“Jesus loves you, and if you don’t have faith in him, he’ll send you to hell.” In one form or another this reduction ad absurdum is used against Christians again and again. It is not just silliness, however. The problem of hell is a tough one, as apologist Karlo Broussard explains in this episode.
Cy Kellett:
Hello and welcome to Focus, the Catholic Answers podcast for living, understanding and defending your Catholic faith. I’m Cy Kellett, your host. And among the things that are probably hardest to accept about the Christian conception of the world, the Christian understanding of the world is the teaching on eternal damnation on hell. As a matter of fact, you sometimes see this caricature of Christianity that involves, oh, God loves you infinitely, God loves you so much, and if you don’t love him back, he’ll send you to hell. That this is the kind of way of parodying or caricaturing. What is the truth about Christianity and making it seem ridiculous. It’s not hard to do though because the teaching on hell is a hard one for everyone. So how can we believe in Jesus, believe in the love of Jesus, and also believe that there is a threat of hell over us who still walk this earth To discuss that. Karlo Broussard is our guest, Karlo longtime apologist here at Catholic Answers. A wonderful speaker and writer, Karlo, thank you for being with us.
Karlo Broussard:
Cy thanks for having me, buddy.
Cy Kellett:
So this is the kind of stuff you have to think about as a philosopher.
Karlo Broussard:
Indeed and as a theologian.
Cy Kellett:
Right. Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
Because the doctrine of hell and the revelation of that reality that Jesus presents to us is something that’s belongs properly to theology, but philosophical principles are going to be involved when we’re trying to articulate this stuff and explain it.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
This is a great example of how philosophy is the handmaiden of theology where philosophy is used or employed in order to make sense of, explain, articulate what we have from divine revelation. So we take that reveal data and we bring our reason to bear on it, and that’s properly theology. But in doing so, we’re going to be using philosophical principles to try and articulate that stuff. So it’s a nice wedding of philosophy and theology. And so hopefully in our conversation some of that’ll come to light.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, indeed. Because you almost want to say, if you’re a normal person, the concept of hell bothers you.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah.
Cy Kellett:
If you found someone who’s really comfortable with hell or really likes that idea, you’d say, “Maybe you need a little help. Maybe you need to see somebody.”
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. It’s not something that we rejoice in in and of itself. As an end or goal that our will and our desires are going to rest in just like suffering. It’s suffering and pain. These are things and even punishment, and we’re going to talk about punishment here. These are not things that we rejoice in and of themselves, but when they are annexed, associated with other things and put within their proper context within a broader whole, then that can be a source of rejoicing and seen as a good, but the punishment or the suffering or the pain in and of itself is not something that we rejoice in.
Cy Kellett:
No. Okay. So first of all, before we start, then tell me what do I need to stay out of hell? I want to make sure we’re clear on this.
Karlo Broussard:
You need to love Jesus.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. All right.
Karlo Broussard:
The bottom line is that we need to die in a state of friendship with God, and that ultimately comes in virtue of grace, what we call sanctifying grace. There are ordinary ways of receiving that sanctifying grace, the sacraments, baptism, that grace is preserved and strengthened through the Eucharist and healed through sacrament of reconciliation, confirmed the sacrament of confirmation. And as long as we have that sanctifying grace when we die, heaven will be ours and thus we will be avoiding hell. If we lose that sanctifying grace through mortal sin, well then it’s possible to get it back through the sacrament of reconciliation. But if we die without that sanctifying grace, hell will be our lot. So the condition for going to hell is committing a mortal sin or rejecting God, committing mortal sins are contrary to charity, which is that which we need to go to heaven, that new life for sanctifying grace, rejecting God, turning away from God and dying in that state of unrepentant.
