Catholic Confusion at the Very Top (Part II)

New Oxford Review | March 2004 | David Palm

[Pyro7480]

(Reprinted with permission from NEW OXFORD REVIEW, 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley, CA 94706, U.S.A.)

(Part I here)

No Souls in Hell?

One of the most pernicious errors that plagues the Catholic Church today is creeping universalism. While few will come out and baldly state that no one is damned to hell, the door is left open to that conclusion by writers such as Hans Urs von Balthasar in his book Dare We Hope "That All Men Be Saved?". We have seen this played out in the pages of the NEW OXFORD REVIEW (Jan. 2001, July.-Aug. 2001, Oct. 2001), as the universalist tendencies of Fr. Richard John Neuhaus have come under scrutiny. And I have encountered any number of relatively prominent Catholic apologists who argue vociferously (although privately) in favor of the veiw that we cannot know for certain, based on Scripture and Tradition, that there are any human souls in Hell.

One finds, unfortunately, that support for this new-fangled notion be found at the very top of the Church's hierarchy. In a general audience of July 28, 1999, the Holy Fater stunned many faithful Catholics when he stated that: "Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it" (emphasis mine). This appears in the official version of the Pope's talks, Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, but without the doctrinally diffucult wording "whether" (se e in Italian). Presumably someone in the Vatican noticed that the words, as they were actually spoken, were problematic and intervened to make sure the official version conforms unambiguously to Chuch teaching. Still, it is the publicly spoken version that has received so much attention. Thus the Holy Father's spoken words appear to deny that the sources of public revelation (i.e., Scripture and Tradition) are sufficient to tell us whether any human souls at all are damned. And yet our Lord says quite plainly that many will fail to attain eternal salvation: "Enter through the narrow gate; for the fate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it" (Mt. 7:13-14; emphasis mine; also see: Mt. 13: 24-30, 36-51; 22:1-14; 25:14; Lk. 10:13-15; 13:23-24; Jude 7). And the entire Catholic Tradition has affirmed that we can indeed be certain that there are human souls damned, although we cannot know specifically which individuals are so affected. Numerous magisterial texts leave no room for a Hell empty of human souls. I will quote but two: "And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: "We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to numbered among the elect'" (Pope Pius X, Acerbo Nimis #3, citing Benedict XIV, Instit., 27:18). (What is being referred to here is vincible ignorance, not invincible ignorance.) Also, the current Catechism states regarding Christ's descent into Hell on Holy Saturday: "Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, 'hell' - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer; which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus showes through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into 'Abraham's bosom'.... Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him" (#633). This clearly indicates that there are human souls in Hell who will never escape.

Creeping univeralism has very troubling practical results. Most notably, it dampens missionary zeal and Catholic evangelism. The driving motive behind all the great missionary efforts in the history of the Catholic Church has been the understanding that, without Christ and His Church, human beings are in varying degrees in a disadvantageous situation regarding their salvation. The imperative to go and preach the Gospel, even in the face of torture and death, has been driven by the conviction that multitudes are in danger of eternal damnation if they are not reached. But if everybody will be saved or if Catholics may entertain true doubts whether anybody at all will end up in Hell, then a key motivation for missionary work and Catholic evangelism is subverted.

Collegiality & Lack of Ecclesiastical Discipline

Agnosticism about the reality of human damnation also stands in large measure behind the collapse of ecclesiastical discipline that plagues the Catholic Church. If a shepherd in the Church truly belived that the souls under his care are in jeopardy of hellfire on account of heresy, sacrilege, and mortal sin (as is taught by innumerable Fathers, Doctors, and popes) then he would act decisively to suppress these things and punish the individuals responsible for spreading them, even to the point of exclusing them from the body of the Church. This is what the entire tradition of the Church (and even her present canon law [see canon 915]) tells him to do.

Could it be that our Holy Father does not exercise his disciplinary authority because he is not convinced that we can know whether there is anyone in Hell? Is it not possible that certains theological conclusions and practical outcomes logically go hand in glove?

It seems, too, that the lack of ecclesiastical discipline in the Church may be the product of other theological and philosophical shifts. Romano Amerio, a peritus at Vatican II, presents this fascnating commentary on the lack of discipline since Vatican II, which he poetically dubs a brevatio manus Domini a foreshortening of the hand of the Lord:

"The external fact is the disunity of the Church, visible in the disunity of the bishops among themselves, and with the Pope. The internal fact producing it is the renunciation, that is, the non-functioning of papal authority itself, from which the renunciation of all other authority derives...

