Do we really care about Hell?

[MarysLittleFlower]

So you're basically saying that if you see someone standing on a railway, and there's a train coming, you might inform them of the danger and how they might avoid it, but then you'll respect their choice if they don't believe you? Or if they just prefer getting hit by the train, that's OK?

The answer is: of course not! That person is insane! You'll push them off the rails or call for help or do everything you can to save them. That's your moral duty. In some states I'm pretty sure you would do some prison for telling the police you decided to "respect that person's beliefs".

But Hell is way worse than letting hit by a train; there's no comparison. Yet Christians go about saying if people don't want to believe in Hell, or if they prefer risking it if it exists, that's their choice. What kind of logic is that?

If I see someone in danger of hell (or to use the analogy, standing on the railway and the train is coming) - I wouldn't think of it like "respecting their choice" in the way that "I respect whatever you think" - the modern kind of relativist way. I would try my hardest to try to help them and pray for them... but here's where your analogy stops we can't make them leave the rail tracks. They are basically stuck to them and ONLY their own consent to God's grace, can make them get off. I can't MAKE someone believe. It's actually impossible. I can't make someone repent of sin. I just don't have that capability as a human being. However... I can try my best to help them to open up to God through prayer, sacrifices, offering Masses, talking to them, bringing them to church, etc. Whatever I can do. If they still choose to stay on the rail tracks - I won't just calmly "respect their choice", I'll be in much pain for them but I'd understand also that going to Heaven or hell is a matter of the person's free will and choice. That is key. People who are in hell CHOSE to go there, by not repenting of sin. Even if they had all their friends trying their best to help them. However, prayer does help Our Lady of Fatima said that many souls go to hell cause no one prays for them. If that group of friends actually prays and tries their hardest, there's more chance of them responding, because some things we can't receive if we don't ask. God wants to save all souls... but we need to *receive* it.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I've been to Sunday Mass for most of my life in various Parishes and various circumstances, and I've never heard a homily on Hell. Christians could just as well ignore it entirely.

I've seen Christian families raise their children and I've never seen a parent care remotely as much about saving his children from Hell as saving them from physical injury, disease, homelessness, and such worldly considerations that are infinitely less important than the infinite afterlife they claim to believe in.

I see generalized indifference towards the beliefs of non-Christians.

In short, I don't see anyone, even among the few Christians who actually believe in the traditional doctrine on Hell and Salvation, taking the issue remotely as seriously as the doctrine says it is.

I agree with you and it's tragic and sad.

I'm blessed to be in a parish of the traditional Mass (Latin Mass with FSSP priests) and we do get such homilies. There are also homilies about going to Confession and how important that is, and everything else that we don't generally hear. It's very sad that in many parishes, that never gets mentioned. It's a crisis in the Church today.

[MarysLittleFlower]

What I find interesting is who posts about hell on the Phatmass Forum.  Overwhelmingly , it's the men--or boys.  And I suppose that it's mainly white men.

There are a few women, like me, who post about hell, but not many, and we don't seem to bring it up as a topic.  Also, there has been recently, on Phatmass, a good deal of discussion about how many people are going to hell, sometimes using rather gloating descriptions.  Boy, a lot of people are going, but not me!!  So you have white men posting about hell, some in a gloating fashion.  Why is this? 

I think that most Christians don't believe in hell.  I suspect that most people don't.  I also suspect that many otherwise believing Catholics, including many priests and religious, if it comes down to it, don't either.  Hindus and Buddhists don't. Jews don't, not even for Adoph Hitler.  I think that there was a contest, during WWII, about what was the most appropriate punishment for Hitler.  The winner went to someone who suggested that he be forced to live with his mother-in-law. 

I think that there is a wide streak of resentment, envy, unresolved anger, and desire for revenge among people who bring up hell.  They like to write about it, defend it, and think, "Boy, some time, some day, they'll get theirs!!"