Then hell will be our lot. Now, people who don’t have access to the sacraments through no fault of their own, it’s possible they can get that sanctifying grace too. The church teaches this, that it’s possible for people outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church to be saved. That is to say, to die in a state of friendship with Jesus, to die with sanctifying grace in their soul. And God gives them that sanctifying grace and mysterious ways known only to him that go beyond and above, go beyond the visible sacraments. So you have ordinary ways of receiving that sanctifying grace. You have extraordinary ways of receiving that sanctifying grace. But the bottom line is that sanctifying grace is what is needed to enter into heaven, to die in friendship with Jesus. If we ain’t got that, then hell will be our life.
Cy Kellett:
And Jesus wants us to have it. Sometimes I know people get weird, do I have that or do I not have that? Jesus intends for us to have it. He’s not trying to play a trick on anybody. There’s no trick questions on the quiz.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. Given this order of providence that we have been made for eternal beatitude, which is seeing the divine essence and the beatific vision in virtue of that, God is bound injustice to himself to make that destiny available to all rational creatures, like the possibility, the real possibility of attaining that eternal goal, that end of heaven is given to all rational creatures. Such that whatever rational creature, angel or human ends up in hell and is damned is due to their rejection of the grace and virtue of which it is possible to be saved. So all beings that are damned in hell are there as a result of their free choice to say no ultimately to God. And so it’s important to make that note because the real possibility to be saved is given to all.
Cy Kellett:
So all this discomfort around hell, it’s increased, I suppose in a way in that the primary teacher about hell is Jesus himself. That it’s not even an Old Testament prophet. It’s not even an apostle or something like that. It’s Jesus himself that gives us the primary teachings on hell.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. Yeah. So a couple of examples here would be, for example, John 15:6, “If a man doesn’t abide in me, he’s cast forth as a branch and withers and the branches are gathered, thrown into the far and burned,” commonly viewed as an image for hell. Matthew 25:41, “Depart from me, you cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels,” that’s commonly referred to or seen as a reference to hell. Clearer example would be when our Lord talks about the door that leads to heaven is narrow, the door that leads to hell or the gate that leads to hell is wide. Both Matthew and Luke give their versions of this teaching. Jesus is very clear that there are some who do not enter through that door, which leads to heaven implying that there are some who end up in hell in fact. And so Jesus was very clear that not only is hell a possibility, but that there are some, at least in that text at the end of time, there are some that will end up in hell.
Cy Kellett:
Here he is, he comes with the Messiah, he heals, he teaches, he sanctifies people. It’s just all good news with Jesus. So how is it that a loving Jesus can say these things? How, I guess is love compatible with this idea of hell?
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah. Well, I guess, Cy, in beginning to answer that question, we can ask the opposite question of why is it that love would not be compatible with hell? So is it because love and punishment are incompatible, is punishment contrary to love?
Cy Kellett:
No.
Karlo Broussard:
Is that what the issue is? Or is it that love an eternal punishment or incompatible?
Cy Kellett:
For me, it would be the second one. Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
The eternal aspect of punishment being incompatible with love. So it is going to be either of these two. I can’t think of any other possible reasons why love would be incompatible with hell. It’s either going to be punishment itself or the eternal aspect of the punishment of hell. Because what hell is a definitive self-exclusion of a person from union with God in heaven, which results in the punishment of eternally being separated from God. That’s the primary chief punishment of hell is being separated from God, which is a result of one’s definitive act of self exclusion. And it is true that God is keeping that soul away from him in the sense that that’s the nature of things. When the individual makes that choice and dies in that choice and the soul separates from the body, that choice is fixed, it’s not going to change, and that soul is going to remain separated from God for the rest of its existence.
That’s a part of the fabric of reality as constituted by God. So there is a sense in which we can say God does send the soul to hell. It’s not in completely 100% entirely only the soul keeping itself from God. I mean, God’s involved here too, because God’s the author of the very fabric of that reality of what’s taking place. And so it’s got to be either. And so there is a sense of punishment here. So it’s either going to be that punishment itself, which is essential to hell, that’s incompatible with love or the eternal aspect of that punishment. So these are our two targets here, and we can talk about both maybe.
Cy Kellett:
Well, all right, well let’s just start with the idea of punishment because I suppose there are many people who say, “Well, of course God doesn’t punish anyone and well, forget about the eternal stuff. God loves everybody. He loves you as you are. He doesn’t punish.” There are people who would say that.
