In a recent book David Bentley Hart mounts a powerful argument that a loving God cannot possibly tolerate an eternal hell. My theologian son found it to be persuasive. I will not read it; I am not bright enough to handle his argument. He may be the smartest living Christian theologian; actually, a little too smart. Eastern Orthodox, not Roman Catholic, he defers to no authority other than his own reading of scripture and the fathers. Lots of intellect; but not much humility or obedience! This is not the "kneeling theology" of Balthasar! He is an outright universalist in his bold denial of hell. We Catholics rejected that view milennia ago.
More pertinent for us, Bishop Barron by endorsing Balthasar's more moderate and Catholically correct suggestion that we "dare hope" for the salvation of all (granting the existence of hell, but hoping it is unpopulated) has provoked a fierce reaction from traditionalists as well as charismatic Ralph Martin.
I have strong sympathies with the "dare to hope" view which is uninhibited in its proclamation of the vast superiority of God's mercy to our sinfulness. Balthasar said (as I recall): "It is infinitely improbable that man's finite freedom, in the face of God's Mercy, would choose hell." As I consider that statement, I find it problematic. It does glorify God's mercy, but it minimizes the gravity of our freedom in a way disconsonant with Catholic tradition, especially about responsibility, merit, reward and retribution. Ralph Martin is on to something: I would place myself halfway between Barron and Martin on this one.
Martin (in Will All Be Saved?appreciatively quotes Balthasar on the dual streams throughout scripture: one that God wills the salvation of all and the other that we are responsible for our Yes or No and we can destroy ourselves by rejecting God. Agreeing that the two must be kept in tension, Martin finds that Balthasar (and Barron and company) have effectively collapsed the second stream and inflated the first. Martin is right, for a number of reasons.
The "dare to hope" school emphasizes that Jesus fierce statements about hell are exhortatory rather than predictive. This is true of course: Jesus purpose is to move us to repent and avoid hell. But if they are entirely emptied of any predictive substance, they risk becoming empty threats. Imagine the child, warned by Mom that there will be no ice cream if he doesn't eat any veggies or meat! If he is confident that she will be merciful and invested in the nutritional value of the ice cream he will dismiss the threat as impotent. Padre Pio, told by someone that he didn't believe in hell responded "You will when you get there." Perhaps a Pascalesque wager is appropriate. Since we don't really know if hell is populated, we need to make a calculated gamble: do we gain or lose more in leaning into which direction? The safter wager is to assume a populated hell and let that motivate us. It seems prudent to leave the traditional architecture of the last things in place.
As in almost all things theological, we do best to go to John Paul and Benedict, both huge admirers of Balthasar. On this specific issue, the population of hell, they clearly take a different, more traditional positon. In Crossing the Threshold of Hope John Paul mentions Balthasar's "dare to hope" viewpoint but responds in the traditional vein that justice requires a proportionate consequence to deep evil. In a catechesis in 1999, John Paul clearly stated that hell is a state of life (not a physical place) which we can choose by our freedom. He restates the doctrine that hell is already populated by demons. He conspicuosly does not "dare to hope" for the salvation of all. He sees it as a final, eternal state, not temporary or transitional.He strongly states that it is a possibiltity for all of us. He acknowledges that hell is a Mystery, that we cannot rationally explain it in light of a loving God, but he takes the many gospel warnings, from Jesus, at their word: there is a hell and it is populated and we are all in danger and it is forever. The tension...between Mercy and our responsibility...is clearly upheld; neither pole is vitiated.
Likewise Pope Benedict in a conversation with German priests was asked about the disappearance of hell, purgatory and heaven from preaching and catechesis. He agreed that it is a problem. His analysis was that this inattention is due to a Catholic defensiveness against the Marxist allegation that we obsess ourselves with the afterlife and ignore life here on earth. He pointed out that communism in its messianic utopianism has destroyed life on earth and suggested that more contemplation of the last things would enhance our capacity to tend to the earth and our brothers and sisters.
Clearly, both popes unequivocally affirmed the existence of a populated, eternal hell. But is is worth noting that it is not a theme that is repeated often in their own teachings and writings. They are not preoccupied with hell. With impeccable orthodoxy, they leave the tradition in tact.
