Let’s pretend.
Let’s pretend that the Pope said this the other night:
We don’t even have to wonder what the reaction would be, do we?
But…that’s just his personal opinion! That’s not the teaching of the Church! Sure, some theologians have held that and there’s plenty within Scripture and Tradition that might support such a view, but that’s not official Church teaching! Is that really appropriate for the Holy Father to say things like that? Is that an appropriate use of his position? Sure, he’s not stating anything ex cathedra or magisterially here, but you know how people are going to take it, right? Was that a prudent use of his position and this platform? To express his personal views like that?
Yeah, I thought so.
But, guess what: you can argue all day that the “personal view” that he actually did express has foundations in Catholic teaching, but so does my alternative. (Maybe even more.)
What’s the lesson, class?
The purpose of this post is not to debate the demographics of Hell.
It’s to talk about what a teacher is about. Especially, you know, the head teacher of a place.
Have you ever been a teacher? Specifically a teacher of religion, teaching the tenets of that religion to young people? What we call a catechist? Even a catechist for adult inquiring Catholics or parents coming to baptism preparation classes?
What’s your job?
Your job is to convey the teachings of the Church. That’s it.
Not to roll in with your opinions, views or even the nuanced, maybe even idiosyncratic way you’ve come to interpret things.
There are plenty of places and contexts to express all of that, and having weird, nuanced takes, continuing to interpret and understand–that’s all a part of Catholic life. It really is.
But, no matter what, and no matter what you happen to think or how you’ve come to cope–you understand that it’s not your job to impose that personal take on the people whom you’ve been charged to teach the basics. Explanations must happen, discussions too, and yes, everyone brings something unique to catechesis (and preaching) but the responsible catechist is always on the alert, careful to not impose and always humbly acknowledging that your take is just that…your take. One person among billions across thousands of years, a body and journey guided by the Holy Spirit.
I once had a colleague who was a middle-aged woman who was a quite wonderful Catholic high school religion teacher, who taught her material in imaginative and engaging ways, was feared and loved–you know, the ideal situation–and taught everything she was supposed to. I was surprised, then, at a party, to hear her say that she found the Church’s arguments in support of a male-only priesthood unconvincing. She then followed this up with something I’ll never forget. “But who am I? Who am I and my opinion, in the context of thousands of years of teaching and just the big picture, and what I say I believe about the truth of Catholicism–as it is, not as I think it should be?”
She kept the balance, and I know that she absolutely never let her views leak into her teaching.
It’s a delicate position, and it can be frustrating, to say the least. Decisions must be made, decisions about humility, selling out, integrity, what have you. It’s the plight of the catechist, the preacher, the pastoral minister, everywhere.
All that is just to say how I look at papal statements of any kind that fall outside that (sometimes ambiguous) fence of magisterial teaching–of this pope or any pope. And in the context of positions and vocations charged with passing on the Faith, and how to manage one’s personal views in that context.
Now, the Pope and Hell.
The subject of Hell–what is it and how and why humans might end up there–is one which has, of course, been discussed a bit throughout Christian history. Jesus mentioned it. Theologians have had ideas. Mystics have had visions.
For the Pope to shrug and say…I just hope there’s no one there….as his final take on the question posed him is irresponsible. Not as an individual Christian, but as the primary teacher of Catholics around the world. Made even more irresponsible by his authority and the popular understanding of the authority of his words, accurate or not.
He could have expressed this hope that he has in a completely different way and context. He could have done that and it would have a far different sense. He could have framed his answer in the context of Jesus’ words on damnation and subsequent theological reflection–admitting that it exists, and maybe trying to make sense of it. To simply say, “I hope no one is there”—is superficial, doesn’t help anyone, and is really an insult to the complexity and layers–and even conflicting views–on the matter, that course through Catholic tradition.
It is all, of course, one more example of the mess we’re in regarding papal teaching authority—and, of course, not a recent mess, either. As well as an example of how Catholic commentary tends to be marked by inconsistency and team loyalty more than intellectual integrity and an honest admission about the actual tensions and variety in the course of Catholic thought.
(Editor’s note: This essay was posted originally, in slightly different form, at “Charlotte was Both” and is reposted here with kind permission of the author.)
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Amy – excellent article. As a former religion teacher, I took the following very seriously:
Luke 17:2 “It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.”
I don’t think trying to dog paddle with a millstone around my neck sounds like heaven. But what do I know, I don’t have a fancy theology degree.
You make an excellent point, Amy. And you make it far more charitably than I would have.
Bergoglio sows disorder and confusion. His papacy is a disaster.
