Dare we hope?
I just finished reading Dare We Hope “That All Men Be Saved”? by Hans Urs von Balthasar. The basic thesis of the book is that as Catholics we should hope for universal salvation – that all men be saved from final damnation. This was a controversial viewpoint of von Balthasar’s and got him a good deal of criticism (although, as he notes, others – such as St. Gregory of Nyssa – have held it before and it has never been formally condemned by the Church). At the beginning of the book, he engages some of his critics, and one particular criticism struck me:
Now comes a…paradox from G. Hermes: “We can well…hope for every [!] individual [!] man and pray that he attains salvation, because [?] we do not know what judgment God will pass upon him. But we cannot hope that all men will enter heaven, because that is expressly excluded through revelation”
As is obvious from von Balthasar’s editorial additions of exclamation points, he does not think too highly of Hermes’ argument. However, even after reading “Dare We Hope” I must admit that I agree with Hermes instead of von Balthasar. It is one thing to hope for each individual; after all, the Church has never declared any specific individual to be condemned to Hell, not even Judas. However, to hope for each individual man is different than hoping that all men be saved.
As a (admittedly crude) analogy, let me compare it to my feelings about my favorite baseball team, the Cincinnati Reds. Let’s say they are supposed to be very good this year (yes, I realize that takes a lot of imagination). Before every game, I will hope that they win. However, never would I hope that they win all 162 games, as I know that is a hope for something that is simply not possible. The reality is that they will lose some games no matter how good they are.
The problem with von Balthahasar’s hope for universal salvation is that it effectively negates human freedom. If all men are saved, then in truth there is no human element in the process of salvation, something which goes against Catholic teaching. To return to my analogy, if the Reds did somehow win all 162 games, I (along with everyone else) would suspect that something had been rigged. Likewise, if all men are saved, I would have to suspect that man is not truly free – his salvation is predetermined regardless of the choices he makes. And freedom is a necessary component of love; without freedom, we are simply slaves of a benevolent master, not children of a loving father.
Eric, your blog is so . . .smart. I’m more of a salvation-by-the-skin-of-my- teeth type catholic, but so far I haven’t been able to find a blog called Lame Catholic (or maybe Illiterate Catholic is what I’m looking for) so I guess I’ll have to visit yours.
P.S. I told you I wouldn’t embarrass you. I lied.
Gretchen? I don’t think I know anyone named Gretchen…
I’m gonna go ahead and admit it here: I’ve struggled with the doctrine of hell ever since I had children and started worrying about their salvation, etc.
Now, to paraphrase the Matrix “This is going to be a little weird.”
I had a dream about Hell. Don’t worry, I had some kind of cloak of protection so the demons couldn’t see me (too many video games I guess).
—Dream Insert Begins here—
Contrary to Dante’s Inferno, Satan was on the first Circle of Hell, not the last. In my dream we called them levels of hell. Satan hasn’t so much set himself as opposite of God as he is mimicking God. God reigns in the highest Heaven, Satan rules in the highest Hell.
With God, there is the Virgin Mary and his son Jesus. With Satan he is “married” to a demon queen. She has “conceived” and delivered thousands of “adopted” evil souls.
God loves mankind. Satan hates us to the point that he has problems even viewing us as a threat. We are no more significant then a bug to him… he does not even tempt us directly.
He summons demons from deeper levels of hell in a ceremony that is a mockery of the Catholic Mass. These demons are the ones who tempt us. Satan is called the great deceiver. Ironically it seems he has deceived himself more than anyone.
—Dream Insert Ends here—
So, yes, just a dream but I was in a search for the Truth and I was drawn back to read over my dream during my search. The phrase that stuck with me was thousands of “adopted” evil souls. Basically the people who were in hell wanted with all their heart to be there–to belong to Satan. The thousands number I quoted seemed like a easier number to deal with than the billions upon billions that I had been imagining.
Its it the truth? How the heck do I know, it was a just a dream. Admittedly, I’ve been tipping more towards Catholic Universalism in recent days but the search continues.
Matt,
Pretty wild dream. Someone – I think Milton – pictured death as the offspring of Satan and sin, which would make sin the “demon queen” in your dream, I guess.
Have you ever read C.S.Lewis’ “The Great Divorce”? It is an allegorical story of heaven and hell – I personally think it is one of the best treatments of the subject out there. But one of the main points of the book is that people in Hell choose to be there; even if they could leave, they wouldn’t choose to because they have completely chosen self over God. I think that is a good representation of the power of the freedom God has given us. That also seems to be in keeping with your idea of the souls in hell wanting to be there.
I didn’t know you were a Reds fan. Poor guy, why didn’t you say something? There’s no shame in that, at least not anymore. Really.
In re: universalism. Universalism seems to me to be a fairly reasonable response to a “punishment” model of damnation. _Eternal_, active punishment by God is, when you actually think hard about it, extremely difficult to reconcile with the God revealed to us in Jesus.
I don’t think universalism is so appealing, however, if you accept something more like Lewis’ picture of people just refusing to be saved. That ties in well with your point here, too, which I think is well made.
I’m no fan of the “punishment” model that became in vogue in the West in the Middle Ages (especially after Anselm). There is value in the courtroom metaphor, but it can be taken to a dangerous extreme. It seems the East was never infected with that idea, but they seem to have often gone too far the other way towards universalism.
I have to admit, I’m intrigued by the idea that Heaven and Hell are both standing in the fire of God’s Love (i.e. “River of Fire” by Alexandre Kalomiros). The Saints receive that Love and it joyfully transforms them into the likeness of God. The “damned”, however, reject that Love and thus it is painful beyond measure to them. This idea avoids the picture of God as desiring the eternal punishment of sinners while maintaining the terrible reality of Hell (which is clearly part of revelation).
And yes, I’m a devoted Reds fan. It has been purgatory for some time now.
I did read the Great Divorce several years ago. I found the idea that it was painful for the souls to experience heaven very interesting. The grass was sharp like knives, the sun was too bright it hurt their eyes, etc.
I think often (most) times in life we avoid pain and suffering because we don’t see the growth that can come from it. So the trip to heaven after death becomes to painful to bear (at least in the story of the Great Divorce). Pain and suffering provide a transformation. Even pain that makes no sense can still be used to “unite your sufferings with Jesus.” (I tried that line on my wife when she was pregnant… not too smart).
On the plus side, the Army provides endless and imaginative ways to make me suffer, hopefully I do the souls in purgatory some good.