Hope, Hell, and Hedonism

I recently came across a lengthy post on /r/Catholicism that was deeply troubling and saddening. The TL;DR is this guy struggled with the "historical [Catholic] Church teaching and traditional interpretations of Hell" that Hell is an "eternal, inescapable" reality for "those who die in mortal sin". His thought is that it seems contrary to God's benevolence that He would send a person that He created to Hell for eternal punishment for a temporary and finite sin. Moreover, the poster takes issue with the fact that it seems the Church teaches or at least has taught that the majority of people go to Hell, but how could God punish people for following what they thought was right, they just were unable through temporal or geographical means to join the Church. In summary, it seems like he has two issues with the Catholic position:

1) No salvation outside the Church
2) The eternity of Hell

The first is a question of Church teaching on who is saved. There are many writings by Church Fathers and by the Magisterium in the form of encyclicals on this subject. I will not go into a ton of detail here on the matter. I will, however, say that no salvation outside of Christ's Church is taken to mean that only the baptized will be saved, but the definition of baptism can be taken loosely to mean that those baptized by fire or desire are valid forms of baptism. Since God is Truth, we have no reason to not believe those who desire truth or die for it in the form they know, for no truth is such unless it reflects THE Truth, do not eventually reach Heaven.

The second question, however, I will address at length as it seems to be a lack of both faith and reason that causes this problem to arise for people. Firstly, reason ought to tell us that Hell should be eternal, not despite God's goodness and mercy, but because of it. Aquinas addresses this point in the Supplemental section of the Summa Theologiae (Supp. 99.1). The Redditor takes issue with the fact that eternal torment in Hell seems like an extreme act of wrath compared to the temporal, finite sin committed that sends a person there. Aquinas addresses this point directly, saying that the sin, though finite in duration, is infinite in severity because it is committed against an infinite being. Thus, the punishment ought to be reciprocal. We, however, are finite beings and cannot be punished with infinite severity, and so justly should be punished for infinite duration. Now, I get that this seems unsatisfying, even if rational, since God is infinitely good and merciful, shouldn't He be able to forgive sins? Precisely! Why do you think He suffered on the cross? I know this guy, and most Christians know this obviously, but think Catholics still think that dying in a state of mortal sin sends people to Hell. And I argue that that position is defensible given a proper understanding of mortal sin. The way Aquinas understands sin is as a fault against charity, which is a fault against God as "God is love" (1 John 4:7).  Mortal sin, therefore, is understood to be a willful rejection of God. One who sins mortally says, "I put my faith in this finite thing instead of in you, Lord" seeking the lesser good over the greatest good. Yes, we are able to repent by God's grace, but if someone does not repent and say they want to be reunited to God, it would seem unjust to force them to spend eternity is God's presence, even if it is good for them. I think this problem, then, rises from a misunderstanding of mortal sin. The Church teaches that mortal sin needs to be grave in object, as well as willfully and knowingly performed. Mortal sin requires a willful rejection of God, this is why Aquinas says "from the very fact that he commits a mortal sin, he places his end in a creature; and since the whole of life is directed to its end, it follows that for this very reason he directs the whole of his life to that sin, and is willing to remain in sin forever" (Supp. 99.1). By no means would something like an Aboriginal Australian boy masturbating because it feels good fall into this category. Nor a Protestant not attending a Catholic Mass on Sunday because they do not think it is necessary for salvation.

The second fault, I think, in disagreeing with the eternity of Hell is one of lack of faith. People who struggle with the eternity of Hell often struggle with scrupulosity and despair, which seems logical if you believe that sinning sends you to Hell. The problem here is with despair. As Aquinas (and Aristotle) teach, vices are the extremes of virtues. Here, scrupulosity is a privation of hope. A lack of hope in God's mercy, despair, leads to the faulty thought that our sins are too great to be forgiven. What sin could be greater than killing God incarnate? Yet Christ forgave this sin immediately and without hesitation: "And Jesus said, 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do'" (Luke 23:34) (there is the knowledge part of mortal sin being supported Scripturally as well). If this could be forgiven, who could not have hope in the mercy of God for sins, even if serious, especially if they are committed without full knowledge! The danger here, however, is to not move to the other extreme of hope: presumption. Which is precisely what I think is at the root of the Purgatorial Universalism that the poster says he has come to believe. Hoping in God's mercy is much different than presuming that all are saved by it. For presumption in the mercy of God rejects the truth of human free will, which is the greatest act of love conceivable!

Some ask, "Why wouldn't God create people who could only do good if he is all-powerful and all-good? Does he not want all of humanity to be with Him?" Well of course he does! But He, out of perfect love, gives us the chance to say no. Now, if we do not make an informed choice and out of ignorance (this goes back to the full knowledge part of mortal sin) then why would He force us against our will? If someone was in love with someone and wanted to get married to them and work their whole life to provide for them and wants nothing but good for them, and the other person knew that, but did not love them back, would we not say that it would be evil if the in-love person forced them to marry them? If they truly loved the other person, would they not respect their wish to not marry them, or even to enter a marriage with someone else, even if that is not what is best for them? Even if you disagree that this is true, and would say that the person ought to use force and coercion to stop their love from entering into a marriage that they know will be harmful, would you not say that the marriage of force is at least not as good as one based on true love? So, if God forced all people to do good and want Him so that more people would be in Heaven, how can we say that this is better than if only few people went to Heaven, but their love for God was so much greater since it was a free choice? This is why Paul says for husbands to love their wives "as Christ loved the Church" (Ephesians 5:25) and why Jesus calls himself the "bridegroom" (Matthew 9:14, Mark 2:18, Luke 5:33) and the Church is his "bride" (Revelation 21:2). But what bridegroom, loving his bride, would not allow her to leave him before their wedding if she wished?

Finally, if a lack of faith and hope, for "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1), then how are we to hope? Hope is not something everyone just has, clearly, and it is easy to stray from. Sin turns us from hope and easily leads to despair. One of the best things I've heard of hope was a homily I had the pleasure of listening to a few weeks ago at Mass. The priest (a member of the FSSP) talked about the link between self-mortification and hope. How practice of discipline through self-mortification exhibits and cultivates hope in God's mercy. This seems odd? How can depriving yourself of things, good things, lead to hope in salvation? It is because suffering is made perfect and holy through Christ's Passion: "Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand" (Romans 5:2). Paul does not stop here, however, for "More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us" (Romans 5:3-5). There is a lot there, for it would take a whole book to exegete, but Paul extols us to practice self-mortification, to fast, to deprive ourselves of small goods to unite ourselves to the Passion of Christ, which is the greatest source of hope! In this way, self-mortification staves off despair and presumption. It seems to be a hallmark of our time to reject self-mortification. We are told to indulge our every desire, promised that that is true freedom and produces happiness. I think this may be at the root of the seemingly recent push back against the teaching of Hell. In a world of indulgence, we are accustomed to getting everything we desire, thereby growing to think that we have a right to good things. Thus, people think we have a right to Heaven, that God cannot possibly send people to Hell, for depriving us of our rights is unjust! But we forget that no man can merit Heaven, it is only by Cross that we are able to repent and turn to God with hope in His abundant mercy.