moist and on the wheel the shape can be cahnged. But there comes a moment when the clay enters the fire of the kiln and its shape is forever fixed. The fire is for us, judgment and our state seems to be fixed at that moment.
Msgr and Ross, thank you so much for taking the time to respond to my question. I learn so much here and am grateful for the opportunity although I must say, the more I learn the more I recognize how little I know!
There are many questions whose answers I cannot understand and this may be one of them, though the soul/body relationship as you explain it, Ross, makes sense to me. But I am okay with not understanding… I believe that God knows the source of my questions is my desire to know Him better and therefore love Him even more, and as such even my questions are pleasing to Him.
Ross, thanks for helping me understand this. I was wondering the same things as Sasha.
Msgr;
I don’t know if this is helpful but in presenting this to my students I speak of God’s love as a passionate, burning, fiery love – like the burning bush on Sinai. Everyone eventually comes into the presence of this passionate burning love. For some it is immediate bliss, for some it is a time of burning purification before entry into eternal bliss, alas for others, because of how they lived and died they experience His passionate burning love as agony.
I understand your point and have used it myself. However, I am a bit troubled by it in some ways as I said above to other comment: The problem with the theory is that the Scriptural admonition is “Depart from Me ye accursed….” not “endure my presence ye accursed” Further, the catechism speaks of hell as a self-exclusion from God. Thus, I understand the image you are making. But I struggle to reconcile it with what Scripture and Tradition assert. I do not say it cannot be reconciled, only that it would tend to be a different paradigm. It certainly is a fascinating image and one that does affirm that God is present everywhere, even in Hell.
Isaiah 26 talks about fire which purifies and energizes the righteous, while destroying the wicked. So the fire of God’s love may be the same as the “flames of hell.” So the wicked depart from Christ, but God is still present to them, though not in communion with them. What is powerful about this image is that it does not make hell into a co-eternal evil which would mean that beauty and goodness have not triumphed.
It seems like one of those debates about ” …how many angles can dance on the head of a pen…” Interesting to some but what difference does it make? How big is the universe? We don’t know and what difference does it make!
Not sure what your point is here Linus. Are you saying that this discussion should not be had? Or do you mean we are ultimtatly without an answer so lets go out and feed the poor.??
There is a question that I have been meaning to forward to some blogger on spiritual matters for some time now. Having read your post and watched the video, I am afraid you have earned that honor.
In our home we have a St. Michael holy water font which depicts the prince of the heavenly host thrusting into hell Satan (who regrettably bears the physical features of a dark-skinned man, but we’ll go there another time). As we prayed for those in need, a daughter (age 6) asked if she could pray for Satan who certainly appeared to be in need of a prayer if the depiction on the font was any indication. At the time I told her no, and I think I explained to her that Satan was an enemy who tried to hurt God and that we should only pray for the things that God wants. Since Satan wants the opposite of what God wants, we should not pray for him. I suppose my answer was sufficient for the moment, but it doesn’t completely satisfy me and I half expect and half hope it didn’t satisfy her.
In a nutshell, if Satan exists in time and has will, why could we not pray for his conversion? Strictly speaking (in the Augustinian tradition), he is not evil incarnate, there is no such thing. Evil is a corruption of what is or was good. Created good, he has exercised his will in opposition to God’s. Has his will now become fixed and immutable, beyond the point which even God’s love is unable to redeem? Is there authority for such a proposition. With humans, death serves as a sort of terminus post quem our ability to accept God’s unconditional love ceases (a statement which strikes me as almost oxymoronic). Was there some similar point in time for the deathless angels? Conversely, if Satan is now beyond the point of redemption, is it also true that the other angels are beyond the point at which they may fall?
I’m not an expert, just a sinful man, trying to be saint with God’s Grace… what I have read and studied is the following, I hope it helps:
Satan as well as all fallen angels do exist, as a spiritual beings they are not in time or matter. Spiritual beings are in a way all knowledgeable, as per God’s love, they have a “perfect” conception of what is good and bad and their decisions are forever, no regrets, no going back, no redo, no “oops”. Here again we encounter God’s immense Love, as He gave Angels free will as well – People in Heaven cannot say, “well I’m bored and got enough of this, let me change my decision”, nor can people in hell say that… as spiritual beings, when we no longer have the limitations of our bodies, “we know what’s going on” – as far as God’s ways to save people, well we know for a fact one: Jesus Christ, His Church… He is the Way, the Truth, the Bread of Life… Jn 6, 35.40 Any other way (if there’s any) is unknown to us.
You may want to read Theology for beginners by F J Sheed, he has a pretty good chapter about “spirits knowledge”
Also CCC 391-395, John Paul II Audience July 6, 1986 (you can find it here http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2angel.htm)
Shalom!
Angels in general are creatures of pure intellect.
Humans have a limited and variable intellect and often act without thinking about the consequences of their actions (or not knowing what the consequences are).
Angels on the other hand, although still limited, are far superior to humans in their intellectual existence, and every decision they take is *final*, since they are always aware of the consequences of their actions and they are steadfast in their choices and thus they will always choose without any later regret.
Hence like Angels in heaven cannot fall, Satan and his angels cannot turn good again.
The same will happen to humans after their final (or even particular) Judgment: once a person is in Heaven there he shall remain and the same for a person in hell.
I am uncertain why the superior “knowledge” of angels bears on their inability to convert or the moral gravity of their actions. Every mortal sin committed by man is necessarily “committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” CCC 1857.
A total layman here. But I think the point is that angels are totally outside of time. Being outside of time, there is no converting as there is no doing or thinking differently “down the road”, or tomorrow, because there is no down the road, there is only the state of being. If the state of being is presently holy or not holy it will always be so because now is always.
I was taught that the decisions of angels are a settled matter and that their decison for or against God is forever fixed. Further, I would concur that Angels live in eternity, not in serial time as we do. Hence, this to confirms the once for all quality of their decisions. To pray for the conversion of demon seems fruitless in this scenario. Further, no where in scripture do we see prayers for angels or demons offered or commended.
A minor point, if this discussion should come up again (as, according to William, it has done in the past), I don’t believe angels do live “totally outside of time” or “in eternity.” According by my layman’s understanding, the angels were created. The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and so can be said to be “totally outside of time.” But as for any created thing, all things visible and invisible, there had to be a “time” (or some functional equivalent for spiritual beings) when that thing did not exist. I don’t believe the angels can be said to be eternal in the same way that God is eternal, i.e. having no beginning or end.
To Bender and fegazo: I think the value of “free will” is sometimes exagerated as the answer to the questions raised by heaven and hell. None of us are “absolutely free” to choose, if you will. Nor do I believe that the will to choose is equal in all of us. Personally, I would choose redemption over the freedom any day (“Suscipe, Domine, universam meam libertatem …”). If man is at all rational, then he we would never choose damnation over salvation. Accordingly, I suspect man either not as rational, or perhaps as free, as we suppose.
Our will and freedom to choose are impaired, and to the extent that we thus cannot have full and complete knowledge and ability to judge when we make choices, to that extent there is a detraction from our freedom.
But whose fault is that?
Not God’s. God didn’t make us unfree or less than fully free. God made us totally free. It was we humans who decided we’d rather be less than fully free and, thus, impaired in making subsequent choices.
Man has the capacity to think rationally. It doesn’t follow that he will always or ever think rationally.
Thanks Bender, I would add only that I am not sure “absolute freedom” is required for us to make blameworthy decisions and thus, as you point out we have fault even for our limited freedom. Further, to crazylikeknoxes. I don’t think we have to argue that people choose hell but only that they don’t choose the kingdom. IOW they reject the values of the Kingdom such as love, forgiveness, mercy, chastity, worship of God, etc. Heaven is a place where these kingdom values are perfected. Thus, in rejecting such values here, a person is saying, in effect, they do not want what heaven is and would prefer “other arrangements” where they can remain unchaste, unforgiveing, angry and don’t have to worship God, etc. This place we call hell.
I think we all have an image of “disadvantaged youth.” They are incarcerated in large numbers. No doubt that they deserve it inasmuch as they do (very many) bad things. I also think most people recognize that the problem is not simply a matter of individuals making bad choices. Environmental factors such as broken homes, poverty, poor education, etc. turn such individual choices into statistics and reliable indicators of human behavior. Justice Clarence Thomas is said to have remarked, while observing prisoners being filed out of a courthouse, “there but for the grace of God, go I.”
That, to me, is a perfect description of the human condition. Yes, we have will and freedom and intellect and this and that. But how much does any of this really matter? I think saints are always so willing to surrender their freedom because they realize its limited worth. At the end of the day we are really just disadvantaged youth (a fallen race). There but for the grace of God, go we.