As I’ve said elsewhere, the pope can like to think what he wants. So can I.
Amy, This is an excellent response to the Pope’s conjectures about population in eternity.
With twenty years teaching the Faith, I would add something to your synopsis of the high school religion teacher: personal witness of assent to every tenet of the faith is essential. If she is still teaching, I pray that she doesn’t just say: the church teaches…
To be an effective teacher and catechist, one must say, “holy mother church teaches ( insert popularly dissented dogmatic position) AND I believe and assent wholeheartedly for the following reasons….
Your average, even faithful teenager, sees right through the teacher who tells you what the church teaches, but does not emphatically live out and assent to said teaching.
Ave Maria!
Yeses ago, a teacher at my parish school expressed regret to her students (including my daughter) that “girls aren’t allowed to grow up to be priests.” When I confronted the teacher, she apologized for “voicing a personal belief in the classroom.” My response was, “You can’t give what you don’t have.”
About the title: Instead of “…the pope’s remarks about hell,” how about “the hell about the pope’s remarks.”
Welborne mentions that “mystics have had visions,” so yours truly takes the opportunity to repeat part of a comment on an earlier news article. This from St. Faustina Kowalski in her “Diary: Divine Mercy in My Soul”:
“Today I was led by an Angel to the chasms of hell […] the first torture that constitutes hell is the loss of God; the second is perpetual remorse of conscience; the third is that one’s condition will never change; the fourth is the fire that penetrates the soul without destroying it […] the fifth torture is continual darkness and a terrible suffocating smell, and despite the darkness, the devils and the souls of the damned see each other and all the evil, both of others and their own; the sixth torture is the constant company of Satan; the seventh torture is horrible despair, hatred of God, vile words, curses and blasphemies [….] There are other special tortures destined for particular souls [….]
“I am writing this at the command of God, so that no soul may find an excuse by saying there is no hell, or that nobody has ever been there, and so no one can say what it is like [….]” (n. 741).
So, paraphrasing the earlier Pope Francis: “Who am I to opine?”
Most of us have heard the expression that absolute power corrupts absolutely.It is the rare person who has a good and realistic sense of himself and his limitations, who can handle a job like this.This Pope has been quick to bash those with traditional and conservative outlooks which have long served the church well. Meanwhile he pats on the head public figures who give scandal by outspoken support of abortion.His latest missive about gay blessings has roiled the church…for what end??? More “feel-good” pats on the head for those engaged in sin? Sin seem to be an unfashionable concept in our modern world and in this papacy.Its all talk about mercy. But mercy cannot be had without repentance. That is a concept rarely talked about any more. Its the tyranny of “nice”. God forbid you make a person feel guilty or bad about a sin they are committed. Forgiveness, yes. But first must come sorrow for the sin. This pope appears to have no such expectations.You dont do your followers any service by giving them only half the story or half the concept. Its hard to say what will happen to the church in the upcoming years. Lets pray hard that things improve.
“First must come sorrow for sin.” You know that, and I know that, but don’t forget — this is the man who insisted that priests must forgive sin even when the sinner shows no sign of penitence or remorse. Of course, maybe that was just his “own personal view.”
So where does the Pope think Legion reside if not in Hell?
Aren’t they a religious order?
I made this same comment earlier but I think the Pope missed a perfect teaching moment.
St Augustine said something about ” beware of the Grace that passes by never to return”. We’re all offered opportunities of Grace that we can miss also.
Speaking of Universalism and Hell, St. Augustine also said: “God created us without us: but he did not will to save us without us” (CCC 1847).
“Sure, he’s not stating anything ex cathedra or magisterially here, but you know how people are going to take it, right?”
Reply: No, we don’t. We don’t know “how people” are going to take it. We know how “some people” are going to take it (the illiterate), and we know that those who can read will take it as it is, that the Holy Father hopes that hell is empty, as does anyone who has thought about hell long enough. The Church prays in hope for “all men to be saved” and that “no one should be lost” (CCC §1821, §1058). That prayer is an expression of her hope, and so what the Holy Father hopes for is congruent with the Church.
“Was that a prudent use of his position and this platform? To express his personal views like that?”
Reply: Certainly no less prudent than the decision to come out publicly against your own Pope, implying that he is irresponsible and imprudent. Arrogance is a far more serious sin, and far more scandalous.
“Have you ever been a teacher? …What’s your job? Your job is to convey the teachings of the Church. That’s it.”
Reply: No, that’s not it. There is a lot more to it than that. Not every question that students ask is covered by a section of the Catechism. Sometimes one has to give one’s own opinion, with the qualification that this is my own opinion, like St. Paul did.
