5

I was wondering what is the official ontological explanation of the Catholic Church in regard to human souls and fallen angles suffering in Hell. I do not know whether God actively punishes them with His absence or whether it's something else entirely.

Does the suffering in Hell come from not being able to bear God's presence? Or is Hell itself absence of God's presence? I don't know, though the first conclusion seems more logical to me, as God is omnipresent. Furthermore, God is Love, so I think that the suffering that comes from the free decision to turn away from Him is more plausible than God actively punishing sinners in Hell. After all, he is the just Judge, not a tormentor.

I hope that this speculation of mine is not heresy by Catholic standards. Thank you for your answers in advance.

God bless
  • 151
  • 4

1 Answers1

1

Souls who die in mortal sin are actively punished, but others (e.g., those in the limbo for children, who died with original sin and no actual sin) are only passively punished (because deprived from the Beatific Vision).

St. Augustine writes (Enchir. xciii):

The punishment of children who die in none but original sin is most lenient.

Geremia
  • 39,167
  • 4
  • 47
  • 103
  • Most lenient but still eternal? – Mike Borden Sep 26 '20 at 20:44
  • @MikeBorden Yes, the limbo for children (limbus puerorum) is eternal. – Geremia Sep 27 '20 at 02:41
  • Actually, the Catholic Church’s International Theological Commission has done away with limbo. The official catechism, since the 1992 issue, dropped the mention of limbo. Combined with Pius XII’s “Humani Generis,” in 1950, which states Adam & Eve are symbolic, this raises the question to whom original sin should then be assigned. – Codosaur Sep 27 '20 at 10:42
  • @Codosaur I actually think it was never fully dogmatized to begin with. – Mike Borden Sep 27 '20 at 20:36
  • @Codosaur Humani Generis does not say "Adam & Eve are symbolic". 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission decreed: "The first three Chapters of Genesis contain narratives that correspond to objectively real and *historically* true events, no myths, no mere allegories or symbols of religious truths, no legends." – Geremia Sep 28 '20 at 23:54
  • Humani Generis states Genesis uses "metaphorical language", as well as in par. 36: "The Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter". Evolution is a population-level phenomenon and cannot stem from just 2 ancestors. – Codosaur Sep 29 '20 at 07:13
  • @Codosaur Humani Generis condemns polygenism (that all humans don't originate from a single set of parents, Adam & Eve): "37. […] the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains […] that Adam represents a certain number of first parents." – Geremia Sep 29 '20 at 15:24
  • Polygenism is a theory of human origins which posits the view that the human races are of different origins (polygenesis). Human evolution by natural selection disproves polygenism. It is irrelevant to the argument that in Humani Generis, the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution. – Codosaur Sep 30 '20 at 09:13
  • @Codosaur You said: "cannot stem from just 2 ancestors". If not "2 ancestors" (Adam & Even), then how many? – Geremia Sep 30 '20 at 17:30
  • According to studies on Minimum Viable Genetic pools, at least 50. – Codosaur Oct 01 '20 at 14:31
  • @Codosaur That's polygenism (which can also be defined: "the view that the different races of mankind arose independently of one another.", viz., that not all humans trace their origin to Adam & Eve). – Geremia Oct 01 '20 at 20:48
  • That's not polygenism. Evolution by natural selection, nor the MVP states that humans arose independently in terms of race. Race is a social concept, it has no basis in genetics. Science uses terminology differently than the common definitions in a dictionary. This is the same kind of misunderstanding as saying evolution is "just a theory", where theory in science means the highest level of consensus and confidence possible. – Codosaur Oct 02 '20 at 09:19
  • @Codosaur So there were 50 different species which evolved into one human species? At what point did they become one species? Also, how do you define polygenism? – Geremia Oct 02 '20 at 22:09
  • This should clear things up: Misconceptions about evolution – Codosaur Oct 03 '20 at 10:52
  • @Codosaur Please answer my questions. – Geremia Oct 04 '20 at 20:16
  • Have you read the FAQ I sent? And I already commented with the definition of polygenism 3 comments up. – Codosaur Oct 05 '20 at 07:08
  • @Codosaur Are Adam & Eve the first parents of every human being? – Geremia Oct 06 '20 at 01:41
  • Genetics prove a single pair of ancestors is impossible, as you would know if you read the FAQ I posted. – Codosaur Oct 06 '20 at 08:27