Maybe some people think about it with revenge, though they shouldn't. But I don't think strong Catholics generally do. I think most Catholics who  mention it, talk about it because they are concerned for souls. I also don't see it as a man's issue or a white man's issue etc. Also if Christians don't believe in hell, moreover if priests and religious don't believe in hell, that is a real tragedy, a real watering down of faith. I'm talking about hell here not because I want people to go there, but because I don't... I think it's best to assume that everyone else has the same intent we need to assume the best of others, that is the most charitable that is what my priest said (a very traditional priest who believes in hell and preaches on difficult topics, also a very gentle/pious man). If we talk about how many are going to hell and trying to defend the idea that it's hard to get to Heaven, that's not because we want people to be lost but because so many people think it's super easy to avoid hell, when it's actually hard, even for Catholics. It's so easy to get entangled by sin, pride, hardness of heart, the devil/flesh/world. We need to persevere to be saved. That's why  I think people talk about it. However.. this doesn't mean we live in constant fear either we just try to love God, have hope, and pray for perseverance. Apparently if someone prays three Hail Marys for perseverance every day, Our Lady can obtain that for them. Her prayers are extremely powerful. So there's no panicky fear personally I don't spend days worrying about this. Mostly I think about Our Lord. I don't really like to think about the devil at all. But hell is a reality and if many Christians in fact don't believe in it, all the more reason to mention it and to explain it... because there has been quite bad catechesis the last few decades.

[MarysLittleFlower]

St Faustina's vision of hell: here it is: http://www.divinemercysunday.com/vision.htm

[MarysLittleFlower]

LOve it!

One thing I also notice. Those that are driven by the fear of hell to be 'moral'--aren't being moral at all.  They have no sense of morality, especially as it applies to them.   They are people who aren't very nice, have no compassion or  charity, but they go to church, avoid the major sins, confess when they masturbate, give a minimum to charity, and are glad that they're not going to hell--but that all the unbelievers, people they envy and dislike, those that have things they don't have--are.

In the spiritual life, I think it's common to start by wanting to be saved to avoid hell. It's at first usually driven by fear rather than only love for God. In a way that is normal, that is not bad, because before we really appreciate God's gift, we need to understand the danger that we need to be saved from. If a person is saved from a car accident, and they don't believe in car accidents or know what they are, they wouldn't have the exact same response as a person who feared a car accident and then was saved from one.

Eventually in the spiritual life, there's still a complete rejection of wanting to go to hell, and still a strong fear of offending God, and there's still a strong (stronger I'd say) understanding of hell, - but repentance becomes more about not wanting to hurt God.. more based primarily on love. Since such people might have been Christians for a while or have a deeper prayer life, maybe they show more charity. However, in the first category there are many charitable people too, and I think it would be unfair to judge them.. or to think that somehow just because someone is mostly driven by fear of hell, that they must be uncharitable. It doesn't necessarily mean they're happy for others if those people are not saved... If someone has that, that is a sin they'd need to repent of. If they just don't care enough... In that case, I think it's helpful to just be patient with them as we are with ourselves I care about people going to hell but not as much as... St Dominic did. Yet I understand I'm just not there yet. If St Dominic were to meet me, would he look down on me because I'm not yet a Saint who does constant penance for sinners? I'm sure not, he would just try to help me grow where I am.  So if I meet someone who doesn't really feel concern yet for others, because they're new to the whole thing and are still trying to just take care of only themselves, - maybe they need to just grow, both in charity (no one's charity is like Our Lord's, I need to grow too) - and maybe in understanding of the reality of hell. We don't start with being concerned for all the world in the spiritual life I think... firstly we just try to get help ourselves. The question is - is this person intending to grow and start being concerned for others too, or are they just focused on themselves and not caring at all and just living their life blindly. I don't think we should judge which category people are in... but even if it's the second, we need to treat them with charity ourselves and just pray for them. Just some thoughts..

[MarysLittleFlower]

 I'm not really talking about the truth of the doctrine, but its apparent unintelligibility, unacceptability or ineffectiveness. Hell is an extraordinarily terrifying concept, yet precious few seem particularly terrified, neither for themselves or others. The causes could be multiple and I think it's an interesting question. Here are some ideas:
 - With recent theological developments, for instance Benedict XVI emphasizing that limbo was just theological speculation, or John Paul II's description of going to Hell as a personal choice, Catholics tend to have an optimistic outlook on the afterlife. Hell may exist, but it's only for those very explicitly refusing God, and it only consists in God's absence, not fire and brimstone.
 - As the theory of evolution becomes cultural baggage, the original sin theory becomes a more abstract concept (I.e. not an actual event in the history of mankind). Thus it becomes harder to understand why for example people outside the Church should be dammed. Vatican II also emphasized the universality of salvation (Gaudium et Spes).