“But, no matter what, and no matter what you happen to think or how you’ve come to cope–you understand that it’s not your job to impose that personal take on the people whom you’ve been charged to teach the basics.”
Reply: That’s true, but the Holy Father did not “impose” anything on anyone. He expressed his hope, and it is a hope that is consistent with the prayer of the Church.
“For the Pope to shrug and say…I just hope there’s no one there….as his final take on the question posed him is irresponsible.”
Reply: I didn’t notice the “shrug”, nor did I get a sense that he was nonchalant about this question.
“He could have expressed this hope that he has in a completely different way and context.”
Reply: It’s too bad he does not have you as his own personal advisor. Must be nice to have such a degree of knowledge that gives you such confidence and assurance–that you are right, and the Pope is imprudent, irresponsible, and superficial.
Thomas James: your defense of the indefensible are DOA.
I think that the idea that only the illiterate will take the statement literally is off the mark. If this was a singular statement by the pope it might just be written off. But it is not. We are dealing with a pope who has said, “Forgive everyone (no repentance required), God wills a multitude of religions, Islam is a religion of peace,” appoints clerics who think that the moral law is outdated, and who frequently meets with pro-abortion and pro-LGBT persons and appoints them to Vatican positions. The idea that only illiterate Catholics are influenced by this is just not believable.
You appear to think the Pope is entitled to his own “opinions”, like any guy sitting next to you in a bar can have his own opinions. The Pope is not just any guy. Being Pope is much like being a King, in that you are ALWAYS on the job. There is no “time off”. There is no “off the record”. There IS no such thing as “personal opinions”, because EVERYTHING you say and do is looked at under a microscope and will be parsed and analysed. His opinions will be made known to both the erudite and the illiterate who are believers. That is especially true because your job entails being responsible for the spiritual lives of billions of Catholics,( and sometimes even non-catholic Christians) who depend upon your CLEAR explanations of thorny theological matters. This is NOT a job in which you can “wing it”, which appears to be something this Pope has never understood. And its funny that while you appear to think the Pope is entitled to his opinion, you dont extend that same courtesy to those who are dismayed or horrified by the number of off the cuff remarks with which the Pope has created misinformation and issues for the Church he is supposed to protect.Catholics ideally should respect the Pope, but they still must weigh what he says against the understanding of their own conscience. If you know church history you know we have had more than a few Popes who were corrupt or personally immoral. I would say the notion that they were not to be criticized for their behavior is debatable, at the very least.The hope by most critics, I am sure, is that the Pope would take a moment to reflect and examine his own behavior, and perhaps rectify it.
^^^ 1000 %. Thank you.
Given an almost eleven year history of his being imprudent, irresponsible, and superficial, not to mention flat out materially heretical, it is not unreasonable for anyone to be irritated by much of anything that Francis has to say.
Reply: You are defending the indefensible here. Hell is actually quite full, necessarily so if God is holy and just.
Actually, every student question about life, particularly in civics, history, and governance is catechetical to some extent. Moreover, excellent teachers understand the boundaries of their personal lives in juxtaposition to their classroom presence and presentation.
Yet, most critically, the Pope, as the visible head of the Catholic Church is in a position of both authority and power, the latter often affecting those in a direct line of fire–no allusion to hell intended. Seminarians, priests, Bishops, and even Cardinals are subtly directed by such comments. This trickles down to Catholic education, as well where some Catholic parents are incensed when even “sin” is mentioned…in religion class.
For the record, who would not be relieved if Hell were empty, but would also be so if they could simply slide from a comfortable, painless temporal existence into a blissful, eternal Heaven?
That’s has never happened, despite external appearances and will not happen for any person.
“How PEOPLE are going to take it” ?? . . that’s human
respect. It doesn’t count. How did “people” “take it” when
Our Lord spelled out His “Eucharistic Manifesto” in John 6 ??
With this spontaneous and frequently piquant style, outside of any official context, the Pope probably wanted to paternally reprimand even those who currently reject the blessing of irregular couples because, according to them, they would be “in a state of mortal sin,” expressing a judgment in the internal forum regarding the conscience of those couples, which appears decidedly reckless, without implying even the slightest approval of the sins of adultery or sodomy in themselves, certainly deserving of hell.
The important thing to say is that those who would deny the existence of the damned cannot appeal to these words of the Pope, which, as he himself has stated, have no official character, while on this extremely delicate topic, there are very clear words from Our Lord and the teachings of the Church.