  • @Codosaur Here's another definition of polygenism: "The theory that … all human beings now on earth do not descend from one human pair (Adam and Eve), but from different original human ancestors." – Geremia Oct 06 '20 at 21:37
  • @Codosaur It is a heresy: "It is unintelligible how such an opinion can be squared with what the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Magisterium of the Church teach on original sin, which proceeds from sin actually committed by an individual Adam, and which, passed on to all by way of generation, is in everyone as his own" (Humani Generis §38). – Geremia Oct 06 '20 at 21:37
  • That statement does not affect the incompatibility with findings in evolution and genetics. We were talking about scientific theories. "Heresy" is not a scientific categorization. – Codosaur Oct 07 '20 at 10:20
  • @Codosaur Either we all descend from Adam or we don't. Which is it? – Geremia Oct 08 '20 at 22:19
  • I already answered that. – Codosaur Oct 09 '20 at 07:03
  • @Codosaur We all descended from Adam & Eve, regardless what evoluton theories might claim. – Geremia Oct 09 '20 at 22:06
  • You are of course free to believe anything you want. As am I, – Codosaur Oct 10 '20 at 14:40
  • @Codosaur You cannot enter heaven believing heresies, though. – Geremia Oct 10 '20 at 22:40
  • That's not for any fellow primate to judge (Mat 7:1) or pretend to know for sure (1 Cor 2:11). I don't believe anything up front. I go where evidence leads inquiry. – Codosaur Oct 11 '20 at 11:02
  • @Codosaur No heretic can enter heaven; this is dogma: "heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life" (Cantate Domino). – Geremia Oct 12 '20 at 04:17
  • Dogma = a principle or set of principles laid down by human beings as incontrovertibly true. To claim to know the mind of God is the most excessive form of hubris. Those that do claim to know more than they possibly can, speak with an authority they do not have, and typically resort to threatening eternal damnation if someone disagrees. History is full of examples where such "incontrovertible" claims were demonstrably overturned by mere human investigation, reasoning, and deduction: Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, Kepler, Mendel, Darwin, and Newton, to name but a few. – Codosaur Oct 12 '20 at 06:52
  • @Codosaur Pope St. Pius X condemned this proposition: "22. The dogmas the Church holds out as revealed are not truths which have fallen from heaven. They are an interpretation of religious facts which the human mind has acquired by laborious effort." (Lamentabili Sane or "Syllabus Condemning the Errors of the Modernists"). – Geremia Oct 12 '20 at 21:27
  • Not surprising, Pius X also rigorously opposed science and secular democracy. Yes, they are interpretations by fellow human beings, being presented as dogma. And that's all they are: someone's interpretation. I see no reason one cannot question and disagree with interpretations. the concept of papal infallibility did not exist before 1870. It is probably not a coincidence it was deemed necessary for this to be added to doctrine after Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859. – Codosaur Oct 13 '20 at 07:42
  • @Codosaur Where was he "rigorously opposed science"? And yes of course he opposed atheistic ("secular") democracy. Popes, under the proper conditions, could be infallible before 1870. Vatican I was convened in part to fight the errors of scientism and positivism. – Geremia Oct 13 '20 at 21:09
  • Secular democracy is the only form of government that guarantees both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Secular democracy does not equate forcing belief systems. That's what dictatorships and theocracies do. As to where Pius X was opposed to science: he attempted to ban modern scientific theories and methodology from influencing doctrine.in Pascendi and Lamentabili by the inquisition in 1907. – Codosaur Oct 14 '20 at 09:46
  • @Codosaur "Secular [atheistic] democracy" separates Church and State: "Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice [and freedom], it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments." (Leo XIII, Libertas §18). – Geremia Oct 14 '20 at 23:27
  • @Codosaur Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors condemned prop. #55: "The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church." – Geremia Oct 14 '20 at 23:27
  • @Codosaur How is Pope St. Pius X in Lamentabili "opposed to [the human] science[s]" by condemning these propositions: "57. The Church has shown that she is hostile to the progress of the natural and theological sciences." and "64. Scientific progress demands that the concepts of Christian doctrine concerning God, creation, revelation, the Person of the Incarnate Word, and Redemption be re-adjusted."? – Geremia Oct 14 '20 at 23:30