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.

No. He says the Pope is useless (just read the article, please).

The author did not use the word useless. So if it's your own view that is the case, you'll have to expound more on this, help me out.

Mind you, you still have not made convincing argument that a critical and honest analysis of the Pope's speech in this case in light of constant teachings on Hell or other prudential judgement does not equate to "heresies". If the

Pope had indeed suffered "a slip of the tongue", he certainly had ample opportunity to make correction. In this case, it appears the editor did it for him, just as well.

Personally, I feel this article is fair.

You will have to be very specific in making your case, carefully distinguishing WHY being disrespectful (only your opinion) amounts to spewing of Heresies (from the authors).

Personally, I feel this article is fair.

There is nothing "fair" about a heresy.

This dude says first, Catholic Confusion at the Very Top, the "top" meaning the Holy Father. He put himself above the Pope in defining the doctrine of faith, that's outright heresy.

Then this dude wrote, I have encountered ... apologists who argue ... that we cannot know for certain, based on Scripture and Tradition, that there are any human souls in Hell. How is he certain there are, or are not, any human souls in hell? His certainty in this matter is another heresy.

The bottom line is, the Church has never sent any people to hell, and has believed in the reality of hell as well as the reality of God's mercy, unlike our hellish dude.

Read my post #17.

This dude says first, Catholic Confusion at the Very Top, the "top" meaning the Holy Father. He put himself above the Pope in defining the doctrine of faith, that's outright heresy.

Two issues needed to be cleared up here.

First, was the Pope "defining the doctrine of faith"?

Second, was the Pope correct with respect to the specific issue by stating "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." Is his statement (if correctly quoted) consistent with the ordinary magisterium?

My answer to the first issue is, NO, the Pope was "not defining" the doctrine of Faith. He was speaking as a bishop, a theologian, and a priest at a General Audience in 1999, without invoking Papal Infallibility (ex-cathedra). Believe me, it worked out for the better in this instance, save some embarrassment.

In my view, the author actually extended the Pope utmost courtesy by using the notion of perhaps "confusion" rather than much stronger terms, thereby affording the beloved Pontiff benefit of the doubt in this matter. The tone of the article is quite sympathetic, appears to be more forgiving should the Pope had a "slip of tongue".

Answer to the second point, also NO. What the Pope said (if correctly quoted) on the issue is inconsistent with constant teaching of the Church, including Scriptures, Tradition, and magisterial teaching.

The author gave relevant references in the Scriptures as well as Pius X's Acerbo Nimis #3 and the CCC. By no means this short list is exhaustive on the teaching that there are human souls in Hell.

I will also give credit to Hermann the Cherusker, citing "O God, from whom Judas received the punishment of his guilt, and the thief the reward of his confession ..." (Collect of Holy Thursday and Good Friday, Roman Missal)

St. John Chrysostem gave the most dramatic expression ….. "The floor of Hell is full of skulls of bishops".

"The bottom line is, the Church has never sent any people to hell"

Well, not directly anyway, but there are people in Hell, who went there because of their own free will.

Upon death, individual judgment is rendered. Either Heaven or Hell, or delayed Heaven (Purgatory). In light of this, the Church knows there are people in Hell, apart from other magisterial teachings.

How does the Church know that? Because she has the Power to Bind and Lose -- a dogma of the Church.

What do you think happened to those publicly excommunicated when death came calling? Did they go to Hell or not? If one was to embrace there is no one in Hell, he must also deny the dogma to have the Power to excommunicate and that judgment stands in the eyes of God.

Then there are those who incurred Anathema ipso facto while still unrepentant at death.

Naturally, we all want the good news, and hope the merciful God will bestow special graces at the hour of our death, through the Church and the Last Rite, from which "Apostolic Blessing" comes with the Plenary Indulgence, thereby sending us the unworthy servants to Heaven immediately (if no Mortal Sins remaining). This is the Power to Lose that we all pray for.

But are we so foolish to deny the Church's Power to Bind? I would hope not.

In closing, consistent with constant teaching of the Church, there are people in Hell, and there will be people going there in the future. What the Church has avoided is specifically naming names as to who is in Hell, leaving that to speculation (if we so wish).

I sincerely hope you are not denying the dogma of the Power to Bind and Lose.

It is a matter of whether one would embrace the Ugly Truth instead of Pretty Lies.