Karlo Broussard:
Well, I think we can begin to think through this side by just appealing to intuition. So we don’t normally, you said it right off the bat, no, I don’t think punishment is contrary to love. We intuit that punishment is not incompatible with love. When we look at parents who punish their children, and there’s of course there’s a spectrum of degrees of punishment from a harsh no, that’s in a sense a punishment because you’re imposing some form of displeasure upon the child for doing bad behavior with a stern no. Or to the other end of a spectrum, maybe a swot on the bottom or something, or putting them in their time out and limiting them in their freedom. Wherever you land on that spectrum of punishment, when you intuitively don’t think that punishment is incompatible with love. In fact, we often intuit that for a parent not to punish the child is unloving.
Cy Kellett:
Exactly.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s actually contrary to love because that implies you don’t really care about the child and the child’s behavior and so your hands off, you don’t punish. And that’s actually unloving. Now that’s an appeal to intuition. And then we can ask the question, “Well, can we substantiate that? Can we justify that? Can we ground that intuition through philosophical reasoning?” And I think we can. Why is it loving to punish? Well, whenever a parent punishes his child, the parent is actually willing the good of the child in as much as the parent is punishing in order to correct or reform the child’s behavior and to have good behavior, which is a good for the child. And in as much as the parent is willing, the good for the child, the parent’s loving the child because love is to will the good of the other and do what you can to bring about that good.
So at least in this case, in this scenario, when the parent punishes the child, the parent is willing the good of the child in as much as the parent is trying to reform the child’s behavior to get the child to turn away from the bad behavior by associating the bad behavior with pain or displeasure. And the child turns to the good behavior and the child experiences pleasure and happiness, and that’s a good thing for the child. So at least we can say in some way, at least in this way, love is not incompatible with punishment or to state it differently, punishment is not incompatible with love, at least in some way we can see that.
Cy Kellett:
So I could extrapolate from that, for example, the punishment of purgatory, for example, the suffering in purgatory. I mean, sometimes if I know that in order to become better at things, I have to impose a kind of suffering on myself, whether it’s the suffering of studying when I don’t feel like studying anymore or exercising or eating.
Karlo Broussard:
But that doesn’t have the note of punishment because there’s no crime associated with that suffering.
Cy Kellett:
No. But there’s a lot of goods that I could have done or could do or could possess that I don’t just out of, I don’t know, laziness or whatever other sinfulness. So the punishment of purgatory makes sense as a kind of purifying punishment to me. That maybe a little bit of suffering and I could have helped a poor person that I just didn’t want to suffer that way. So I didn’t do it. So to purify me of that, I can understand the kind of equation of suffering in that. It’s a kind of parental, it’s a helpful punishment.
Karlo Broussard:
Whereas the end result is something better.
Cy Kellett:
That I’ll be prepared to see God face to face. So then here’s my problem, the person in hell doesn’t get better.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. Yeah. That’s right. This is a good counter to the previous line of reasoning that some might give. The counter is, well, wait a minute, the damned do not have the possibility of reforming. And so the punishment bestowed upon them in hell would not be ordered to reforming their character and thus their good and thus loving them. And so therefore, the punishment bestowed upon the damned cannot be for any good for them since it can’t be reformed.
Cy Kellett:
That sounds right.
Karlo Broussard:
Sounds right, right?
Cy Kellett:
But it’s not right.
Karlo Broussard:
But it’s not right.
Cy Kellett:
Okay.
Karlo Broussard:
Actually, so I’ll admit this is a really good counter. And many times whenever we try to justify punishment simply with regard to reforming one’s character and how that’s good for the person or for the sinner or for the criminal, although that is a end of punishment, it’s not the only end. So the primary end of punishment is, I would argue retributive justice, that there is a displeasure that is due to the individual and the punishment is to discharge that debt to where the displeasure is given to the individual in account of taking pleasure where one ought to not have taken pleasure. And we have to hold to that, right? Because if we’re going to hold to the doctrine of hell where there is no reformation of character through the punishment, the only thing that we’re left with is retributive justice, that the punishment of the damned is for the sake of justice.
But then that raises the question within our context here about love willing to go to the other, how is this punishment of the damned good for them.
Cy Kellett:
Because they don’t like it.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. That’s right. An apologist might, or even a skeptic might acknowledge that, well, I could see how there would be good for the cosmos as the whole, the whole order of providence. As apologists we often say, at least those who follow the tradition of St. Thomas Aquinas would say, “Well, the punishment bestowed upon the damned manifest the justice of God. And it manifests the glory of God, and this punishment has a proper place that it fits within this whole grand scheme of things.” But we’re still left with that question. Well, we’re trying to reconcile this punishment with love, which is willing the good of the other. So how is this punishment still good for the damned? That’s the question.
Cy Kellett:
I love how you did that.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah.
Cy Kellett:
In order for it to be love, it has to be good of the other.
Karlo Broussard:
Good for them, some, right? So God has to be willing their good in punishing them.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah. Right.
Karlo Broussard:
All right. So here are a few possible answers that we could think through. First of all, there is the good of manifesting the truth, the good of manifesting truth to the damned soul, which is a good for the soul because all rational creatures are made for the truth. And in as much as a rational creature comes to know the truth, that’s a good for the creature. Does that make sense so far?
Cy Kellett:
Yes. Right.
Karlo Broussard:
Well, the punishment of the damned is a manifestation of truth for the damned soul, which is a good for the soul. So which truths? Consider these, Cy. The truth about justice, the truth, not just about the justice of God, but justice with regard to the proportion between the punishment and the offense. We argue that the damned soul is receiving a just punishment. There is a proportion between the rejection of God for eternity and the eternal punishment bestowed upon the soul. There’s a proportion there, and therefore a justice.
So the punishment is a manifestation of the truth of justice, and that’s a good for the soul, that knowledge of that truth. Secondly, the truth of God’s wisdom concerning the nature of human behavior and happiness, God has ordered it so that rational behavior, that behavior that’s in accord with reason, whether for angelic beings or human beings, behavior that’s in accord with reason should be associated with pleasure, happiness, delight. Behavior that’s contrary to reason should be associated with displeasure or pain, that’s God’s order. Well, whenever we sin, we mess that order up. We take pleasure where we ought not to have taken pleasure.
Cy Kellett:
Or sometimes we cause suffering for someone who doesn’t deserve that suffering.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. So in punishment, whether it’s eternal or not, there is a manifestation because we’re bestowing displeasure where displeasure is due, associating it with bad behavior. That’s the manifestation of the truth of that order of human behavior and pleasure or displeasure. Good behavior, pleasure, bad behavior, displeasure. So it’s a manifestation of the truth of God’s wisdom. And that’s a good for the soul to know that truth and to see that truth with such clarity, and then also the truth that were made for God because the soul, the primary chief suffering of hell will be for an eternity being separated from he in whom our happiness lies alone. Right?
Cy Kellett:
Yes.
Karlo Broussard:
And that’s a manifestation of the truth that the soul forever will be knowing I am made for God and I cannot have God. And that’s the primary chief form of suffering, as the theologians throughout the centuries have articulated. So we have the manifestation of truth, the truth about justice, the truth of God’s wisdom, the truth that we are made for God, and the truth is a good for the soul.
Cy Kellett:
So in a certain sense, are you saying that it’s better to know the truth, even if it hurts to know the truth?
Karlo Broussard:
Well, excuse me. That’s well put, Cy. Yes.
Cy Kellett:
Oh, well, thank you, Karlo.
Karlo Broussard:
And in as much as that truth is manifest to the damned soul, God is willing the good of the soul, and thus loving right the soul.
Cy Kellett:
And so not depriving the soul of truth.
Karlo Broussard:
That is right.
Cy Kellett:
Okay.
Karlo Broussard:
Now there’s another way in which God is loving the soul, and that is to say justice itself is a common good.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. Yeah, sure.