Reflectng on the reaity of Hell, I’ve come to think that it should also be considered in relation to Divine Mercy. May it not be that what we call Hell is God’s mercy to those who have deliberately and definitively refused to recognize, to acknowledge and to adore the Lord who is the author of life and the One whom to to know and to worship is joy. If one who deliberately refused to recognize, to acknowledge and to worship, to keep the commandments of the One who is the author and giver of life, whose creator does not take back his gift. Such a one, or ones, are not erased from being, but given ’space’ to live as they have chosen. Is not this the Creator’s mercy toward those who have deliberately refused him?
Yes, I think this is correct. However, it still does not explain the firey torment ascpects of hell so vividly described by God. What do we do with that? In the end I think that hell IS about God’s respect for our choice and so I agree with your fundamental point
I would think that when the world ends so will Hell.
There would be no more reason to keep it around since everyone will be one place or the other.
Many of my atheists friends feel that to not exist at all is better than suffering which is why
so many are pro-euthanasia.
They find suffering absolutely useless and non-existence very preferable.
Whether God will give them that choice when the world ends, well
God only knows!
I agree with your point on suffering. However, I am not sure on what you would base your first point about hell ending since Jesus clearly speaks of it as eternal.
Amen Father. Thank you again for your words of wisdom. Like you said, The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God.
The atheist hates God, our Heavenly Father, and wants nothing to do with Him. Yet when God gives them their heart’s desire, they wail.
Well said. Sometimes getting what we want is the worse thing!
Denying Hell denies God’s justice, which empties His goodness and mercy of any substantive meaning. For if everyone gets a free pass to Heaven as an eternal theme park, then God doesn’t really care about what we do; He’s not merciful so much as benignly indifferent. Being welcomed into Heaven isn’t merciful if Hell isn’t a real threat, just as a prize for completing a task isn’t a real reward if you got it without completing the task. On the other hand, denying God completely denies any possibility of justice for people who suffer wrongs at the hands of others, because human justice will always be imperfect just by being human. As an example, if we were to catch Osama bin-Laden, we could only hang him once, not 3,000-plus times; we could soak al-Qaida for every nickel they possess, but it would never compensate us for what we lost on Sept. 11, 2001. The atheist’s only possible response is, “Oh well; too bad.” The atheist argument against God based on the monstrous nature of Hell isn’t really humane for all its humanism.
All very well said!
I learn so much here, not just from the post but from the comments. I also wonder if someone in hell repents, if God will gather the sinner unto Himself. It’s interesting to read about angels — how everything they do is final because they know all the consequences. When I first read that in Fulton Sheen’s book, I was very glad I was made a human, so that I could grow, make mistakes and be forgiven.
All of us are creatures of God, and so we have this longing for Him, even if do not realize what it is. Separation for eternity would be hell, because the One thing you long for is out of reach forever.
No wonder Jesus’ last commandment to us is so important to follow.
By the way, what do you think of the little boy in Nebraska who has seen heaven? http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-after-neardeath-experience-boy-writes-book-heaven-is-real-20110210,0,2566980.story
I have read other similar accounts of near-death experiences. It’s strange that I’ve not come across a person who got a glimpse of hell … and came back to tell about it.
Yes, but I think Vijaya that what is taught is that in Hell no one does repent for it is not in our power to change our final decision in hell or even to want to.
Thnaks for the link, I’ll check it out!
I haven’t had a chance to read all the comments, but I would like to make sure that one point is said:
God created all of creation out of His infinite Love. He created all creation GOOD. (In Genesis…He saw that it was good…).
But love is a matter of will, not of passion.
God created us & sustains us in His Love. God does NOT send people to Hell. We are the ones who send ourselves to Hell by making choices contrary to what is Good and True. God helps us to know what is Good & True through the 10 Commandments and most specifically in the life of His Son Jesus – and His Son’s ultimate sacrifice.
Love is a choice – one that requires sacrifice. So to love God doesn’t mean that we will always get what we want or even that we will be without suffering. Instead loving God often REQUIRES us to suffer…even small daily trials…so that we may be purified and ready to obtain ever lasting beatitude when God calls us to Himself at the end of our lives.