Now, the peculiar feature of the pontificate of Paul VI was the tendency to shift the papacy from governing to admonishing, or in scholastic terminology, to restrict the field of preceptive law, which imposes an obligation, and to enlarge the field of directive law, which formulates a rule without imposing any obligation to observe it. The government of the Church thus loses half its scope, or to put it biblically, the hand of the Lord is foreshortened....

Two things are needed to maintain truth. First: remove the error from the doctrinal sphere, which is done by refuting erroneous arguments and showing that they are not convincing. Second: remove the person in error, that is depose him from officem which is done by an act of the Church's authority. If this pontifical service is not performed, it would seem unjustified to say that all means have been used to maintain the doctrine of the Church: we are in the presence of a brevatio manus Domini....

The origin of this whole brevatio manus lies quite clearly in the opening speech of the Second Vatican Council, which announced an end to the condemnation of error, a policy which was maintained by Paul VI throughout the whole of his pontificate. As a teacher, he held to the traditional formulas expressing the orthodox faith, but as a pastor, he did not prevent the free circulation of unorthodox ideas, assuming the they would of themselves eventually take an orthodox form and become compatible with truth. Errors were identified and the Catholic faith reiterated, but specific persons were not condemned for their erroneous teaching, and the schismatic situation in the Church was disguised and tolerated....

The general effect of a renunciation of authority is to bring authority into disrepute and to lead it to be ignored by those who are subject to it, since a subject cannot hold a higher view of authority than authority holds of itself....

The renunciation of authority, even as applied to doctrinal affairs, which had been begun by John XXIII and pursued by Paul VI, has been continued by John Paul II." (Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century)

Amerio cites the amazing testimony of Carinal Oddi, who spoke to a gathering of Catholic United for the Faith in the 1970s. Amerio shows, in his answer, that refusal to exercise discipline in the Church has at its heart a philosophical shift:

The Prefect for the Congregation of the Clergy was insistently asked why the Holy See did not remove those who taught error, such as Fr. Curran, who had for years been openly attacking Humanae Vitae, and who teaches the licitness of sodomy. Why was it that the Holy See did not correct and disavow those bishops, such as Mgr. Gerety, who depart from sound doctrine and protect those who corrupt the faith? The Cardinal replied that "The Church no longer imposes punishments. She hopes instead to persuade those who err." She has chosen this course "perhaps because she does not have precise information about the different cases in which error arises, perhaps because she thinks it imprudent to take energetic measures, perhaps too because she wants to avoid event greater scandal through disobedience. The Church believes it is better to tolerate certain errors in the hope that when certain difficulties have been overcome, the person in error will reject his error and return to the Church."

This is an admission of the brevatio manus... and an assertion of the innovation announced in the opening speech of the council: error contains within itself the means of its own correction, and there is no need to assist to process: it is enough to let it unfold, and it will correct itself. Charity is held to synonymous with tolerance, indulgence takes precedence over severity, the common good of the ecclesial community is overlooked in the interests of a misused individual liberty [and] the sensus logicus and the virtue of fortitude proper to the Church are lost. The reality is that the Church ought to preserve and defend the truth with all the means available to a perfect society." (ibid.)

Here, it seems, is a directclash between the Church's pre-conciliar Thomistic realism and a post-conciliar emphasis on a certain kind of personalism which increasingly looks like a divorce from reality and a rejection of commmon sense. Further, as the years have passed since Vatican II, these now-stock excuses for why the Vatican has refused to discipline renegade priests and bishops have crumbled, one by one. Certainly the many decades over which the crisis has spread have been sufficient to gather the information necessary to judge the erroneous opinions of various priests and bishops accurately and justly. And the "greater scandal" argument - most often formulated in terms of the avoidance of open schism - has now been shown falses in the most recent clerical sex scandals. The Holy Father could have removed many deviant bishops and priests with complete impunity. The other bishops would have not dared defy him on such an issue, especially since those most apt to break openly with Rome tend to have scandalous skeletons in their own closets. With even the secular world rightly expecting tough treatment of such deviancy, who would have dared go into schism over the situation? But has any disciplinary action been taken? Rather, in yet another bow to the novelty of collegiality, the entire problem was handed back to the national hierarchy which, through its own laxity, spawned the scandal in the first place.

[quidestveritas]

Have you read The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis?

 

The devil likes it very much that people don't believe in Hell or that they have little fear of going there. That there are no souls in Hell - might that be Satan's dogma?

 

Indirectly, Bl. Pius IX, condemns this proposition in his Syllabus of Errors, as explained below in this exerpt from an article by an SSPX priest:

 

...John-Paul II affirms that "we have no knowledge if anyone is concerned about hell, unless from a special Divine Revelation". This sentence is scandalous and contrary to the sentiments of all the Doctors of the Church. Our Lord has said: "Enter by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter that way. But narrow the gate and close the way that leads to life and few there are who find it" (Matt. 7:13). The Church, it is true, has never defined how many souls are saved, not even relatively to the number of the damned. But to publicly preach that it would be unknown if anyone is in hell (which presents the theory of an empty hell as a possibility) is scandalous, even foolhardy and completely contrary to the sentiments of the Doctors and of the Saints. It must be known that the Sacred Congregation of the Index, in a decree dated May 22nd. 1772, has condemned the Chapter 5 of a book published by Father Gravina, S.J., In which the author pretended that: "It is probable that the number of the elect is far greater than the number of the damned." And pope Pius IX has condemned the following proposition (No. 17) in his famous Syllabus against modern errors : "At least we should have good hope of eternal salvation for all those who do not belong in any way to the true Church of Christ."

 

This condemnation does not deal directly with the number of the elect or of the damned, but we can draw at least this conclusion from it : those who do not belong in any way to the true Church of Christ are probably not saved....

 

...We should ask ourselves: what is left of that salutary fear which has converted so many sinners and which is so justly, desired by God in a portrait of Wisdom and Goodness as well as justice, in this endeavor of John-Paul II to soften the suffering of hell by denying the pain of fire and by minimizing the danger of falling into it?

 

Is not the fear of hell in this life one of the most effective means to distance ourselves from sin? "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling" said St. Paul (Philip. 2:12). And the same St. Paul wrote to the Hebrews: "it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" (Heb. 10:31).

 

Father Dominique De Vriendt, SSPX, from:

 

http://www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/Nov1999/HellNov99.htm

[Notwithstanding]

I do believe your words about the virtue of Hope are spot on.

It is so very good to hold out hope that even those whose actions we must, as Christians, condemn

might have had a final commmunication with the Lord in which they expressed contrition and accepted Him.

Such hope is no sign of universalism or acceptance of lives of sin.

Rather, it is a proper sign of love
for those whom God himself loves
even while they commit their sins.

God loves sinners before during and after sin.
We must do the same.
We are called to do the same.

[sinkspur]

C.S. Lewis was not a theologian; he was a popular writer.

[sinkspur]

The silence of the Church [on the subject of universal salvation] is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith. Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, "it would be better for that man if he had never been born" (Mt 26:24), his words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation. (186)

These are the words of John Paul II in his "Crossing the Threshold of Hope."

Please go here to read an enlightening article on this topic.

[sinkspur]

The silence of the Church [on the subject of universal salvation] is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith. Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, "it would be better for that man if he had never been born" (Mt 26:24), his words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation. (186)

John Paul II's words in "Crossing the Threshold of Hope." The Pope was not "wrong" in his audience. He did not make a mistake, and spoke his mind on the subject.

[DPalm]

Hello, all:

I am the author of the article. I'm glad that most of you, at least, are finding it helpful or at least thought-provoking. So far the feedback I and the editor of NOR have received has been overwhelmingly positive.

I do need to make one correct, though. "heyheyhey" wrote that "The author is a liar", based on his finding that a sentence was missing from the quotation of Canon 212. The issue of rash judgment aside, he is correct.

I checked my sources and indeed the fault lies with me, not with Fr. Harrison or This Rock magazine. I was well aware of the phrase and I had discussed with a number of priests and canon lawyers just what "due reverence for the pastors" means when writing such articles. Alas, I missed that phrase when I transcribed the quote from the magazine article. Mea culpa.

That being said, my article did show due reverence to His Holiness and the other pastors, unless one equates "due reverence" with "fawning sycophancy". But the former is a Catholic attitude, the latter is not.

God bless,

David

[johnb2004]

"That being said, my article did show due reverence to His Holiness and the other pastors, unless one equates "due reverence" with "fawning sycophancy". But the former is a Catholic attitude, the latter is not."

Amen and thank you.

[johnb2004]

"The silence of the Church [on the subject of universal salvation] is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith."

Could you or someone else explain this comment to me? I thought universal salvation was a heresy condemned centuries ago?

[Pyro7480]

It's my pleasure to post your article here. I'm glad you took the time to post here.