Karlo Broussard:
So getting back to the concept of justice, there’s a proportion between the offense and the punishment. That manifestation of justice, that justice is a common good. Justice is we say how love and truth and justice, these are common goods. It’s not good just for you, not a good just for me. It’s a good for all rational creatures. And in as much as justice is served in the punishment of the damned, and as much as justice is manifest in the punishment of the damned, that’s a common good for all rational creatures, and thus a common good for the damned soul. So as much as God’s willingness justice, he’s willing to good of the soul because justice is a good for the soul. And then finally, like in an all punishment, Cy, and I think this will resonate with you. It’s an affirmation or a willing of the nature of the individual as a rational creature to will the punishment is that the same time to affirm the freedom that the rational creature has for making such choices and that’s willing the good. God is willing the very rational nature of the soul.
Cy Kellett:
By respecting the choice and allowing the person to have what they chose.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. So check Dr. Ed Feser in his book on capital punishment, he’s dealing with capital punishment. But I think what he says here applies. Here’s what he writes. “Punishment actually affirms human dignity precisely because in afflicting on the offender, a punishment, whether in this life or in the next, proportionate to his offense, it treats him as a free and rational agent who is fully responsible for his behavior rather than as a mere animal or robot.” So what God is doing in willing the punishment of the damned is at the same time willing their rational nature, willing their reality of being free beings in virtue of which they freely rejected him and thus merited this eternal punishment. So it’s a willing of their good insofar as he is willing and affirming their freedom and their rational nature. So basically God’s relating and acting with relating to the souls and even the demons according to their nature, their rational nature. And so if they weren’t free, you would have no punishment. So the punishment is a manifestation of the free nature of these beings. So it’s a respecting of their dignity as rational creatures.
Cy Kellett:
And we often hear an apologist say that, if you choose to reject God, God will respect that choice.
Karlo Broussard:
So rather than it being contrary to love, it’s actually loving. And we can see that just with punishment itself, and then also with this eternal aspect of punishment.
Cy Kellett:
So in this way, we can say, “Well, punishment is not contrary to love because we have so many simple analogies all over the world where even ourselves, we know we have benefited from loving punishment at some point in our lives.” But now you’ve shown us that even eternal punishment is not opposed to love.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. Because we can identify some, because in our common intuition, in our common experience of punishment, we say, “It’s not incompatible with love because the punishment is correcting the behavior. And that’s a good thing for the person. But that can’t apply to the damned, because they can’t reform their behavior. So how is it still good for them and willing the punishment and thus loving them?” And we articulated a few ways, manifestation of the truth, truth about justice, God’s wisdom, the truth about how they’re made for God and their ultimate end justice itself is a common good and willing to punishment. You’re willing justice and willing justice, you’re willing the good of the individual. And then finally, we said that it is an affirmation or a willing of the rational nature of the creature, respecting the dignity of that soul or angel as being a free rational agent.
Cy Kellett:
I still have an objection. By my own power, I can’t save myself, I can’t save myself from eternal punishment. I know I rely entirely on God’s grace to be saved. Why didn’t he just give that grace to the people who are damned?
Karlo Broussard:
And so that would seem to be unloving, right?
Cy Kellett:
Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
Well, we talked about this before. I think, I can’t remember if it was in a prerecorded show for CA live or another focus. I think we did a focus on hell before with the justice of hell. But let’s talk about a little bit about it here. The first thing that we have to say with regard to grace is that, as I said before, God gives all the possibility, a real possibility to be saved.
Cy Kellett:
So I can’t say that the damned never received the grace?
Karlo Broussard:
We cannot say that the damned never received the possibility to be saved because they did.
Cy Kellett:
Okay.
Karlo Broussard:
All right. Now, because they there is due to the fact that they rejected the offer to be saved in some way, shape, or form, okay?
Cy Kellett:
Right.