But as Msgr. points out – if we did not have the choice to love God, then love would cease to exist (& thus God Himself would cease to exist!).
When we knowingly choose against God – we commit an offense against an infinite, eternal Being who created us out of His Love. This offense deserves eternal punishment. Think about it – as someone once explained to me – if you hit your sister, you will get a time out. If you hit the President of the US – you’re probably going to spend a lot of time in front of the FBI. The punishment is measured by the value of the one offended. When we offend an eternal, infinite Being…the punishment is eternal.
God has mercy…and we can avail ourselves of it. Now is the time for mercy…at the end will be the time for judgment.
Let’s repent now. Let’s choose God now. Let’s continue to fight against our sinfulness now. Then Hell won’t be something we need to worry about. Just don’t put off the fight against your sinfulness!! We all fall short of the glory of God, but if we try to reform – He will supply the grace.
God is truly amazing…but He is not the one sending people to Hell. We do that all by ourselves.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/02/22/canadian-family-fights-babys-beathing-tube-place/
I’m not sure if it’s appropriate to post this Father, but I wanted to bring it to your attention. It’s absolutely horrendous.
Msgr. Pope: I always read your articles whenever I find them, because they are always edifying, well written, and sometimes challenging (I don’t always like that!). May I ask whether you are acquainted with the eastern Church’s teaching about hell — that it is indeed eternal, and it is indeed torment to the wicked , but that it is in fact the fire of God’s PRESENCE, and not His absence, which torments the wicked, but which is the salvation and joy of the repentant who are being renewed in the Divine Image? Here, it seems to me, is where east and west also may converge on the question of purgatory; Pope benedict’s own stated views allign very much with those of the east on this point. At death, a soul not entirely “purged” of its idolatrous and sensuous allegiances must experience the Divine Presence as a painful reality until such attachments are “burned” away by the firey Love can never be quenched There are indeed parables which stress the idea of “separation” between the good and the evil at the end of the age, but these can be understood in light of the above stated truth: the impenitent WILL NOT SURRENDER to this divine Love that burns forever, so, like the Elder Brother, they willfully remain outside in the darkness while the Party goes on in the Father’s house.
Please forgive me, Msgr; I see from your reply to Matthew above that you are indeed acquainted with the ideas I presented. All the New Testament teaching on the afterlife is, it seems to me, presented as “pictures,” none being entirely adequate, and each needing the balance supplied by the others. Some do seem more dominant, however. I think that the consensus of the eastern Fathers on this matter is along the lines I have (poorly) described. If Christ says, “Depart from Me,” it must be to those who want no part of Him. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, in the end there are only two options: those who say to Christ, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom Christ says “Thy will be done.” May God grant us aportion with the former, and save us from the lot of the latter!
Vijaya raises the point of the boy who had a near-death experience and went to “heaven”. I read this account and my reaction was that the boy did not experience heaven but somewhere else. Why did I come to this conclusion? Well, the boy did not face Jesus when he died and so he was not judged. If he had been judged then he would not have come back on this earth but would now be (possibly) in the bliss of heaven from which he would certainly not have wanted to leave. So where did he go then. It was a pleasant place and the people there were happy but they were not in the presence of God. Now where did all the just who died before Christ go? Where did Lazarus go when he died the first time? He certainly did not go to heaven because heaven was closed to all before Jesus underwent his suffering, death and resurrection.
Now of course you must be getting my drift. I am a firm believer in Limbo. As my penny catechism which I learned as a child at school, “Limbo is a place where the souls of the just, who died before Christ, were detained”. I strongly suspect that the boy who had this near-death experience, visited Limbo and there he met up with his sister whom he near ever had heard about because she died before being born. And there we come upon those words spoken by Jesus “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.” And, of course, I do know about baptism by desire and baptism by blood, but the normal baptism is baptism by water and the Holy Spirit.
Interesting. I like this idea very much. Then limbo would be the same as Sheol that is mentioned numerous times in the Old Testament? It would be the place for good Hindus and Muslims after they die and I suppose they get to chance to accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.
But several things are bothersome and please excuse me because I’m not trying to be argumentative but trying to understand. I wouldn’t think a little boy would be judged. I also don’t like the idea that a baby who dies in the womb would be stuck in limbo. Because even if it’s a pleasant place to be, it is devoid of God, and that is what we all long for (and I’d think that God would want all his creations to be with Him too, esp. the innocent babies). And why would Grandpa be in limbo? This is a Christian family so you’d think he’d be baptized and go to heaven via purgatory.