[Pyro7480]

Ping, post #106.

[sinkspur]

Could you or someone else explain this comment to me?

Did Christ come for all men, or just for a few? Since we can only be certain that there are souls in heaven (canonized saints), Christian Hope would prompt us to be silent on the fate of anybody else.

To acknowledge the existence of hell is not the same thing as saying we are certain that there are souls present there.

[johnb2004]

Christ came to save all. That does not mean every one goes to heaven. We, of course, do not know who is in hell aside from fallen angels, but it seems as though some are arguing that everyone goes to heaven?

[k omalley]

"due reverence"
"fawning sycophancy"

DPalm expresses my views with these apt phrases. We certainly owe the pope honor and obedience when he teaches on faith and morals. But I don't believe it is wrong to scratch our heads and wonder about Buddhas on the altar at Assisi, when he elevates certain men to the cardinalate whose views border on heresy, and allows dreadful liturgical abuses. He is a holy man of prayer and may have a vision which we cannot understand, but some of these things are troubling to the faithful to say the least.

[Aquinasfan]

VII

If anyone says or thinks that Christ the Lord in a future time will be crucified for demons as he was for men, let him be anathema.

IX.

If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (apokatastasis) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.

THE FIFTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
THE SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Universalism (apokatastasis)
Catholic Encyclopedia

[ninenot]

No Churchman has to tell us that no one is in Hell. Revelation advises that Lucifer and "a legion" or so occupy the state.

Christ, in the Matthew cite above was quite clear that 'many have gone there...' (referring to the broad and easy way.)

He made another reference to "Gehenna" which was also quite conclusive.

Frankly, I don't really care WHO is there--but I know there are some.

If you wish to maintain that the Church cannot PROVE there are souls in Hell, you are correct, following the very same logic you offhandedly rejected regarding the Church's teaching on un-baptized babies.

Now you accept the teaching on un-baptized?

[sinkspur]

Now you accept the teaching on un-baptized?

That un-baptized infants for certain will never see the Beatific Vision?

No.

[Maximilian]

C.S. Lewis was not a theologian; he was a popular writer.

Quite true, and something that should be kept in mind when reading his material, especially by Catholics who should be aware that he was a popular writer of the protestant persuasion.

[dsc]

I never read C.S. Lewis asserting that there are no souls in Hell.

[DPalm]

[ Did Christ come for all men, or just for a few? Since we can only be certain that there are souls in heaven (canonized saints), Christian Hope would prompt us to be silent on the fate of anybody else.

To acknowledge the existence of hell is not the same thing as saying we are certain that there are souls present there. ]

To clarify some points, the "dare we hopers" do not argue that Hell is empty; they acknowledge that Satan and his angels will be there for all eternity. Their argument is that Hell could, hypothetically, be empty of *human* souls and they say that we are permitted to hope that this is the case.

"sinkspur" is correct that Christ died for all men and that all men have the potential to be saved and are given sufficient grace by God to be saved.

"sinkspur" is also correct that we have certainty that certain individuals (canonized saints) are in heaven. And it is true that we cannot have certainty that *any given individual* is in Hell.

However, contrary to the "dare we hopers", we can indeed have *certainty* that Hell is not empty of human souls. Scripture contains many passages that teach this directly (I cited some in my article) and these passages have consistently been interpreted by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as depicting actual reality and not just potentialities (as the "dare we hopers" would argue). To interpret Scripture contrary to this unanimous consent of the Fathers falls under the anathemas of Trent and Vatican I.

We may also add magisterial witnesses too numerous to catalogue which bolster this certainty that there are human souls in Hell, although again we cannot know specifically who is so affected. I cited the very smallest sampling in my article.

Finally, we can add on top of all of this the private, but approved, revelations to various saints throughout Church history that testify to this reality.

Thus, the reality of souls in Hell is taught infallibly by the Catholic Church, by virtue of her ordinary univeral magisterium. This give us certainty, apart from the need of any ex cathedra pronouncement to this effect.

Hope is a theological virtue. We may not, therefore, hope for something that is manifestly contrary to Divine revelation. Ergo, the "dare we hopers" are wrong. The best one could say is that "hope" is here synonymous with "wish", that we might "wish" that no one goes to Hell. This might be theologically permitted, but I continue to question whether the Catholic Tradition really justifies such speculation and I'm adamant that in our present historical context it is manifestly harmful.

God bless,

David

[TradicalRC]

He says the Pope is useless (just read the article, please).

No, he does not.

The author is a liar.

Backatcha.