As a self-identified catechist, (and an amatuer, wannabe theologian), I evaluate theology for its catechetical value, clarity, strength. In this regard, Benedict in particular is the theologian-catechist par excellence! No one combines such erudition, depth, holiness, clarity, simplicity and availability to the layman. Balthasar's "dare we hope" theory is confusing. It doesn't really work in teaching, let's say, 14 year olds. It makes sense as theological speculation, but doesn't translate well. It contradicts commonsense, not just Catholic, intuitions about reward and punishment. In this vein, consider "lex orandi, lex creendi" {the Church believes what it prays). While the Church does pray "that all men be saved", I have never heard, even in informal private prayer much less in public liturgy, an intercession for the soul of Hitler, Stalin or Mao. Christ died for each of them; even if they were the only men who ever lived he would have suffered and died. Theologically it is logical to pray for them. But psychologically, it is abhorrent. Their evil is too deep, dense, horrific. It would be a vile act to pray thus: imagine there is a descendent of their victims present. We just do not do that. We never think about it; but we don't do that.
Intuitively, we carry a moral sense that the good must be rewarded and the evil punished. It just must be so. The secular, liberal mind has entirely repressed this sense of retribution, merit, wrath and justice; it has subsitued a soft, emasculated ethos of unmitigated acceptance, kindness, mercy and inclusion and entirely canceled the virile, paternal valuation of responsibility, accountability, authority, retribution and reward.
Pope Francis is an example. Thoroughly emotivist and incoherent in his thought, he told the Italian mafia they were headed to hell if they didn't repent, and then (allegedly) reassured his atheistic journalist friend that God would never allow for an eternal hell of suffering. In assuring his friend that truly evil souls merely cease to exist he articulated "annihilationism." I myself find that view appealing and intelligible: that the evil cease to exist as the good enter eternal life. The problem: that is not the clear and constant teaching of the Church. The Church clearly believes in the inherent immortality of the soul and an eternity of punishment, of separation from God, for the unrepentant. I admit: it does not make sense to me. At this point, I meekly defer to the authority of the Church.
Pope Benedict did speculate that perhaps the damned are very few: rare are the souls so devoid of good that there is nothing there upon which God's mercy can build. This is vintage Ratzinger: gentle, balanced, clear, orthodox. This is a moderate, balanced "daring to hope."
The Catholic consensus is that there is a hell but the population is unknown to us just as we do not know for sure if any soul, even Judas or Hitler, is damned.
Too much speculation on the question is not helpful. Avery Dulles, in his usual magisterial style (First Things, May 2003) hit the nail on the head: Best that we not know: If there are few we will fall into presumption, if many we may despair. He finds Balthasar to be orthodox in"daring to hope" since the Church does pray for all to be saved. But he acknowledges that his view is "adventureous" and dissonant with much of tradition.
Dulles acknowledges a significant shift in Catholic theology with Vatican II's stronger sense of God's grace being powerfully operative beyond the boundaries of the visible, institutional Church. We are rightly more optomistic than prior to the Council. But I would add that that postive shift is accompanied by a diminished sense of sin, of the demonic and of spiritual combat. This is the aspect that Martin and the trads rightly advocate.
He also recalls a provocative suggestion by Maritain: that at some future point the souls in hell receive a new blessing whereby they are relieved of suffering and they transition into a kind of eternal limbo, grateful to God but lacking in the beatific vision. Think of it like this: after about a kazillion-badillion years of tormenting fire (metaphorically speaking), with Justice and Retribution more than satisfied, God's benevolence kicks in and hell gets air conditioning, regulated temperature between 68-72; nice swimming pools and a lovely beach. Like spending the rest of infinity at a good Mariott on a Caribean island: it ain't heaven but it ain't terrible! This theory is entirely without basis in Scripture or tradition but is not itself heretical and tenable as a speculation. I like the idea: it retains the immortality of the soul, the eternity of hell, and the final triumph of God's mercy and benevolence. It is imaginative!
A similar speculation was advanced by Fr. Benedict Groeschel and more elaborately by Gil Baile: the possibility that at the moment of death (or before death, or after death?)each soul encounters the wounded, crucified, merciful Jesus Christ and makes a final decision to repent of sin, forgive the enemy, and receive forgiveness. This "eschatological event" offers a final dispensation of grace, offers grounds to hope for all, upholds the reality of hell as well as the final mercy of God. I find it to be a happy thought: it inspires me to prepare even now, in the smallest decisions, to prepare myself to make the right choice at the final dramatic encounter.
My own favorite "hell quote" is: "The gates of hell shall not prevail." Here Jesus clearly has hell in defense. He has come to invade, destroy, and empty hell. We are with him in this offensive. We are aggressive, not passive; we are confident, not anxious; we are finally, with his grace, Victorious!
No comments:
Post a Comment