Karlo Broussard:
Now, let’s say God gives me the possibility real grace to be saved right here and right now, I could receive the grace of salvation and remain in that state of salvation, but I forfeit it, I reject it. And so I’m in a state of non salvation, okay? God could give me the grace of repentance, and he often does, thank God, but he’s not bound to do so. The real possibility to be saved was given already. I forfeited it. That possibility I rejected, I said, “No.” And then what I need now to be saved is the grace of repentance.
And God, it’s entirely up to him whether he’s going to give that grace of repentance or not. But he’s not bound to, you see? And if he’s not bound to give me that grace, if it’s not due to me, then it is not unloving for him not to give it to me. And as even St. Thomas Aquinas says, him not giving it to me is on account of my rejection of prior graces or rooted sins that are in my soul. Now, let’s say even God gives me a possibility to repent or a possibility to be saved consistently throughout my life, all the way up until my death in this order of things, if he’s given it to me at every moment, at every moment, ultimately, there’s going to be a rejection of that possibility to be saved. My saying no. And if I die in that rejection of God, then hell will be my destiny.
And now somebody might ask, “Well, man, well, why didn’t God just give me the grace to say yes at that moment?” And that’s where we bow in humility. And we’re in the darkness of mystery here. And the only answer to that is knowing the divine essence itself. But we can say for sure that everyone receives a real possibility to be saved and for whatever reason, if the grace of repentance at the end is not given, it is not contrary to God’s love because God is not bound in justice to himself to give that grace. That’s why it’s called a grace. It’s over and above our nature and what’s due to us.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah. Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
He already gave what he’s bound and justice to himself to give in virtue of the real possibility to be saved. But ultimately, he wills for us to have the freedom to say no to that grace, to say no to him, and thus possibly merit eternal punishment in hell. And it’s not contrary to his mercy either, because you can’t speak of mercy in demanding at the same time. If we say God must give the grace of repentance because he is merciful, well then that’s saying that God is bound to give us that grace of repentance.
Cy Kellett:
But then that’s not mercy.
Karlo Broussard:
That’s right. Because mercy is something that’s over and above what is due. This grace of the grace of repentance is not due to us. And when I speak of that grace of repentance, I speak of that grace of repentance after one has fallen out of relationship with God after one has rejected that real possibility to be saved.
Cy Kellett:
All right, so let’s say this horrible thing happens and the soul ends up in hell. Why doesn’t God show mercy on them now that they’re in hell? Why does he stop mercy to them?
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah, very good question. Because here’s where the philosophy comes in. There’s a certain metaphysical reality that’s in place. It belongs to the nature of an incorporeal being and its choice to be fixed. And it kind of goes beyond what we can articulate in our conversation here today. But Dr. Ed Feser has written some great stuff on the irrevocability of the damned in hell or even the souls in heaven. Whenever an individual makes a choice, whether for God or to reject God, that ability to change one’s choice for what’s their ultimate life’s goal, that belongs to this life alone for us as corporeal beings. But whenever the soul separates, whatever the will has its sights set on, given sort of the metaphysical reality of the soul, et cetera, and free will, it’s set on that final goal.
So if the will has its sight set on something other than God as its final goal, then it will forever have its sight set on something other than God. And that’s the very definition of hell for the rest of its existence. But if the soul has its sight set on God as its ultimate life’s goal, then heaven will be its eternal destiny. And so that belongs to the very fabric of reality of the separated soul and the fixity, it’s irrevocability, it’s unchangeableness of its choice.
Cy Kellett:
But here’s what I’m saying though, so that’s permanent. The soul has chosen permanently, but couldn’t God turn down the heat in hell? You see what I’m saying?
Karlo Broussard:
Oh, yeah, I see what you’re saying. So actually, St. Thomas Aquinas has a few things to say about this. In fact, Aquinas is of the position, and this seems reasonable, that God is bestowing mercy upon the damned inhale by lessening its intensity when it should be more, it could be more, right?
Cy Kellett:
Okay. Yeah.