Jesus gave St. Peter the "Keys to the Kingdom". Jesus tells His Apostles, "Recieve the Holy Spirit. If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound." If St. Peter calls upon Jesus to hold someone bound to their sin, Jesus is obligated by His solom oath to hold that man bound to his sin on judgement day. Does the Vatican disagree with the basic Christian philosopy that those with their sin held bound and not forgiven by Jesus, go to hell? Does the Vatican think that St. Peter holding the keys to the Kingdom is a joke? Jesus gave St. Peter a direct command that he is not to let the whole body of the Church go to hell because of the actions of individuals. St. Peter is to "cut off" that portion of the body of the Church and cast it into hell. It is time for St. Peter's successors to start doing the job Christ commanded them to do. I can show you the related scripture at http://www.geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/stones.html
You have a great article.
Steven Merten

Perhaps you misread my response. The crux of the issue was on his choice of word "Whether", but not so much on "Who". Let's take another look. The Pope said this ...

"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."

Let me ask you this, looking at the full context of the Pope's statement above, did he likely mean to just bring up "Who" is in Hell without bothering with "Whether"? I doubt that very much, but that's what was finally published after editing.

The rest of my response went with constant teaching to demonstrate that there are people in Hell, with this closing remark ...

You see, it is the Holy Father who went against constant teaching on this count, not me, and neither should you.

You may not consider Roman Missal's pronoucement (Holy Thursday and Good Friday) on Judas' judgment definitive, fine, but that would necessarily mean the Holy Thursday Mass which commemorates the institution of Eucharist and Priesthood obnoxious for allowing it. How many of these Tridentine Holy Thursday Masses has Karlos Woltyla celebrated as a priest?

Since he was speaking as an individual teacher at that General Audience, he could indeed make a mistake. That's probably why the editors of "The Pope talks" bailed him out by leaving out the word "Whether". Papal Infallibility does not kick in unless ex-cathedra is invoked under very strict conditions.

We both love the Holy Father, we should also own up to his mistakes. Credibility demands it.

Just remember, the Church has the power to bind and loose. So unless you would consider the notion that God does not honor Anathemas dished out by his Church, then you can safely agree with the Church there are people in Hell.

From the 1983 Code of Canon Law -- Can. 1364 §1 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of Can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in Can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.

CCC #1463 -- Certain particularly grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by them. In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and excommunication.69

A few questions for you, to which I have been wondering the answers. First, it is my understanding that hell is eternal, existing outside of the constraints of time and space. Anyone who would theoretically go to hell, past, present, or future, is technically there already. If there are no souls in hell, then hell is not truly a threat to us. It is not something to worry about, as no one will go there.

If that is the case, why is Christ so insistent on warning us against its threat? Why were the Church Fathers so insistent upon warning us of its dangers? Were the words of Christ simply a matter of "scaring" us into good action, much like the threat of a "lump of coal" for Christmas scares children to be good?

Hell is a state of the soul. You can see people living with a taste of it even in this life - we get a taste of it every time we choose ourselves above God and neighbor. I have little doubt that there are those who choose themselves above God for eternity. God forces no one to choose Him, and only God can draw us to Himself. Sin is real, and it is the nature of sin itself that ultimately shows us that there is a hell and that there are those who ultimately choose that as their eternal reality.

Well, another repudiation of the Teaching on "Hell exists and there are permanently suffering souls there", what else is new?

But even with Sacred Scriptures aside, you are really confused as to different venues of Infallibility. The first thing a Loophole Mentality dissident argues is jurisdiction, in this case, you argue Infallibility. Fine, let's talk about that.

Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of the Church, as well as teachings of an ecumenical council are Infallible. In short, Papal Infallibility is not the only venue but you knew that of course. So your bringing up this angle only shows an ill-fated attempt to distract or gross ignorance.

The Scriptural passages quoted in the article are quite sufficient without additional references (which there are many). Pius X teaching on the subject and the CCC reference on the Creed are just icing on the cake.

When Pius X taught the same as constant teachings by Scriptures and Tradition, that also becomes Infallible under Ordinary Magisterium. Likewise, saints and bishops who taught the same also enjoy that privilege when in union with Ordinary Magisterium. As to teachings of the Creed on Hell, it goes all the way back, believe it or not.

In regards to the Pope speaking at that particular General Audience on this subject, well, the editors wouldn't have to do the smudging if he didn't make a mistake and certainly, he would have to correct the editors if they had made a mistake by misquoting him. Don't you think?

Have you ever wondered why Heretics are stubborn and tend to stay that way sinky?

It is taught that habitual sins can blind the intellect, harden the heart, and dull the conscience. Not a good thing at all.

Anyway, I'm sure people who embrace the NaCR find Church teachings on Hell very uncomfortable. Can't help you with that, sorry.

But if you are good for the next few months sinky, I'll throw in a specific Council Teaching on this subject comes Christmas.

In the meantime, you should refer back to the penalty of Excommunication for Heretics (latae sententiae) cited in my previous post #94. Don't wait till you get down there to find out the Church is right.

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.