I noticed Bryan Cross weighed in on the Is Hell Empty issue. Glad to see it. I have a lot of respect for Brian. As normal he makes the point better than I did. I did want to reflect on one related question. Suppose we are hoping hell is empty. What are we hoping for? What would a world in which this hope was realized look like? People don't get this. That they are not hoping that God lowers the admission price of heaven. That when Rev 21:27 says, "Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful" that God will reconsider that and say why don't we just let everyone in? That might be what some universalists suggest but it is not what von Balthazar is discussing. What he is hoping for is that God changes hearts. That is a good thing to hope for.
Suppose it happened. Suppose God transformed every heart on the planet so that they were all in a state of grace. What would the world be like if that were the case? It would look like heaven. We would have on earth exactly those who would go to heaven. What would be the difference? Ignorance and freedom. People might do gravely evil things if they were invincibly ignorant of the fact that they were evil or if they were somehow unable to avoid the evil. Where would ignorance come from? Where would the lack of freedom come from? It would come from false teaching and the abuse of power. But even these false teachers can't be culpable for their evil so they must themselves be ignorant or under some sort of compulsion. It becomes like a Nazi chain of command where everyone is following orders and nobody is responsible. But somewhere it seems ignorance and/or compulsion must have a source.
But more than a source, ignorance must also have a purpose. Having a world where people can exercise free will and make clear whether or not their heart is inclined towards the things of God makes sense. Having a world where people do evil simply because they lack the information even in their conscience to know what is good or evil makes less sense. If the heart of man is not the problem but simply ignorance of what is truly good then it becomes very confusing why God does not just fix that problem. He has given us the bible and the church and a conscience but if ignorance is still so deep that good people continue to do gravely evil things all the time then it seems God has not given us enough. We simply don't have enough information to allow our conduct to reflect our character.
It seems that the only way to process the idea that hell is empty is to get rid of the notion that certain common acts are gravely evil. That is where non-Catholic universalists go. They say not attending mass or using contraception or indulging in pornography and masturbation etc. that these things are not really that bad and that you don't need to suppose any deep ignorance on the part of people who do these things. But trying to fit universalism within Catholic orthodoxy you have to assert widespread and deep and long term ignorance of even basic morality. What is does is create a world where nobody is culpable for anything. It does not stand up to scrutiny.
Wow, Brian's comment was comprehensive and trenchant. I think I agree with every conclusion he makes.
ReplyDeleteI would add, however, that he didn't really touch upon interpreting Jesus' hellish admonitions not as prophecies destined to happen but as warnings of what would happen if nothing changed. And some, namely the Cross, did change things.
I'm not completely advocating for that type of interpretation, but Pope Benedict XVI used it to interpret the Fatima visions, and I think it can be legitimately used here as well.
But I still lean toward Cross' interpreation of things.
PS. Did I mention that he's absolutely brilliant?
Yes, Cross is a joy to read.
ReplyDeleteI would add, however, that he didn't really touch upon interpreting Jesus' hellish admonitions not as prophecies destined to happen but as warnings of what would happen if nothing changed. And some, namely the Cross, did change things.
Not sure how this makes any sense. Are you saying Jesus is not talking about the New Testament reality? Then why are His words in the New Testament? How many more of His sayings can we dismiss because things changed with the cross?
I'm not completely advocating for that type of interpretation, but Pope Benedict XVI used it to interpret the Fatima visions, and I think it can be legitimately used here as well.
Fatima is a vision. We don't base dogmas on visions. Not sure what statement by Pope Benedict you are referring to but it seems wrong to use a comment by a pope on a vision and make it an exegetical principle for scripture especially when the scripture in question is not a vision.
I'm proposing the possibility that, when talking about Hell, Jesus was operating in the same mode as he was in Matthew 19.
ReplyDeleteThere he seems to paint a picture of few being saved. When his disciples question him, he explains that though his words seem to say that's the case, with God all things are impossible (i.e. much more than a few will be saved.)
