In CREC
Hell has gotten
a bad name. I am sorry to hear it.
I.
If rightly understood, it is rather a positive teaching, even a freeing
one. Hell has too few defenders. We are told, by learned scholars and other
unsympathetic souls, that Hell is '"old-fashioned.'" It is '"out-of-date.'" No
one, especially no one important or smart, is said to hold it any more.
Therefore, it cannot be significant. If anyone has heard a sermon on Hell in
his local parish in recent decades, he probably cannot remember it. No '"fire
and brimstone'" is to be heard in the land. Or if something on the topic of
Hell was heard, it was undoubtedly some reassuring preachment guaranteeing that
this unpleasant topic was really nothing to worry about, even if we are
inveterate sinners, especially if we are inveterate sinners. Obviously such
inveterate sinners have the most to lose in case this curious doctrine is true.
All is forgiven, But if anything perchance needs to be forgiven, we are
assured, furthermore, that '"all is forgiven'" by a compassionate Maker. Most
funerals these days, as far as I can tell, operate on this assumption. We give
eulogies. We do not remind ourselves that we too are to follow. Not to worry,
in any case. Forgiveness in theory becomes not sacramental but sociological.
Poverty, ignorance, prejudice, compassion — these excuses, these exterior
forces, rule our internal order to explain why we must do what we did. The
internal order it not responsible to rule itself, as in the classical
tradition.
Hell has been depopulated by other enterprising thinkers. Terrible place, no
doubt, but no one is in it. Even if it exists, which is improbable, it is
likely that no one is in it actually suffering its famous pains and pangs. We
even find proposals to save those said definitely to be roasting or freezing
there, depending on one's theory of which is worse. Lucifer, for instance. The
famous philosopher Jacques Maritain once wondered (and there is nothing wrong
with speculations) if it would not be possible, in the divine mercy, to lift
Satan out of Hell and deposit him in Limbo. The only trouble with that thesis
is that Limbo is even less believed than Hell. Limbo was a place for those
unbaptized souls who did not sin but who were also not redeemed. Hell was a
place for those redeemed in the blood of the Lamb but who rejected its
dimensions in their personal lives. In any case, it appears that to put anyone
in Hell for whatever reason, however horrendous, is downright unseemly. It is
against '"human rights.'" A '"good'" God, it is said, simply would not do such
a nasty thing as put someone in Hell.
What are we to make of all of this confused thinking on a doctrine that is
even found in Plato, not to mention rather prominently in divine revelation? Is
it all that absurd or outlandish or unthinkable? Is Hell really a sign of God's
impotence? Of His cruelty? We love to imagine that if we were God — which, to
be sure, we are not — we would certainly not concoct such a place from which,
evidently, no turning back can be discovered, no possibility of escape. The
trouble with this hypothesis is that it is pretty difficult to find an
alternative that is really better than the one we are given. Every alternative
that I have ever seen ends up, finally, by removing our freedom, our happiness,
or our minds.
We like, no doubt, to put ourselves in a position whereby we can judge
God to have been at fault for coming up with such an absurd and cruel position.
Hell, it is said, is a problem of God, not us. Any threat of Hell causes us all
sorts of discomfort, especially now that many of what were formerly called
'"sins'" are now called '"human rights.'" We presume to define what was evil to
be good. We actually legislate what is good and evil. The list gets longer
daily. Surely, we think, the Divinity could have figured out a better way? God
seems to have had limited imagination not to have created a world in which Hell
was no possibility for anyone actually existing in it.
The fact, of course, is that God did come up with such a world '"in the
beginning.'" Hell was not first invented by God and then, later on, seeing the
mess human beings made of things, He decided to send human beings and angels
there for safe keeping. It was the other way around. God first intended and
created a world in which Hell did not exist, except maybe potentially. But He
did intend a world in which real, finite human beings and angels existed and
were destined for eternal happiness if they so chose.
This situation of initially creating man for eternal life is that from whence
God's problems with human beings arose. He could not create free creatures who
were called to participate in His inner life unless they were, at the same time,
actually free so to choose Him. Otherwise, they would have been — not free
human beings or angels — but automata. Heaven, if it existed (or Hell for that
matter) was not designed as a place for robots. Such latter beings, for
whatever their worth, are not really capable of loving God by virtue of their
own inner understanding and freedom.
Hell is simply the direct and necessary consequence of really free creatures
refusing to choose God rather than themselves. They chose or preferred a world
they thought they could make for themselves. Put in positive way, the doctrine
of Hell is the guarantee of our individual and personal dignity. Without what
it stands for — namely the basic seriousness and importance of our lives — we
evaporate all concrete meaning from our existence. How so?