 

Some thoughts on this... I don't think the fact that people don't believe in it, means that the doctrine is unintelligible/unacceptable or above all ineffective. I think it means that many have slid into secularization. As someone who is a convert, I have to fight this battle all the time of not being like the world and not thinking like the world. It's hard.. if it's hard for someone who attends a very traditional parish, it must be harder for Catholics who have faced the problems in catechesis the last few decades. What is needed is conversion..

Regarding hell being a personal choice - well it is a choice. It doesn't mean though what it sounds like - as if the person likes hell and wants the suffering. It means choosing sin over God. It doesn't mean only rejecting God's existence, - someone could believe in God, but still choose their sins first, which is very sad. As for God's absence in hell, that is the main suffering in fact... but the traditional view is that there are more sufferings too, including some type of fire. I personally believe in the traditional understanding as described by the Saints. I'm sure they understood hell better than I, so I'll just trust them on that.

As for original sin, and Adam and Eve being real people, these are in fact doctrines that we are bound to... if someone doesn't believe that Adam and Eve were real people, they are disagreeing with a Church doctrine, according to what I read. Yes there is much confusion on that today. As for VII I won't comment because it's never clear to me what is actually VII and what is an interpretation of VII, - I'd leave that to the Church to figure out. I think it's safe to just believe all the Church doctrines and VII was more of a pastoral council in nature, not like Trent. The Church doctrines are just as true today as they always were... I think the issue is they've been forgotten, due to secularization/attacks on the Church/liberalism within the Church/whatever else.

[MarysLittleFlower]

I would like to know Jesus' specific doctrine on hell-in the ancient Aramaic that he spoke.  The problem is, no one really knows what Jesus said because we don't have the earliest accounts written in the language he spoke.  We have recalls from at least 35 years after he died written in Greek.  In those days culture was very much bound up with language and religion, to an extent unknown in today's world, as there is much more cross-fertilization of language, culture and religion that there was back then.  There is not much mention of hell in the Old Testament, and very little in the many worlds of present Jewish theology.

One can certainly discuss hell, who is going there, who isn't and why. But this discussion much ask more questions than it answers, not only about theology, epistemology, the New Testament, ancient languages, cultures and religions, but also about those who like to talk about it.

I disagree... We do know Jesus' exact teaching on hell because the Bible is not a historical human document, but the revealed Truth and the Holy Spirit guided the Apostles as they were writing. This is the Catholic position..

[MarysLittleFlower]

Sorry for so many posts I'm very bored too and officially have now caught up on this thread

[Yaatee]

Yaatee, I'm sorry but I'm quite sure this is not the Church teaching.. the Church doesn't exempt non Christians from hell - in fact, it's harder to be saved without knowing the truth even because it's not invincible ignorance that saves, it's following the graces you've been given and natural law *while* being truly invincibly ignorant. It's harder because there is less grace. It doesn't mean no one makes it in that situation - God looks at the individual and we can't judge their particular soul and amount of ignorance - but it's not easy, which is why Christians are called to evangelise. Also, we can't say that all or even most non Christians are invincibly ignorant. Invincible ignorance means being ignorant completely through no fault of your own, where even if you tried, you wouldn't find out the truth through ordinary means. That limits it by a lot and given that grace is so important in resisting sin, it's hard to resist sin in that situation either. However, again we don't judge individual people. The Syllabus of Errors condemns the view as heretical to say that we can reasonably hope for all/most non Christians to be saved - this is as a group.. because it is that hard to be saved, even for us! However, - this is not about judging individuals - that we leave to God, because we don't know the extent of their ignorance. I know this might be a 'tough teaching' in the Church but it doesn't mean God doesn't wish to save these people.. He really does, and tries to. But this is why the Church must evangelize and try to help souls - because it's not easy.