Karlo Broussard:
So for example, in the supplement to his Summa Theologica in question 99, article two and reply to objection one, he says this, “God in himself is mercy without bounds. But this mercy is regulated by wisdom,” and that’s where the whole justice thing comes in, “Which forbids mercy to demons and two demonized men.” And that would be based upon the fabric of reality, sort of the metaphysical reality of the choice of an incorporeal being fixed, right? “Yet even on these mercy, is still exercised. How? Not to put an end to their sufferings, but to punish them less than their merits demand.”
So Aquinas is thinking like, “Well, maybe God is punishing them to a lesser degree than what they really should be getting according to the demands of justice.” So the intensity could be, and according to justice would be more right? But given his mercy, he lessens the degree of the intensity of the suffering. At least this is how Aquinas is thinking about it. So Aquinas is offering a way in which we can see how God is still merciful on the damned, not the mercy with regard to forgiving them and they having repentance and them going to heaven, but mercy with regard to lessening the intensity of the suffering.
And then finally, in the first part of the Summa Theologian, question 21, article four, he says this, “If mercy were not mingled with justice, the damned would suffer still more.” And then he goes on. “Even then it intervenes not to remove the suffering, but to render it less heavy and painful.” So he’s articulating that same idea. So at least according to St. Thomas Aquinas, there’s a way to still see how God is merciful relative to the eternal punishment of hell. And finally, the last thing. So even-
Cy Kellett:
In other words, even those who have completely and eternally rejected him, he’s not imposing the absolute worst punishment.
Karlo Broussard:
Yeah, according to Aquinas, that’s what Aquinas is saying. There’s still more that could be justly administered to the damned, but they’re not because God is merciful. He’s showing mercy by lessening the intensity of the degree of the punishment, but it’s still eternal because of that sort of fabric of reality of an incomporial beings choice, and how that’s fixed on its eternal site. Yeah. Has its sight set on this eternal goal. Now, the problem might be the eternity of that punishment. We kind of mentioned that as a second target. Maybe it’s not punishment itself that’s incompatible with love, but maybe the eternity of the punishment. Well, remember this, given the fact that the soul is forever rejecting God because the will of the soul is forever fixed on something other than God, namely itself. It forever is due the punishment.
Or to state it differently, the punishment is forever due to the soul. And so therefore, what you have there is forever a manifestation of the truth of justice, the truth of God’s wisdom, the nature of behavior and happiness. The truth that the rational agent is made ultimately for God, the common good of justice itself. The willing and affirmation of the dignity of the rational agent. All of those goods are still present even within the framework of an eternal punishment because the damned is eternally or forever, and I’m using that word eternally loose here, forever rejecting God, and thus forever being subject to the punishment for rejecting God. And so the good is still forever willed for the individual damned soul or the fallen angel.
Cy Kellett:
Well, it gives us a lot of reason to be grateful to Jesus that he provided us the ample means to avoid all of this.
Karlo Broussard:
Absolutely. Yes. And keep in mind, again, I think it’s important to emphasize this in no way is meant to be interpreted as we are saying like Hell is a good thing in the absolute sense, right? And we need to be like everybody, [inaudible 00:37:22], we affirm it because it’s a reality. Our Lord has revealed it. And what we’re doing here is to simply trying to show how the existence and reality of hell is compatible with an all-loving God and Jesus being that God made flesh. That’s our purpose here.
Cy Kellett:
Amen. Thank you, Karlo.
Karlo Broussard:
Thank you, Cy.
Cy Kellett:
And that’ll do it for us here. Thanks for joining us. We do appreciate that you join us here for Catholic Answers Focus. If you want to send us an email, send it to focus@catholic.com. We love getting your emails. Maybe you got an idea for a future show, something you want us to ask Karlo, focus@catholic.com. If you’d like to support us, you can do so by going to givecatholic.com, givecatholic.com. Just put a little note there that says, “This is for Catholic Answers Focus.” And that’ll get to us. And if you would be so kind, maybe give us that five stars and a nice review wherever you listen to this podcast. That helps us grow the podcast. And that does it. I’ll see you next time. God willing, right here on Catholic Answers Focus.