But before we go into this question, it is first advisable to remind
ourselves of just what the Church itself had historically taught on this often,
to many people, unsettling doctrine. Various doctrines are emphasized or
sometimes overemphasized in given eras of Church history. We can certainly say
that Hell has been '"under-emphasized'" in the past century or so; probably
overemphasized at other times. But there is a difference between what
Christianity universally holds on a subject it finds in its sources of
revelation and those doctrines that are popularly attended to or emphasized.
What is ignored or neglected still remains within the doctrinal deposit of
things to be known and held.
II.
First, then, I want simply to recall the brief paragraphs that the General
Catechism of the Catholic Church devotes to Hell (#1033-37). These
paragraphs in turn recall the passages in Scripture, Tradition, and the
Magisterium in which this doctrine is indicated and explained. The discussion
begins with the point made above, that is, '"We cannot be united with God unless
we freely choose to love him.'" The doctrine of Hell, like the New Testament
itself, is primarily an aspect of love, not of justice. The question of justice
comes in only after the question of love has failed. Hell is directly related
to our own choices, to the choices of what we choose to love in the concrete
decisions of our lives.
'"To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love
means remaining separated from Him forever by our own free choice.'" In this
sense, we create or put ourselves in Hell. Mortal '"sins'" do exist. They must
be acknowledged as our own acts put into effect against the rightness of our own
natures. '"This state of definitive self-exclusion from community with God and
the blesseds is called 'Hell.'" Thus, initially, we cannot really understand
Hell if we cannot or will not understand love, including divine love. God
Himself is, as it were, bound to what this reality of love is, since He is bound
by what He is. We would not have it otherwise.
Recalling what is known as the '"Last Judgment,'" the Catechism refers
to the fires and punishments for those who persistently do evil. While Hell may
be primarily a spiritual thing, it is depicted also in terms of physical
punishment, almost out of respect to the wholeness that we are, body and soul.
We may not like this physical description, but it is not simply made up by the
Church. Rather what Christ actually said on this topic is preserved in the
Church, which cannot forget its own foundations. But the same Church never
doubts that whatever physical punishment there may be, the spiritual suffering —
the realization that we have rejected what we are — is always more serious.
But just knowing what Hell is does incite us to ask, '"Why are we told these
things?'" Obviously, we are told these things for our own good and for our own
aid, indeed for our own illumination about what is. Thus man is asked to
'"make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny.'" We often neglect to
think of Hell or live as if it existed. Still it seems merciful on the part of
God to let us know as best He can, that is, within the limits both of our
freedom and of His, what happiness or punishment is in store for us as a result
of our choices. God is not Himself, as some religious and philosophic theories
hold, pure will who cam make right wrong and wrong right. He follows the
goodness of what He is. Thus, this teaching on Hell becomes a '"call to
conversion,'" if we need it, as we often do. We are reminded again that '"we
know not the day nor the hour,'" so that this very uncertainty is an incentive
to prepare ourselves for what we as mortals are about in this world.
Finally, the much misunderstood teaching about '"predestination'" is
mentioned. '"God predestines no one to go to Hell.'" Predestination does not
make us do what we do by some necessity outside ourselves. It is not a denial
but an affirmation of free will, both God's and ours. Simply because God knows
our free acts, it does not follow that He is doing the acting, not ourselves.
If I see someone get up and walk away, my knowledge of his getting up does not
make him determined to do so. Knowledge of a free action and cause of that free
action are not the same. My knowledge of a free act includes the awareness of
its freedom, otherwise, I do not know what really is.
Moreover, we are to '"persist'" to the end. The fact that we sin is not
fatal unless we choose to make it fatal. That is, it is our whole life and its
orientation that interests God. Sinners can repent. Many do. The whole point
of the Incarnation was the divine awareness that men sin but cannot save
themselves by their own efforts because sin itself reaches the Godhead's love of
us and others. That some pretty horrendous things happen among us by our own
choices means that we need, at all times, a way to save ourselves from
ourselves. This is the whole purpose of our redemption, to restore to us the
possibility. But once a way of redemption is given to us, we still must avail
ourselves of it. We still must choose to use it. Our personal salvation cannot
take place without our freedom. Even God cannot make it otherwise because God
too respects the dignity of His own creation of a free being.
III.
Let us grant that, in its origins, Hell is a teaching of both philosophy and
religion. It is something we are not merely asked to know but also to think
about. What positive meaning can it have? I would say, paradoxically, that no
doctrine more vividly states or restates the importance of our daily lives and
the choices therein than this doctrine. Ironically, its denial is not a formula
for human liberation but a guarantee of ultimate human meaninglessness and
insignificance. Why?