As for Christians not believing in hell.. I don't know your own personal views, but - the teaching on hell is a doctrine. If people reject it, they are rejecting a doctrine of the Church that as Catholics we are bound to believe. If a Catholic rejects the doctrine of hell, that is in fact a sin, because it's the sin of heresy. Either it's material heresy where they just don't know the Church teaching and have good will (not a personal sin for them). Or, it's formal heresy where it is a sin. We need to believe as Catholics that doctrines come from Christ, in the Church, and are not humanly made - the doctrines on salvation included. If a non Catholic doesn't believe in hell, they also don't believe in  God or Jesus, - and then it all depends on whether they're culpably ignorant. If they know and still choose to not believe, - are they trying to believe and searching for the truth? then God would probably show them, because He always responds to that. Or, are they just living a life with hardness of heart towards the truth, even if they are not hateful towards it? I mean, sin keeps us spiritually blind and hardened of heart and that actually increases culpability, rather than decreases it - unless we're truly ignorant through no fault of our own. So I'm saying that not believing in Christianity is more complex and sins can keep a person rejecting God because they don't want to face their sinfulness too. HOWEVER... we don't look at particular people and analyze where they are. We can't know. If someone doesn't believe in God, I can't say why and if they're open, or ignorant, or in fact anything - however, I want them to find God, because the Church is the safe ship that will get us to Heaven and outside the Church, we're just swimming in the water trying not to sink, not knowing where we are. I'm a convert and I know what it's like being outside the Church. I was very confused and living in sin when I was younger.

God bless

MLF, I mistyped.  Non-Christians are not going to hell because they're non-christian --is what I meant to type.  God would judge each soul individually, in any case. It's because of the nature of their unrepented sin. 

Hell is a Catholic doctrine. but no one knows what hell consists of, except there is separation from God.  Exactly what Jesus descended into isn't known either, except that it wasn't "hell" --he rescued from it the souls of previous "saints", holy people, the prophets.  I looked up the "Syllabus of Errors" published by Pio Nono in 1864, which includes, among other things as "errors" #56, separation of church and state, on which this country was founded; #67 civil divorc;, #15 freedom of religion; and #16 salvation (or baptism) by desire. I didn't look at the rest of it. I don't know if it has the status on an encyclical, or was promulgated ex cathedra.   Once again, it's one of those things one doesn't hear a lot about from the current higher-ups in the Catholic Church.   Regarding hell, I would think that between salvation and purgatory, most people would eventually squeak through, because I don't think that there are a lot of mortal sinners around, because many murders, say, such as suicide bombers, who are pretty bad, or Dylann Roof, who slaughtered 9 people in cold blood, after listening to them pray and testify for an hour (talk about being on the escalator to the Pearly Gates!)--sorry, I digress,--feel that they are in the right, that they are doing a good thing!  Appalling, but there it is.

[Yaatee]

Sorry for so many posts I'm very bored too and officially have now caught up on this thread

Join the crowd.  I wonder, is it a sin to post too much on Phat?

[Nihil Obstat]

Do we really believe that good intentions are good enough? God requires something greater.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[MarysLittleFlower]

MLF, I mistyped.  Non-Christians are not going to hell because they're non-christian --is what I meant to type.  God would judge each soul individually, in any case. It's because of the nature of their unrepented sin. 

Hell is a Catholic doctrine. but no one knows what hell consists of, except there is separation from God.  Exactly what Jesus descended into isn't known either, except that it wasn't "hell" --he rescued from it the souls of previous "saints", holy people, the prophets.  I looked up the "Syllabus of Errors" published by Pio Nono in 1864, which includes, among other things as "errors" #56, separation of church and state, on which this country was founded; #67 civil divorc;, #15 freedom of religion; and #16 salvation (or baptism) by desire. I didn't look at the rest of it. I don't know if it has the status on an encyclical, or was promulgated ex cathedra.   Once again, it's one of those things one doesn't hear a lot about from the current higher-ups in the Catholic Church.   Regarding hell, I would think that between salvation and purgatory, most people would eventually squeak through, because I don't think that there are a lot of mortal sinners around, because many murders, say, such as suicide bombers, who are pretty bad, or Dylann Roof, who slaughtered 9 people in cold blood, after listening to them pray and testify for an hour (talk about being on the escalator to the Pearly Gates!)--sorry, I digress,--feel that they are in the right, that they are doing a good thing!  Appalling, but there it is.

