A non-Catholic reader writes:
“…the Church’s official position is still that there are definitely people in hell, it just doesn’t claim to know which individuals are.”
Considering the church’s official position, wouldn’t this conflict with those the church declared “saints”? I mean, if they don’t know who is in hell, which is a fair assumption, how can they claim to know who is in heaven? We can assume that we know some are and, like you, I can safely believe that Peter, Paul, and the rest of the gang are there, but past that—I don’t know who’s there.
If the “infallible” church can say with certainty that Mother Teresa, Bernadette Soubirous, John Bosco, Vincent de Paul, etc. are in heaven, why can’t it say with just as much certainty the names of those whom they believe are in hell (Hitler, Stalin, Ivan the Terrible, Pol Pot, et al)?
Later, when it was pointed out that the Church utilizes miracles performed through the intercession of the saints as evidence that they are in heaven, the reader wrote:
First of all, we would have to assume that the church is correct in saying these “saints” are truly in heaven, regardless of miracles and personal testimonies (which again we would have to trust the church on). Secondly, miracles and personal testimonies aren’t truly indicators of salvation. Other pagan religions have their “holy men” who have mimicked the same. Mr. Akin stated that Judas and Nero could be said to be in hell, which, IMO, is a fair estimation. Yet, when the church claims to know with certainty who “made it”, but cannot say for sure who didn’t; well, it’s pretty presumptuous.
Since you’re non-Catholic, it’s understandable that you would not share the epistemology needed to have confidence in the Church’s canonization of saints. However, since the discussion was an intramural one among Catholics, you kind of need to be willing to “go with” that epistemology for purposes of this discussion. We could have a discussion of why the Church has the epistemology it does (it isn’t just making assumptions), but that is a different discussion than this one. (Discussions on blogs need to be fairly narrow in scope because of limitations of format. If we were writing chapter- or book-length entries in the discussion, we could try dealing with both at once, but blog entries are too short, so we need to stick to one issue at a time.)
Regarding the discussion at hand, I think it is possible for the Church to use its gift of infallibility to “canonize the damned,” or “anti-saints” as we might call them:
1) I think this is clearly possible in the case of select individuals like Judas and Nero, for whom we have special revelation regarding their fates. Since the Church has the power to infallibly define the meaning of the revelation given to the Church, it would be possible for the Church to use that infallibility regarding the meaning of the revelation connected with the fate of Judas and a few other individuals. Thus the Church could define that they are in hell; it simply hasn’t done so to this point.
2) I also suspect that the Church might be able to use its infallibility to define the damnation of other individuals. If it can define the dogmatic fact that a particular person is in heaven, this would seem to be prima facie evidence that the Church would also be able to use its infallibility to define that a particular person isn’t in heaven.
3) We could speculate on the evidential basis that could be offered for particular anti-saint definitions. There is an assymetry regarding the evidence we have for the fates of saints and anti-saints (i.e., we have intercessory miracles as evidence for the salvation of saints, but we don’t have the same for the damnation of anti-saints), but this is not an ultimately insuperable problem. Unfortunately, spelling out a detailed rationale would make this entry unduly long and so will have to wait for another time.
4) In any event, the matter is speculative since, as there has been no motivating factor for the Church to define the damnation of anti-saints, it has never done so.
Hope this helps!
What possible purpose could there be for us to know in this life who is damned? The purpose of knowing who is in heaven is not merely to satisfy curiosity but to give us certain knowledge that particular individuals can intercede for us in a special way because they are in God’s presence.
I also think “canonizing the damned” would create too big a temptation to “write off” people who haven’t yet been “canonized as damned” but seem –to us — to qualify. Those people then, who may have achieved salvation through final repentance, would be deprived of our prayers if they are in purgatory.
I know that there is a huge temptation to unofficially canonize saints (i.e., “I just know Mom went straight to heaven”), and that is a temptation that must be fought; but I can’t help but think that it would be an even worse temptation to unofficially canonize “anti-saints,” and that may be one reason why the Church has never done so. Not even with Judas, whose salvation just might be the ultimate “Surprise!” awaiting us in heaven.
I’m trying to think of what would constitute evidence of damnation, an evidentiary parallel to the miracles attributed to the intercession of the saints, and I come up with a big zero.
What’s the opposite of a miracle, an anti-miracle? Some unbelieveable bit of “bad luck”? A natural catastrophe, perhaps? Perhaps invoking the damned’s name in a black magic spell . . . that works!?
I don’t know if anyone has made this point yet, but it’s also worth noting that the Church’s confidence of the beatitude of canonized saints is a reflection of the Communion of the Saints.
The Church Militant and the Church Triumphant share a common spiritual union in Christ, and and the Church’s ability to discern individual souls among the Blessed is one aspect of this “mystic sweet communion with those whose rest is won.”
Needless to say, there is NO corresponding communion with the Lost. Thus, who specifically they may be is naturally a far more opaque question than who has been saved.
I think something else should be kept in mind in this discussion — namely, Jesus’ commandment forbidding us from condemning anyone. God has reserved all condemnation to Himself — He did not grant the Church the right to pass final judgment on anyone. Therefore, although the Church certainly could define that certain individuals are in hell (I think Judas is an obvious one, since Jesus Himself says it would be better if Judas had never been born — that can only mean he went to hell), it would tend to contradict Christ’s teaching that we should exercise charity for one another, pray for another, and hope for the best — i.e., hope that each person will be finally saved (while knowing that some, perhaps most, will not be). Another factor is the biblical teaching that the damned will be forgotten — to “canonise the damned” would be to remind people of their existence. The damnation of a soul is such a terrible thing that we rightly shrink from thinking about it — we dare not even look upon it. I think this background can help us understand why the Church doesn’t “canonise the damned.”
Well, as I suggested in an earlier thread, even JPII doesn’t gloss Jesus’ remarks about Judas as implying that Judas is in hell:
“Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment? And yet, the words of Christ are unequivocal. In Matthew’s Gospel He speaks clearly of those who will go to eternal punishment (cf. Mt 25:46). Who will these be? The Church has never made any pronouncement in this regard. This is a mystery, truly inscrutable, which embraces the holiness of God and the conscience of man. The silence of the Church is, therefore, the only appropriate position for Christian faith. Even when Jesus says of Judas, the traitor, “It would be better for that man if he had never been born” (Mt 26:24), His words do not allude for certain to eternal damnation.” (my emphasis)
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/POPE/HopeBook/chap28.html
I’m not, then, so sure that James’ gloss on the words of Jesus is the only legitimate Catholic view.
READER ROUND-UP
David: Didn’t mean to say or imply that my interpretation of what Jesus said is the only legitimate interpretation. I simply think that it is the *correct* interpretation. (If I didn’t, it wouldn’t be *my* interpretation.)
Also, note that the pope says that Jesus saying this “do not allude *for certain* to damnation.” He’s not saying that they don’t allude to damnation. He’s acknowledging that they give the appearance of alluding to damnation, he’s simply holding out some kind of chance that they don’t.
A future pope might conclude that they do, and would be capable of infallibly defining the matter, just as he could define the correct interpretation of anything Jesus revealed to us.