We can learn much about what is at issue from Plato, that is, from a
pre-Christian philosopher, in many ways the greatest. Plato's whole philosophy
was designed to direct our love and actions to the Good for its own sake, not
for any motivation of reward and punishment. There is nothing wrong with doing
many things for a motivation of reward or avoiding them for a motivation of fear
or punishment. On the other hand, as Socrates saw at the end of The
Republic, we did need to talk of rewards and punishments because it was
quite clear that the best men are often killed, even by the state, and evil men
are rewarded with great wealth and honor in the cities of this world. This
situation is simply a fact that disturbs our sense of fairness. It seems to
indicate that the world is very poorly made.
Hell, in other words, is a philosophic response to our sense of violated
justice, a sense we all have on the hypothesis that the wicked are not really
punished and the good not rewarded. Without an ultimate reckoning, beyond this
life, many, if not most, evils and crimes performed in this world by individuals
on others would go unpunished. Rewards would be wrongly distributed. If this
ultimate reestablishment of order, in the form of a Hell or a Heaven, is not in
effect, the world is made in vain. It is clear that there is a contradiction at
the very heart of the world between what is right and what is carried out. So,
without ever going into the question of religion on this topic, there is a case
for Hell that flows from any basic insight into the human condition and its
actual record over time. Not all crimes are punished, not all good deeds
rewarded. The world, on this view, is simply unjust at its core.
Let us take this argument a step further. Let us, for the sake of
discussion, accept the proposition that there is no Hell. What follows from
this denial? First, no ultimate requital of rewards and punishments in terms of
deeds done takes place. What is wrong is not punished and what is right is not
rewarded. Secondly, what follows, on the basis of this hypothesis that Hell
does not exist, is that no human action really makes any difference for good or
bad. The acts of the worst sinner or tyrant and the greatest saint become
equivalent. Both end up the same way no matter what anyone does. Any effort to
distinguish a noble and ignoble life falls apart if ultimately it makes no
difference what we do. To be sure, we can introduce some taste criterion that
would say that I prefer what are now called just deeds. But no ultimate reason
exists why my deed or yours are preferable. Thus, in logic, the denial of Hell
is not at all a neutral proposition.
It is this consequence that inclines me to affirm that Hell is a very
positive doctrine. More almost than any other teaching, it, indirectly perhaps,
established the worth of my daily actions. At any moment, I can perform an act
worthy of damnation, or one worthy of transcendent dignity. These actions do
not take place in the clouds, but right here in my daily relationship with
others and with myself. This realization is what it means '"when you did this
to the least of my brothers.'" And this consequence is both for good and for
evil. The ultimate dramas of existence take place everywhere, among the rich,
the poor, the ordinary, the unusual. No one is in a privileged place where this
drama, with its consequences, does not regularly take place.
Obviously, this is not to maintain that such ultimate things happen every day
as we brush our teeth or greet our neighbor. But they can and often do take on,
through what the Catechism calls '"mortal sins'" or through acts of
charity, transcendent meaning, They become a part of the free life and character
we make of ourselves. Thus, Hell has the paradoxical function of enhancing our
awareness of the meaning of our daily lives. This effect is not something
morbid or upsetting, but something reassuring. Our lives are so ultimately
important that we can lose them. But this possibility is placed before us so
that we do not lose them. And we are not supposed to lose them. Hell exists to
help us achieve what we are given in the first place, the promise of eternal
life. But this life cannot just be automatically structured into our being so
that we have nothing to do with its coming to be.
In the end, Hell too exists that we might be free, free of what is most
likely to prevent us from achieving the purpose of our existence. But freedom
itself does not exist for its own sake. We are not free just to be free. We
are free so that what we choose is something that is really worthy, really good,
really existing. In short, we are free to reject what we are created for. That
is, we are free to make ourselves the definition of our own happiness. If we do
this, we are, by definition, in Hell — that is, we reject, by our own freedom,
the purpose of our being. We can reject this. Both reason and revelation exist
to advise and direct us to that end which is more glorious than any we might
choose or make for ourselves.
Thus, Hell is not such a bad doctrine. It has a lot of positive things about
it if we take the trouble to think about it. Like all Christian truths, it is
given to us to think about. In so doing, we can come to see that these
doctrines contain a core understanding that directs us to what is Truth in
itself. '"The road to Hell,'" it is said, '"is paved with good intentions.'"
It is also paved with many insights into the very nature of our being that guide
us to the truth of things and the importance of our existence.