As for the Pope's statement, I'm referring to his theological commentary on the 'Third Secret' of Fatima (which he made while while he was Prefect Ratzinger.) In the vision of the third secret, the papal figure is clearly murdered. But both Ratzinger and JPII see that vision fulfilled in the assassination attempt on JPII. The problem, though, is that JPII didn't die, as in the vision. He survived. So what gives?
Ratzinger explains just what I did, that it was a vision of what *would* happen if people didn't pray, repent, convert and if God didn't intervene. But all those things happened, so the result was different.
I'm not advocating that the same interpretive mentality should be used in the case of Jesus' words on hell, merely suggesting it as an argument that hasn't really been dealt with.
Like the Fatima vision of a dying Pope, why can't Jesus, in his humanity, speak of hell as a reality that will come to pass *unless* something changes or unless there is outside intervention? But since Jesus seems to suggest in Matthew 19 that God will intervene--"for God all things are possible"--the universalist (i.e. not me) could argue that God would also intervene in the case of hell.
I know all of this is huge speculation, and I want to again affirm I'm not advocating it--in fact I don't think it's true--but I am searching for a solid response and I didn't find that specifically in Bryan's post.
I actually studied Matt 19 last night at the Jail. We are working through Fr Barron's DVD on conversions. Anyway, I don't see your point there. The disciples are amazed that Jesus was so tough on the rich young ruler. Jesus saying you can't just follow the ten commandments. You need to give yourself completely in love and follow Him. That is not possible without grace but with God it is possible.
ReplyDeleteI don't see it at all parallel to Jesus saying in Mt 7:21, "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven" and we interpret it as meaning "everyone will enter the Kingdom of heaven."
The Fatima thing does not sound parallel either. A vision of something is not a firm statement that it will happen. Was the vision accompanied by such a statement?
Fatima is different in that it is a one time event. If people take the warning seriously then the event warned about does not happen. The warnings about hell are different. If nobody is going to hell then there is no need to take them seriously.
The universalist is not saying "hell is a reality that will come to pass *unless* something changes." That is the orthodox position. The universalist says hell will never come to pass. Jesus is warning us of a non-danger. Like a parent who threatens to punish a child but will never do it.
"The universalist is not saying "hell is a reality that will come to pass *unless* something changes." That is the orthodox position. The universalist says hell will never come to pass. Jesus is warning us of a non-danger. Like a parent who threatens to punish a child but will never do it."
ReplyDeleteBut that's precisely why I have, for the most part, aligned myself with the Barron/Balthasar position of "hope."
Universalists definitively claim, with assurance, that nobody will end up in hell. The Barron/Balthasar take is that we aren't sure if there are few people in hell--or if there are many!--but we *hope* nobody ends up there.
I think my position is the one you described as orthodox--"hell is a reality that will come to pass *unless* something changes"--only I would add to that "...and I hope it does."
Instead of saying "..and I hope it does" the staunch Calvinist would say "...yet I know it won't" while the universalist would say "...and I know it will."
PS. Barron's "Conversion DVD" is phenomenal. If you get a chance, check out his book "The Strangest Way" which cover similar ground.
Balthazar calls the chance that anyone ends up in hell "infinitely improbable" in the quote Bryan Cross highlights. So I wonder if there is any gap at all between him and the universalists. Certainly he tries to create a gap by using the language of hope. I just don't think he succeeds. We cannot hope heresy is true. God does what is best. If Jesus says many will choose hell then many will choose hell.
ReplyDeleteOne sure way to increase the population of hell is to have them read Balthazar's book. Telling somebody that it is "infinitely improbable" that they will end up in hell is a recipe for sloth. Think about history. Cultures where people were truly afraid of hell were cultures that had way less mortal sin than we do. That is the way to heaven. To actually pursue holiness. Not to embrace liberal theology.