Catholic Confusion at the Very Top (Part II)

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

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.

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.

At the risk of losing my reputation as a rock-throwing drooler and ignoramus who wildly swings with slander and imprecation at ANYONE who questions Rome.....

The Canon, as quoted, (and in whole) was observed by the author(s) of the article, IMHO.

They did not claim JPII was errant in doctrine/dogma; nor that he's too busy writing poetry to worry about the salvation of souls; nor did they consecrate Bishops without mandate; NOR do ANY of them suggest or even BREATHE disobedience.

They merely state that the methodology of governance since PaulVI may have failed, despite Cdl. Oddi's apparent satisfaction with it, and JPII's continuation of the policy.

No big.

Wow, is the New Oxford Review finally coming around to traditionalism? It's about time they stopped trying to pretend bishops in Rome are bastions of Orthodoxy while bishops elsewhere are not.

I can already hear The Wanderer sharpening their hatchet for the attack.

the "pastors" in question are certainly not to be shown reverence if they are teaching heresy, wouldn't you agree?

The 2004 years of Church history show that the Pope has never ever taught heresy.

many of them are not teaching the Magisterium

This never ever applies to the Pope.

Just holding a high position in the Church does not make you free from error.

It actually does, if your position includes wearing funny hat and white socks. ;) See Vatican 1 - accepted even by the most Latino of the Latin stitch n' bitch societies.

BTW, it's possible that he was quoting from the earlier code of canon law.

The 1917 Code was all in Latin only, and the numbers don't correspond with the 1983 one.

The Canon, as quoted, (and in whole) was observed by the author(s) of the article, IMHO.

The Canon was gently doctored to suit the author's agenda. Since the author accuses the Pope of "confusion" in teaching the doctrine of faith, I'm going to be extra picky.

It's about time they stopped trying to pretend bishops in Rome are bastions of Orthodoxy while bishops elsewhere are not.

I've been reading NOR for just under a year. As far as I can tell, they've been critical of John Paul's lack of ecclesiastical discipline for some time now.

I can already hear The Wanderer sharpening their hatchet for the attack.

I don't know about them, but there may well be a response from Crisis magazine. There's some bad blood between NOR and Crisis, mainly because of Michael Rose's book Goodbye, Good Men.

Christ warned of hell more than he talked about heaven.

Funny how the libs and modernists choose to ignore this.

Question: "Why did God make me?"

Answer: "God made me to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world and be happy with Him in the next."

Nothing like the good old Baltimore Catechism. It also doesn't blaspheme that God is responsible for making sodomites.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CCC 2089).

Christ warned of hell more than he talked about heaven.

This is nonsense. See John 3:16-17.

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. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same

Yep. Proclaiming the Holy Father's "confusion" in his teachings of the Catholic faith is a heresy.

Very good.

So what are you saying? Are you part of the group that says nobody goes to hell?

I think, that if you count the times He referred to either, you will find that Jesus talked about people going to hell far more than He talked about them going to heaven. He seemed to WANT them all in heaven, of course, but then, there is the troubling passage where he says he spoke in parables to that certain men would NOT understand, lest they believe and be saved. that passage always bothered me, but I wouldn't think of ignoring it or denying it because I find it troubling.

Proclaiming the Holy Father's "confusion" in his teachings of the Catholic faith is a heresy.

I don't think that statement constitutes heresy in itself. First of all, it is an ambiguous statement as you have written it here. Is it saying that the man is confused, or that his teaching is confusing to some who receive it?

Do you think the Pope is impossible to confuse? He is Vicar of Christ, not an omniscient God, my brother. Do you think his every world is clearly understandable to every person so that no confusion could ever result? Heck, even passages of the Bible (the word of God) are often confusing or confounding. Sometimes Jesus spoke in parables to confuse people and later made His words clear to His apostles in private.

The Bible says this. Is the Bible, therefore, heretical? Is Jesus heretical?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.