Catholic Hell

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Hello!
Unfortunately, I couldn’t figure out how to reply on the SDSTAFF reply to the thread “Who Invented Hell?” http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhell.html but I was able to figure out how to post a new message. Sorry for my technoignorace!

Just a few comments from the Catholic perspective on the topic of Hell, relevant to certain passages from the SDSTAFF reply . . .

“Theologians and philosophers debate whether Hell is a physical place or a state of mind, and, if a real place, whether souls really burn for eternity or are consumed
by the flames.”

Catholic theology does not actually debate this point. We understand the “state” of both heaven and hell to be the same. At present, it is a spiritual “state of being.” However, these are temporary states of being. We believe that after the end of the entire world as we know it, – “The Second Coming, The Perusia, The Last Judgment, The Rapture” or whatever terms one uses – body and soul are reunited and we enter a physical state again. In the case of the good, that means a perfected, glorified body in a perfected, glorified world, resulting in eternal physical, personal, moral, emotional, spiritual and psychological ecstasy. For the evil, the result is the same, in the negative sense of complete torture, in a non-consuming way. This belief originates from Revelation and the Gospels, particularly where Jesus describes the final judgment scene, and the resurrection of ALL the dead. At that time, he describes a last judgment where The King shall separate the good from the evil as a shepherd separates sheep from the goats, etc. etc. The goats will go off to eternal death and the sheep to eternal life. “Eternal Death” sounds a bit oxymoronic, but life without God, separated from God is called “death.” So, in essence, Hell is eternal separation from God and all that IS God and godly.

Some say the Bible’s references to “eternal destruction” and “the second death” mean a person’s soul is destroyed rather than tortured."

Catholic theology does not uphold this theory since all references in Scripture refer to man as immortal. We do not believe that the soul has an end, no matter how good or how evil. We believe the soul of each one, once brought into being by God, will never die. When we use the term “die” in reference to the soul, as I stated above, it refers to separation from God, not the destruction of the soul.

“How can Christians possibly project a deity of such cruelty and vindictiveness” that He would visit
“everlasting torture upon his creatures?”

While it is true that some Christian sects do believe in Hell as God’s vindication, this is not Catholic theology at all. We do not, under any circumstances, entertain any notion of a vindictive God. We do not believe in a God that has a bad day and randomly decides to damn this one or that one. Neither do we believe that one is held responsible for genuine lack of knowledge. We believe strongly, in a sense, that each person writes his or her own judgment. Before landing in a state of eternal separation from God, Hell, we must have already made that a reality in this life. How does that happen? That happens by sin, genuine sin, which we call “mortal sin” because it is mortal, deadly to the life of God within the soul. Mortal sin is incurred when, in the face of grave moral matter, one chooses, with UNDERSTANDING and WILLFULNESS to reject God’s commands. In other words, one can only sin if one KNOWS that one is committing a sin. Again, no vindictiveness here . . . we don’t believe in a God that is going to call us to judgment, and reveal to us all sorts of things we did wrong while never knowing that we were doing wrong. Many, if not most, people do commit mortal sin at one time or another. However, most come to their senses at some point and seek to reconcile themselves and renew their solidarity with God and His teachings. This happens through the Sacrament of Penance (Confession) or, in the case of a dying person, Anointing of the Sick (“The Last Rites”) or in that last moment when a deep cry from the soul begs mercy and forgiveness before the persons finally expires.
The only way to Hell is to persist in this state of separation from God in this life all the way up to and including the last moment. In this case, one has freely, knowingly and willingly rejected God. When facing the first, personal judgment, then, God simply pronounces for eternity the eternity we have already chosen which is separation from God forever, which we call Hell.
Rather than a moment of vindication for God, we believe it is a time of great sorrow for God, that it tears Him apart and deepens the wounds incurred at the Crucifixion. Rather than gloat, He chooses to continue to show us that He respects the freedom of will with which He created us even more than we do. He allows us to choose freely, granting full pardon and mercy upon those who never had a chance to know Him in this life or do not have the capability of full understanding of their actions, for whatever reason. He respects our choices.
Any time someone does go to Hell, it is a time of great sorrow, indeed, for the entire Church when we must look at one another and ask what we perhaps did NOT do to see to it that this person converted from their rejecting ways and returned to God.
Again, not a matter of God “visiting everlasting torture” upon a soul, but rather a soul choosing to take it appropriate place for eternity with all the others who have made the same choice.
Finally, for those who question or even deny the notion of Hell, yet believe in Heaven . . . logic simply cannot bear such a notion. If there is nothing to be lost, then there is nothing to be gained. If all people are automatically going to heaven, then there is no need for this life at all. What possible purpose does it serve? To understand the notion of heaven, we only have St. Paul’s words . . . “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, not has it so much as dawned on the mind of man what God has prepared for those who love Him.” In other words, our minds are even capable of touching on a fantasy that is anywhere near what heaven is. Therefore, our greatest moments in life in this world will be absolutely nothing compared to heaven. So if there is no risk of Hell, no choice to make, and Heaven is automatic, then the fact that God creates us into this world first, “just 'cuz,” with it pleasures, but plenty of pains, sorrows, worries and woes as well . . . to me, THAT is the image of a horrible and genuinely nasty and vindictive God.