It is also necessary to say that the hope that everyone will be saved, expressed by the Holy Father, should not be understood as an act of the theological virtue of hope, which has as its object simple personal salvation, but as an expression of a personal vow, in which the Pope, not as Pope but as a simple Christian, freely lets his imagination of faith roam, almost making a simple possibility of divine omnipotent goodness current.
In fact, Christ himself, in his prayer to the Father before offering himself for the ultimate sacrifice, as reported by John (Jn 17:9), has these words: “I pray for them,” that is, for “the men whom you have given me out of the world” (v.6): they are clearly the elect; that’s why he continues: “I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours” (v.9).
We struggle to understand how an omnipotent, infinitely good and merciful God, perfect in his works, who remedies all evils, can admit the existence of creatures created in his likeness and redeemed by the blood of Christ, punished forever with terrifying torments without any possibility of salvation.
It is clear that if God had wanted to, he could have saved everyone. The advocates of universal salvation turn what was a simple possibility into a fact. But why does God not save everyone in fact? Why does he let some reject Him, say no to Him? Why does He care more that each one makes his choice even at the cost of being rejected, rather than having the satisfaction of being accepted by everyone? He knows he is the true supreme good of each person. He does care about the salvation of each one. Otherwise, he would not have given the Son for their salvation. But he prefers that each one decides according to their will, so great is the respect that God has for it.
Each of us is faced with two possibilities regarding their ultimate end: either for God and then here is paradise, or against God and then here is hell. Everyone, at least implicitly, knows this, and everyone makes their choice. There is no escape. No one can abstain, and no one can be neutral, but everyone is obliged to pronounce themselves, to take a position.
No one can say: I don’t care, I am an atheist and I do not believe in God. Those are just words. In reality, he also knows that God exists and that he must answer to Him for his actions. Everyone knows what is at stake and what the consequences of their choice are.
The atheist or blasphemer or the ungodly who rejects God, or the pantheist who believes he is God himself, knows well that by rejecting God, hell awaits him. But he doesn’t care: better – so he reasons – to be in hell away from God than to enjoy paradise together with God.
Nietzsche had no fear of going to hell. The divine wrath and the threats of Christ make the ungodly laugh. What interested Nietzsche absolutely was to vent his hatred against God. If that meant going to hell, so be it. That’s why he talks about the necessity and joy of “dancing in hell.”
The damned in hell, despite the atrocious and eternal torments, are quite happy to be there and to have obtained what they wanted: to stay as far away from God as possible. The rich epulon, of course, finds the flame annoying. But, all in all, he went where he knew he would go.
I certainly hope that Bergoglio doesn’t wind up in hell and pray that he does not.
What? There is nothing in Scripture or Revelation that this evil is true or possible! The WORD testifies that ‘satan and his fallen angels are presently, since there Fall, in hell’, and presently too, the ‘goat-sinners having already chosen the wide way, rejecting the Narrow Way, to date of the WORD’s words, are in hell’, and third, in ‘the Universal Judgement some [many] will be resurrected to hell’s second and eternal death and some [few] to eternal life’ – the Divine Word, Christ Jesus.
Everything, everything, from the Fall until Christ’s Parousia is a testimony and witness that hell is not and will not be empty, ever…let us please stop hoping against The Holy Trinity-Lamb and His Love and Revelation, it’s not mis/dis-information, a hope, or deceit: hell is not nor will it ever be empty -please stop hoping against reality, The Beloved Triune-Lamb – that is delusional and demonic and is not in the Sacred WORD, that He speaks and writes…It is the Saving Truth and the Saving Worshipping of the Beloved in Spirit and Truth that hell is presently eternally inhabited and will find it’s final eternal goat-inhabitants in the Parousia. This is God’s Revelation and Logic on every Sacred Page of Scripture from the alpha to the omega pages. Blessings 🌹, Father
The Divine Word, Christ Jesus: Daniel 12:2-3; Revelation 20:13-15; John 5:29; Matthew 25:41; Matthew 7:13-14.
It is the Saving Truth and the Saving Worshipping of the Beloved in Spirit and Truth that hell is presently eternally inhabited, by lost angels and man, and hell will find it’s final eternal goat-inhabitants, sadly, in the Parousia.
This is God’s Revelation and Logic on every Sacred Page of Scripture from the alpha to the omega pages.
It is why Jesus and Mary, the Women and Her Son, are promised and why they came – to save us from inhabiting hell like satan and his lost angels and so many on the wide way, by returning to the Beloved God and Heaven and abidingly remaining, by His Narrow Way, in His Heavenly Habitation.
This is truly the Beloved God’s Revelation and Logic on every Sacred Page of Scripture from the alpha to the omega pages. Amen.