I’d expect both Grandpa and the baby to be in heaven, esp. since there is baptism by desire and blood.
I must also add another comment following on Vijaya’s claim that no one has been to hell and come back to speak about it. We have the word of St. Faustina that she visited hell and purgatory. Her description of hell says that there is an awful stench there, there is no light and yet all there are aware of each other and also aware of Satan himself. None of the damned are capable of love and are consumed with hatred.
We also are told that the three children of Fatima were shown hell by Our Lady and it utterly frightened them.
Oh, good point John. I forgot about the the three children of Fatima.
Saint Therese of Lisieux is said to have had a vision of Hell
A good post this is. Perhaps the commentor might then ask: “Well, if God is all good and all knowing, why did He then create beings that would not love Him, do evil to others on this earth, cause suffering to others then suffer immeasurably for eternity — why didn’t He just create all good?” If you haven’t written on that I, for one, would be immensely appreciative if you would.
My simple answer is: We’d be like robots if we were programmed to do God’s bidding. Only love that is given freely counts. And God made us free — to love and obey Him or hate Him.
The Book of Wisdom says that God does not hate his creatures. Otherwise He would not have created them. God made us in His image and predestined us to be with Him in heaven for all eternity. Being made in God’s image includes (a) having free will (as free as it is possible for non-divine beings), (b) having the capacity to accept or reject God’s predestination for us, and (c) never ceasing to exist once we come into being. Hence it seems to me that endless existence, even with the torments of hell, must still be more in line with being in God’s image than a merely temporary existence.
I have done a bit of thinking about this, so here I come again.
The basic question underlying this post is “What is the love of God like?”.
It seems to me that there are two answers behind the replies given and they depend upon whether you think that God is an emotional being who doesn’t, or shouldn’t, stick to what He says. The other reply is that God is truly a loving God, but He is not an emotional old fool who doesn’t mean what He says.
The proof of the love of God is that He created you, and He offers you true bliss in heaven, and He is so loving that He actually gave His life for you. But…..there are conditions! You must respond by keeping His commandments. If you don’t keep His commandments then there are penalties and God cannot, simply cannot, impose penalties and not mean them. He does not change His mind. He cannot change His mind. The love poured out by God is massive but if you reject that love then the consequences are terrible. He is a God of justice and justice demands that the consequences of rejecting God’s love must be imposed even if He doesn’t want to impose them.
Very good article and comments. But here’s the thing that never ceases to amaze me: it’s nothing new (take that as a compliment, as C.S. Lewis would). The logic of the points you’ve made have been common in the Church for a long time. Yet, the same arguments (such as those of your commentor) arise, they are also: nothing new. What is it about the human mind that we keep getting presented with clear, rational, logical wisdom, yet manage to keep not hearing it ? I read discussions like this when I was in high school and they are still here 40 years later. The Church keeps presenting clear thought and it keeps going in one ear and out the other.
But William, some of us are very new to the Church and do not know all Her treasures so it is very helpful for us to have these discussions.
There is no question or doubt about God’s Love.
The Truth is, people in hell, as I understand it, rejects the Love of God.
Thus, the question, why would beings and persons refuse the Love of God.
The problem is, God said you will die, while the devil said you will surely not die (see Genisis 3). The (Christian) Bible teaches the resurrection. Until such time, people are asleep in their graves. See for example the end of the book of Daniel where God told him to go to sleep and he will be waked at the end of time (or the end of the world). Catholic teachings say that the sole lives for ever, but it cannot be found in the Bible. now think about this, who else said you will surely not die?? The problem is not with the Bible, the only Truth that man can trust. The problem is with institutional traditions that are not in line with the Bible. There is nobody in hell at the moment. They are all in their graves and will wake up at the end of the Millenium in Revelation 20. They will then be distroyed together with the devil, the beast and the false prophet (see Rev 13). all evel will be done away with for ever. GOD IS LOVE. Man lies about it and we believe man above GOD. Get out of Babilon, all you believers in hell as a place of permanent torment.