Thanks for your time!

2

Posting here is a good way to get the SDStaff’s attention.

My Catholic Hell was experienced in parochial grade school, but your mileage may vary.

3

Hi ndps, welcome to Straight Dope, thanks for sharing.

You quote from the staff report the comment that “Theologians and philosophers” debate about the nature of hell. Then you comment that Catholic theology does not debate this point.

It may be true that current Catholic theology does not debate the point and puts forward the beliefs you describe. That certainly fits with what I’ve read about the Pope’s most recent comments on the matter. However, that does not preclude that Catholic theologians in the past have heavily debated the topic, nor does it preclude other christian theologians and philosophers debating the matter.

As to the details you describe, beliefs about the nature of the afterlife and heaven and hell are as varied as the people who hold them. I fancy that even within the hoards of catholics there are a few that disagree with you.

All of which is beyond the scope of the article, which was “where did the notion of hell come from?” (paraphrased).

4

As I said, or perhaps should have said more clearly, I have offered the Catholic doctrinal perspective. That is all, and it is all I am qualified to offer.

– Fr. L.

5

Thanks, ndps. There is still a problem with this theology in my humble opinion. Basically, some might reach the conclusion that not working to discover an understanding of what is right and wrong is a valid workaround to avoid the punishments of hell. After all, you would not “understand” your failings were you to avoid such knowledge.

We had a thread on this recently in another part of the board here.

Any feedback you could offer would be appreciated if you are still around.

ciao,
Joel

6

Cute, but not very strong.

The fact is, pretty much everybody knows there’s a difference between right and wrong. Those who don’t, we call “infants” or “psychopaths” (or, sometimes, “Republicans”).

Catholicism does not require the ordinary Joe to be a full-blown moral philosopher. But it does require him to be responsible, and if he still hits a problem that’s too tough for him, to listen to the advice of those who are trained in the matter – i.e., the clergy. Simply closing ones eyes to moral question is every bit as evil as closing ones eyes to a mugging taking place across the street.

7

Both Mr. Mullaney and Mr. Kennedy have excellent points. I am really enjoying this Straigh Dope board so far. As a parish priest – it’s unfortuante to say, I suppose – we don’t often get a chance to go as deeply into things as we’d like, or as I would like. After all, 8 years of undergrad and graduate work to prepare for the priesthood was study I chose because I actually LIKE it, so I also LIKE to share it and talk about it AND be forced to think further. So . . . thanks for the opportunity!

Mr. Mullaney’s point: “Basically, some might reach the conclusion that not working to discover an understanding of what is right and wrong is a valid workaround to avoid the punishments of hell. After all, you would not “understand” your failings were you to avoid such knowledge.”

This was actually experienced in a HUGE way and a very formal way just about from the beginnings of the Church. Many groups used this trian of thought to one extent or another. All of them eventually were deemed to be heretical teachings. The thought was, just as you said, “Since I can’t be held accountable for what I don’t know, let me keep my accountability low by making sure I know as little as possible.” Makes sense, doesn’t it?!?!? But enter Mr. Kennedy’s key word . . . “responsibility.”

(I use the term “ignorance” not as any sort of insult, but rather in its literal sense of “not knowing” or “not being aware” of something). It’s definitely true that ignorance of what is required of me dismisses me from the consequences associated with that knowledge. But personal responbsibility requires that I learn about what is required of me. I think we can agree that this applies not only for one’s religious life, but for all aspects of life. Purposely choosing to avoid knowledge that pertains to one’s self moves from innocent “ignorance” into “culpable ignorance.” In other words, we go from the very neutral no-fault status of “I don’t know” to a personally controlable condition of, “I don’t know and it’s MY fault that I don’t know.”