Here is a different take on the subject: https://wherepeteris.com/can-prayer-empty-hell/
Anne Marie, Sr Gabriella of the Incarnation OCD has a loving heart, although she misreads scripture. “Can my prayers and the prayers of contemplatives and believers around the world cause all sins to be forgiven? Every sin that has been, will be or is being committed was lavishly paid for on Calvary 2,000 years ago”. We can pray and sacrifice for the salvation of all the living, as the Apostle Paul implies that God wills all be saved. There are many passages that confirm hell is eternal and which reference sinners both angelic and humans being there. Furthermore, as to “sins that will be committed” it definitely requires repentance and conversion of life. God does not disregard our will to refuse him. Our thoughts, our sense of justice are not His.
Fr. Morello, you must have a very busy parish for you obviously read Sr. Gabriela’s article very quickly and missed the whole point. Sister writes: “I entitled this article “Can Prayer Empty Hell?” I do not know the answer to that question. Anyone who doubts the possibility that prayer can indeed accomplish what God wills, calls into question the very value of prayer, and therefore the value of the wholly contemplative life and the place of contemplatives in the Church.”
The article, in spite of its title, is not about whether or not hell is empty but about the power of prayer. Certainly as you write “as to “sins that will be committed” it definitely requires repentance and conversion of life. God does not disregard our will to refuse him”
But can the prayers of one person have any effect on the repentance of someone else? Little Therese prayed for the conversion of Pranzini, which came about. Sr. Gabriela is a Discalced Carmelite and she is following in the footsteps of Therese. Do you believe that prayer has an effect on the repentance of sinners?
Of course Anne Marie. Every time I lift the chalice of precious blood, and repeat Christ’s words, For this is the chalice of my blood, the blood of the new and eternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. My desire is for the forgiveness of many, that includes if possible all the living.
Realistically post V II the revised Ordo had the words ‘for the forgiveness of all’. Benedict XVI corrected it back to the original translation ‘for you and for many’ because of the doctrine of hell as eternal punishment for the unrepentant. Prayer may convert a sinner before death. Although if the sinner refuses to repent he dies in his sins. Once condemned, our prayers cannot change God’s judgment. Our prayers, if for those in hell are best spent instead for those in purgatory.
I personally would wish to agree with you and Sr Gabriella, although I cannot alter my faith based on the revealed words of Christ. That is why my comments in CWR frequently address the urgency of offering prayer and sacrifice for the sinners in our world who alone may benefit from our efforts, not for those judged once and for eternity as taught by Christ to the Apostles and consistently held by the Church. And, it needs be said, not to suggest the illusion that Hell may not be forever giving sinners the idea it is perhaps not forever.
So it comes down to intercessory prayer, and while theologians and other people talks about salvation, the contemplatives pray that people be saved.
As the saying goes,
“Why complain about it
When you can pray about it?”
The pope speaks like a politician, rather than a teacher. As a teacher, the pope derives his authority from a divine mandate. This mandate requires that his speech issues from a divine authority. But this pope behaves as if he does not recognize this mandate, because he speaks of his own views, like a politician, rather than as the guarantor of the teachings of God. He is, as George Neumayr put it, a “political pope.”
One of my neighbours asked me the other day did I believe in heaven. Being an old cradle Catholic, I said I used to believe in the old Baltimore Catechism “….to love and serve him here on earth and be happy with him in Heaven.” But now I think I prefer the Muslim heaven with 72 perpetual virgins, milk honey & wine Etc. You’re a Catholic said my neighbour, you can’t believe in that. Why not I replied, it sounds attractive and although it’s not doctrine, I think I’ll choose it as ‘my personal opinion’.
Does anyone else ask the question why is it that lay Catholics have to express the true teachings of the Church after the supposed Vicar of Christ constantly undermines them, questions them, or denies them? The sheep teaching the head shepherd? No need for him then, is there?
… and consider this …
Jesus promised the gift of eternal life upon certain behaviour by participation in His Divinity within His Mystical Body
then 1. I do not possess eternal life automatically
then 2. my soul is not immortal normally
then 3. my mortal soul cannot survive without the gift of divinity
then 4. my mortal soul will cease with my body at death
then 5. only the gift of eternal life assures my life continuing in heaven
then 6. without the gift of eternal life, my soul will cease and not be available for hell
then 7. rebel angels might be in hell, but no humans will be there.
The church teaches the soul is immortal. So you’re wrong from the beginning which leads you to a false conclusion.
There is a mistake in the translation of the quote. The translation reads “I like to think of hell as crowded” instead of “empty”