It is interesting to me that you, while claiming to adhere soley to the Scriptures, then depart from them. For Jesus does clearly say that hell is eternal referring to it as a place of everlasting flames, (eg Matt 25:41). Further, as to your point that the dead are merely asleep, John, in the Book of revelation is taken up in heaven as beholds the heavenly realities (cf Rev 4ff) and there he sees the saints, not asleep in some grave, but very much awake and praising the Lord, singing hymns, casting crowns, falling down in worship, seated on thrones, etc. All of these activities and more pertain to people who are awake, not comatose. Further, there are many of them 144,000 and a further multitude beyond number. There are many other passages but for now let this suffice. Back to the Bible my friend, and while you’re at it you might explore also the Tradition from which the Bible came forth. The book didn’t fall out of the sky, it came from God but through the Church.
Monsignor Charles Pope,
I have thought about this topic a bit and I would like to share a bit, but the reader must read the entirety of this before drawing any conclusions because it may seem a bit odd at first.
I wonder if the love of God is what is commonly understood as the “fires of Hell.” The reason for thinking this is circular. In Saint John of the Cross we read about the Living Flame of Love, which is the love of God. The love of God is a fire that purifies so that it may draw all things to the Pure One. It is also of such an intensity that ones heart ‘burns’ within oneself of desire for an even deeper realization of God’s love. We also read that the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles in “tongues of fire.” This brief understanding of God’s love being likened to fire probably calls to mind many other examples; however, I believe it is sufficient to look at the reverse now. We can never be truly separated from God because God is existence and the reverse of existence is non-existence; therefore, not even the souls in Hell can be separated from God. This is where I wonder if the pain of Hell is the same fire as the fire of God’s love (key word wonder – I am not saying that it is). The souls, while on earth, were given a free choice to love God or deny God. They freely chose to deny God, which is the same as freely choosing to go to Hell. Since Hell is not a complete separation from God there has to be knowledge of what is denied. Seeing more completely the truth of the love of God and knowing that it was a personal decision to deny the perfection of this love must be excruciating. It is not God that tortures the soul, rather it is the soul that tortures itself. The soul sees, though not in the same way of seeing as the Beatific Vision, the perfection of that which it denied and has some knowledge of it. This knowledge of God’s love then burns as much as it would otherwise because God cannot deny who He is, only now it is excruciating because the soul is not willing to accept God’s love. It is the soul that keeps itself locked there because the soul is not willing to forgive itself for having denied such a glorious love. It is like a child that gets mad at a party and runs to the corner. The parents tell the child to rejoin the party, but the child is upset and will not rejoin the party; therefore, it is not the parents that keep the child away from the party, rather it is the child himself or herself. The parents do not want the child to sit in the corner alone so they keep inviting the child to rejoin the party but the child continues to refuse to leave the corner. The parents leave the child in the corner because they do not want to force the child to rejoin the party, rather they want the child to freely choose to rejoin the party. We are children of God and God is always inviting us to join Him while on this earth, we are the ones that choose to join Him or to not join Him. The question is, are we going to choose to join the Wedding Banquet of the Lamb (the ‘party’) or are we going to choose to sit in the corner. God’s love never stops burning within us, the only difference is how it burns within us.
I hope this helps, but I think it will take a far greater mind than mine to figure it out. Furthermore, this is only a brief explanation of my thoughts so if you want me to expand on it please let me know. It is a thought process that has taken years to develop and it has come by way of my own stupidity, suffering and prayer life.
Fr. John Hardon, the brilliant and faithful theologian (RIP) was on Mother Angelica LIVE show and a caller asked if God loves those in hell. Without a pause, Fr. Hardon answered, “He loves them with His Justice!”
God loves souls in Hell-for in rejecting a relationship with Him by mortal sin and in unwillingness to repent, upon death, God loves the soul so as to grant to it permanently that which it sought in life: a state apart from God in Hell.
I’m not sure that ‘Ask and you shall receive’ comes out of its Scriptural context if applied to this reasoning, but it did at least come to mind.
Many thanks for your helpful blogs, Msgr. Pope.
I’m hoping you can share more about the elect and how Jesus states that no one comes to the Father except through Him. How do we understand “the elect” alongside our free will and mandate to evangelize? Yesterday, I spent some time with Lumen Gentium and specifically section 16 about non-Christians attaining to salvation, and my Reformed Presbyterian friend found this to be a stumbling block, in spite of her agreement with much of Catholic teaching. Thank you for your feedback, Msgr. I simply love your blog and appreciate everything you have to say.
Sin began with Lucifer. Go from there..