Who can argue that one of the biggest responsibilities in life is having children? It certainly is one of the greatest gifts on earth, but the greater the gift, the greater the responsibility, as well. We presume that when someone becomes pregnant, the couple is going to seek competent medical advisors who will prepare them to live in such a way that they will have a healthy child and healthy parents when the day of birth arrives. Likewise, we expect they will discover how to feed, nurture and change diapers; how to wrap the baby on a cold day, dangers to be avoided, etc. etc. If the parents purposely avoid learning these things, there could be very dangerous consequences for all involved. When these consequences ofccur, we would hold the parents responsible due to culpable ignorance . . . the fact that they had to consciously choose to avoid this knowledge to be ignorant of it.

In such a case of civil law, we know that ignorance doesn’t get you too many excuses. And culpable ignorance may get you into even more trouble than just plain irresponsibility, if not put into psychological treatment.

But in the moral “courts,” and pertaining to final judgment and the notion of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell, the judgment is different, thankfully. Plain old no-fault ignorance will get you everywhere. Again, you will not be held accountable for what you do not know. In the case of culpable ignorance, you will still not be judged for what you do not know. Why? Because regardless of whose fault it is, the fact remains that you still do not know, correct? However, you WILL be held responsible for the fact that you have directly chosen not to know. So, again, you would not be judged on what you don’t know, but you would be judged as being extremely irresponsible.

That’s all easy enough, at least in my mind. The trouble comes in when we ask the question, “In todays society, considering your average garden-variety Joe American, WHO is ignorant and who is culpably ignorant?” Good question. Today, information is at our fingertips. Obtaining information for the average person is a walk to the library or a mouse-click, or a phone call away. But at the same time, we have to realize the fact that there is a lot of anti-(fill in your religion of choice here) propaganda, which may reach people before the facts actually reach people. These negativities may well turn people away from delving further.

While that part may be fun to think about in philosophical terms, we have an “out.” Thankfully, the only One who knows the answer to that question for each individual is God, and only He pronounces the final judgment. And good thing, too. Because we’d never be able to figure that one out on our own. :smiley:

Mr. Kennedy, your second point is refreshing and well-taken and coming from one of “those” people “trained in the matter,” I can’t thank you enough for making your point clear. Sunday evening, I gathered out High School religious education students together to address them all. I am happy to say that they were VERY attentive throughout. I explained to them your very point: You are NOT left alone to struggle to answer your questions. The clergy of the Church (or the leadership at your place of work, etc etc) are trained to do exactly that. We tahnked God together for all the professions in this world . . . for computer programmers and auto mechanics, for electricians and artists, for mailmen and architects, and everyone. I gave them the example of asking the mailman for advice on what to do about a filling that fell out, or asking your chiropractor for advice on why your transmission is slipping. Trying to explain that there is expertise in all professions. Each profession has its personnel and tools, but those personnel and tool are meant for specific purposes. Automotive tools save ,illions of people every day. But they are not very useful for filling a tooth cavity. Likewise, why would anyone think of turning to the secular press, or (grrrrrrr!) their politicians, or the lady next door for answers to their questions regarding their religion? You approach the personnel who are proper to your needs, with the right training and tools for the job. And when it comes to religion, that is your priest/minister/rabbi/iman. Sometimes, we in ministry feel both undermined and wasted because it appears that many find it perfectly natural to turn to “other” sources for their religious information and even sometimes for their spiritual direction. But that’s just a personal note, speak from “my side of the altar.” :slight_smile: Just affirming WHY I appreciate Mr. Kennedy’s remark about clergy and training. I suffer inside when I think of people who struggle with questions on their own when a phone call or a short drive or an e-mail could help so much to relieve them or at least direct or refer them.

Just my $.02 for the day which has taken much more thime than it should have! hahahaha

AGAIN, sincere thanks for the thoughful remarks. I enjoy them!

– Fr. J.L.

8

wow. this is really cool. i’m the guy who sent in that hell question and CKDextHavn just sent me the message about it. i don’t really have anything to add, but i just wanted to say this is really cool and thanks to all who have contributed. sorry for the dumb newbie post, but i just had to say that this is great.

Jon from Denver :slight_smile:

9

Dude! I feel the same way! Cool, isn’t it? Sometimes you start to think that there aren’t THINKING people out there anymore. Really refreshing to know that there are, and to discuss something without name-calling!!! :smiley:

– Fr. L.