hmm.. I mean it is a serious thing to be not Christian because it's much harder that way. It is clear from Church teachings that salvation is only found through the Church. If someone is not in it and goes to Heaven, that is either because they were invincibly ignorant AND lead a moral life according to natural law/inspirations of grace, and I think it was St Augustine who said that if they are truly seeking the truth they might have it revealed to them as they're dying or before they die. In fact there are Muslims in Muslim countries closed to evangelism that have had dreams of Christ, not knowing who He is, and then finding out later who He is and becoming Christian. However, invincible ignorance itself doesn't save, and it's harder to be saved with invincible ignorance rather than being in the Church, - so it is very serious to not be Christian. Also how many are invincibly ignorant, we don't know, but it's easy to reject Christianity if someone is not Christian if they know about it and don't accept it. So.. I would be careful with this myself

As for where Jesus descended, it was basically like limbo. The just were waiting there from the Old Covenant times for the Messiah, and He brought them to Heaven. I forget if He also spoke to those who did not live a good life, perhaps, but anyway they were not taken to Heaven. Now it's different because now the Messiah did come. So people go to Heaven/Purgatory/hell and the Church considers limbo for unbaptized babies as an option.

Regarding the Syllabus.. it is a Papal document and very in accordance with Catholicism so I accept it.. It did not reject invincible ignorance. Number 16 means that other religions don't lead to salvation, which they don't, only Christ does through the Church. The same Pope who wrote the Syllabus supported invincible ignorance: https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm  The next point in the Syllabus talks about the idea that all non Christians are saved, which is again false. As for civil divorce and religious liberty, I agree with the Syllabus even if all the countries in the world supported these ideas, that doesn't matter to me, I'm a Catholic first. civil divorce is still divorce because non Catholics have valid marriages though not Sacramental. So what Jesus said about divorce applies to non Catholics too.

Even if it's not talked about today, doesn't mean it's not true.. it's very Catholic and based on solid Catholic doctrine, from a very good Pope. So personally I trust it

Regarding the last comment that most people are not in mortal sin and make it to Purgatory... actually it's extremely common to be in mortal sin I think I used to live in mortal sin and I was just a teen. A person doesn't have to murder people to be in mortal sin. Have they consented to impure thoughts? mortal sin right there. Most people who go to hell go there because of impurity, as was revealed to a Saint. Do I like it? no of course not. And I'm not less of a sinner than others. But the whole idea is that it's important to be realistic. Mortal sin is not just terrible shocking crimes like murder. It's all terrible but society approves many, many things that are in fact grave sins, and if a person feels uncomfortable with them in their conscience and still does them, that's a mortal sin. I confessed many mortal sins when I entered the Church as a university student. It's not rare.. but when I look at particular people, I can't say where they are due to not knowing their soul. Some things we all know though in our conscience.. if the conscience gets dulled because of sin, that actually increases culpability. So if someone doesn't feel that impurity is wrong, that doesn't mean they're not committing a mortal sin. Actually they would be. This is speaking generally. Culpability for particular people I leave to God.

[MarysLittleFlower]

Do we really believe that good intentions are good enough? God requires something greater.

I don't think it's as simple as having good intentions. For example, someone might support gay "marriage" out of "good intentions" (wanting people "to be happy') but that's not based on the truth - and truth is connected to true charity.

I think invincible ignorance MIGHT excuse good yet misinformed intentions (I can't say about which topics though), but perhaps only if the person is really honestly seeking the truth and accepting natural law and conscience and inspirations of grace... not living with a conscience that they themselves dulled through sin, which only increases culpability. That sort of occasion is not something that is super common maybe.  It's extremely easy, with concupiscence, to dull the conscience and to have vincible ignorance.. though it's not impossible to avoid that. So I don't know how God judges this - He looks at the individual of course - but in our world, it's becoming harder and harder to be unaffected by wrong ideas, secularism, and dulling of the conscience. That is why I get worried for children, they are being taught so much wrongly and given a wrong foundation that might lead them further from the truth. Those who taught it to them are culpable, but at one point the children grow up and become responsible for their own choice. How willing would their hearts be then to find the truth? It depends on the person.. God judges justly and perfectly, that's all I know:)

[MarysLittleFlower]

Join the crowd.  I wonder, is it a sin to post too much on Phat?

I guess it depends if it's interfering with duties..

[truthfinder]

Do we really believe that good intentions are good enough? God requires something greater.

Very much in the same vein, the favourite question, "who is a good person?" "Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect."