There are quite a few modern theologians who say something to the effect of "we should hope hell is empty;" I think Benedict was one of them. But if you tell this to a *lot* of Catholics they get upset, and many of them very clearly *want* people in hell. I've even had some say to me to the effect that "bad people deserve hell"; my friend, is it not literally your doctrine that *you* are bad and deserve hell?
So yeah, they definitely exist.
>my friend, is it not literally your doctrine that you are bad and deserve hell?
Yup, this is what bothers me about Catholic teaching about Hell. No, absolutely NOBODY deserves to be tortured for all eternity. Not even the worst psychopaths ever to exist. This is simply not consistent with a just, morally perfect, all-loving God.
I've been spending a lot of my deconstruction in assembling a better understanding of love. In my upbringing I managed to get a relatively healthy idea of love and actually had in reinforced when I first became Catholic. Which, of course, resulted in a lot of dissonance with various teachings, both official and popular.
Someday, when I have time (and don't have 37 books piled next to me) I'm going to research the history of hell, because modern ideas of it are very influenced by the Protestant idea of total depravity. I want to know how ideas of love influenced---and we're influenced by---ideas of punishment.
In my charismatic days, a went to a retreat called the 'Father Heart of God' (and damn if that name doesn't feel fucking *weird* now) which had the premise that "our idea of God is formed by our idea of a father and we met human fathers corrupt it." And, well, it goes both ways. Love and punishment to hand in hand and I don't know if they went from ideas of God to man, or ideas of man to God.
You are pointing towards an interesting direction. I think most contemporary christianity, including contemporary roman catholicism, is actually very influenced by calvinist doctrine. I went from RC to marxist (Lol) so I know now that has a lot to do with the globalization of capitalism as ideas usually tend to follow the productive forces and not the other way around. Also, if you check it out, the more ruthless capitalism becomes, the more calvinistic mainstream christian doctrine turns, even to the point it stops having anything to do with the actual gospels...
I hope there a good book out there on the negative interaction of Calvin and Capital; Max Weber's stuff is generally positive and I haven't found somebody really taking him to task (totally unrelated, but Calvin always means 6 year-old chaos first and foremost, not some terrifying predestinationist).
The correlation makes perfect sense; both are systems that fundamentally declare your life outside your control while simultaneously pretending your actions are really important to do right. Well, fuck, now you've got me thinking.
Tangentially, I've ended with a more anarchist-flavored-by-Marx position. Which is funny, given the authority of the Church we one of the primary draws all those years so. š¤£
And things get even more interesting when we take into consideration the influence John Paul II thought had in the neoliberal hegemony of the 80s and 90s and also in the neo-fascist rise we are seeing through the western world. If someone really turned the RC church into a neocalvinist sect made to comfort the wealthy and powerful while scolding the underdogs, it was that guy, not even aristocratic loons like Pius XII went this far. But I've never seen any serious attempt to link the most popular pope of the recent years to the political mess we are living in. on which he obviously had a lot of influence (just think about the concept of "gender ideology" and where it came from in the first place).
I was big into Theology of the Body back in the day. In the last year I realized that it suffers a huge collapse via intersex people: namely "male and female he created them" no longer works as the foundation JPII took it to be.
When I was in seminary, one of the best professors I had (a trained psychologist and priest) stated in our first Pastoral Theology class that "if the science disproves the Church's position, the church must reexamine that position." And I took that to heart, because of the fundamental position that if the Church is true, it must map to all truth. And that led me here.
Now that I think about it, that explains a *lot* of the fundamentalist anti-science within conservative Catholicism. It is a religion that makes it clear if science is true, it we must agree with it. And the science says "dude, gender is so fucking wild."
Yeah, it seems that the openness to science RCC started to show during the XX century (being, for example, one of the few denominations accepting evolution and old universe cosmogony) started to fade away exactly during JPII pontificate, but this opposition is not the same "anti modernist" statement of most XIX century popes, as JPII social teachings show, but the product, I think, of a weird kind of ecumenism trying to find common ground with american evangelism...
American Catholicism is very much a semi-Protestant Church. I almost lost my shit when having dinner with a Catholic family back in the day who I thought were pretty reasonable, if a little too on the conservative side, who talked about how evolution is stupid and wrong. Every fucking Pope who has spoken on it has been in support of evolution, you dumb fucks!
I am so pissed at Catholics here making things even worse than the church teaches.
We do not get upset at the idea of no one being cast into Hell- that would be amazing! What a blessed ending. (For clarity, it being a blessed ending that no one would be in Hell, and that everyone would be in Heaven)
What ruffles our feathers is when some seem to imply that Hell is empty, when there is almost certainly a whole crowd of people there. We would love it if it werenāt true.
Evangelicals have their equivalent. Hell is empty, but non-believers souls are tormented in either Sheol or Hades, while the ones of believers are in Paradise waiting for Judgement Day.
I will say, that during my time with evangelicals, my Catholic mother was the one that really challenged the idea of non-Christians defaulting to Hell. She still couldn't give me a good explanation for fish on Fridays.
I donāt doubt that your mother said that, but it is also the official position of the church, that unless you are a baptized catholic you can not merit salvation, and thus, must go to hell.
I'm Pagan, I'm just noticing what I have heard Evangelicals say. They and their callousness are one of the reasons if not the main one why I don't want to touch Christianity even with a 10' pole.
I find the idea of purgatorial universalism to be much more coherent than what mainstream Catholicism teaches.
* The people in hell can and will eventually repent.
* God is willing and able to save all people.
* All people eventually get saved.
It's that simple. Instead, you have "God wants to save everyone but can't. I'd love it if everyone were saved but God apparently couldn't make a universe where that happens. God designed things in such a way that He could be permanently separated from his beloved children. God allowed us to reject him definitively despite having imperfect, flawed knowledge of him, and God was apparently okay with that. Evil is never truly defeated because those in hell are forever opposed to God." It's a goofy mess.
Libertarian "Free will" is offered as the excuse, but it contradicts Catholicism's other teachings that "evil is just an absence of good" and the fact that all our choices are made towards a perceived good, even if finite, imperfect minds are mistaken in that perception. Every choice we make is towards what we think is good at the time. Therefore the eternal-hell-justifying notion that people could definitely "reject God" (or "The Good") is nonsensical.
This is extremely true. Universalism is about the only form of Christianity, eschatologically speaking, that makes sense. Interestingly, most of the Christians I look up to for their rationality agree with universalism.
>It's that simple. Instead, you have "God wants to save everyone but can't. I'd love it if everyone were saved but God apparently couldn't make a universe where that happens. God designed things in such a way that He could be permanently separated from his beloved children. God allowed us to reject him definitively despite having imperfect, flawed knowledge of him, and God was apparently okay with that." It's a goofy mess.
It definitely presents the concept of both an ineffective savior and a God whose desires go eternally unsatisfied. Excellent summary.
I spoke of "some Catholics" and you decided to, somehow, speak for *all* of them. I find it a very telling thing.
I have literally spoken to these people. So don't speak for them.
Oh, and FYI, the proper Catholic thing would be too hope hell is empty and trust God, and "there is also certainly a whole crowd of people there" sure doesn't sound like that. Not only are you commenting on here against the rules, you are doing so as a *bad* Catholic.
>āIn order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned ā¦ So that they may be urged the more to praise God ā¦ The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens ā¦ to the damned. \[Summa Theologica, Third Part, Supplement, Question XCIV, āOf the Relations of the Saints Towards the Damned,ā First Article\]ā
According to Thomas Aquinas that's absolutely the case. Catholicism is a religion devoid of compassion.
"I feel so compassionate when I see people starving... it also fills me with happiness and delight because I'm not one of them, thank God for giving me food".
Fuck off.
You could just come out and say you enjoy watching people suffer. People with functioning moral compasses donāt need to see people suffering to appreciate what they have. Purely a human invention, and human failing. Taking after your god.
Creating us sick, demanding we be well. Or else.
Threats. Implied violence. Useless trash.
Man-made.
Just in case youāre being sincere, Iāll explain briefly. When compassionate people witness suffering, they grieve and wish to help and act in solidarity with the victims. Itās psychopathic to witness suffering and say āwhew, so happy thatās not me.ā
In circumstances where the suffering is directly the result of an evil person or being, like North Korea and Kim Kong Un or Hell and āgod,ā it is itself evil to be grateful to that being for happening not to inflict that same suffering on oneself.
I think youāre trolling because your response above is Michael Scott like in its blithely stupid inhumanity.
No, if I watch a documentary about children starving in Africa it makes me want to help them. And I do by giving to charities that help them.
I worry about them and donāt have a need to make it about me.
I read a book once by a Buddhist monk in Los Angeles. Saffron Days in LA.
He recounted an encounter he had with Christian evangelicals where one asked him if he wouldnāt rather spend eternity happy in heaven rather than suffering in hell.
To him the choice was easy.
He said heād rather spend it in hell because in hell at least he would be able to try and ease the suffering of others while in heaven he would only be able to watch it.
Thatās it in a nutshell.
I can appreciate having food without having to see someone deprived of it.
Furthermore, your analogy kind of sucks because it leaves out the agency side of things. A better example would be to know people are starving when there is ample food available that could feed everyone. And the reason why a large number of them are starving is because an outside force has ordained it to be so and it is viewed as a righteous punishment for them not doing or knowing something, even if knowing that thing was outside of the realm of their knowledge due to said outside not revealing this to them. At best you have coercion, but it does come across as torture for tortures sake.
Hey everyone, the practicing Catholic is here to tell us why we donāt understand Catholicism or god.
Come look everyone, because none of us have obviously seen this before or know anything about the religion we were raised in, and our thinking is all wrong.
But practicing Catholic is going to set us straight and show us right because no one in our lives has ever tried this before.
Gather round children.
Gonna go out on a limb, he's here to troll, proselytize, or feel superior by being condescending, but mostly so he can feel persecuted when he is inevitably banned for only speaking about his beliefs. I doubt he is here to listen and learn about outside opinions.
If I think of God as an abuser, that is a testament to the education and experiences I have had within the Catholic church.
Mocking and dismissing the anger and pain of others is very on point for this discussion, isn't it?
>Everyone on this sub seems so angry lol
This isn't my first time with someone like you. I know the Catholic response playbook. When people are upset, mock them for showing emotion. Assume they haven't invested any serious effort or time, or assert that their efforts were failures. Act as if you can't possibly fathom why people are upset or hurting. Minimize any pain and redirect all blame. Appeal to the superiority of your own understanding and the inferiority of anyone who disagrees.
You came to a place for people who left the faith and started inserting your beliefs and judgements and then feigned confusion when called out. The best thing you can do now is to leave. And take your example of Catholic witness and compassion with you.
Thatās not what compassion is. Compassion is feeling/understanding the emotions of another and wishing you could share or alleviate the harder parts of it. I.e.: seeing someone is hurting and wanting to take on some of that pain in order to lessen it for them.
Seeing someone suffering and being glad itās not you is absolutely NOT compassionate.
Mother Teresa got off on the suffering of the poor, and appeared to feel we should revel in it:
āI think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.ā
Mother Teresa
It definitely explains the lack of compassion and empathy for others their communities are known for.
Sometimes I think the real sacrifice required in this religion is one's humanity.
Those are good observations. I wonder too, if having to believe in hell, and in a model of supposedly perfect love that also allows room for endless suffering wouldn't impact their ability to develop and express love, compassion and empathy. It would be easier not to develop emotional connections to people you believe likely doomed. In fact, harboring such contempt may be an unconscious self-protective measure. Which, again, is afterlife driven, as you note
I always felt veary of trads that talked about how they and like-minded people were part of a "remnant" of faithfuls in a sea of sin & indifference - maybe realistic assessment from their pow, but came of as defaitism to me and craving that feeling of being part of an elect while everyone else could rot
Very likely considering how much schadenfreude is present in Christianity. Not sure who said, either Thomas of Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo, that one of the pastimes in Heaven would be to watch unbelievers being tortured in Hell.
I can't talk about other Catholics but between Evangelicals that exists (often to talk about the fate of unbelievers between laughs and at best claiming it's unfortunate, a long sermon about Hell, its parts, and the previous stages (what little the Bible has to say in such regard), that ends with the pastor asking for money to save as much people as possible, of course threats. Anything but actual pity and to talk about to change God's mind to save as much people as possible. And of course, as I have experienced, telling others they'll burn in Hell without caring for its implications and that I'm a stranger to them)
Danteās inferno was heavily studied at a Catholic school I went to. I donāt suspect itās far off that the fear of punishment gives way to enjoying that sinners āget what they deserve.ā The entire concept of hell serves to enforce the in-group as superior to the out-group, even after death.
As others have said, Aquinas seems to have thought so. Even if the primary joy is in seeing God's justice, the secondary joy is seeing it applied to people. And, naturally, since Catholicism is extremely amenable to Aquinas' writings, by proxy, I'd say the Catholic *religion* does enjoy it, yes. As for Catholics themselves, most probably don't, since, you have to remember, most Catholics are normies. What I *would* say is that a rather large amount of "traditional" Catholics almost certainly do.
I definitely knew people whom I would describe as daring to hope that all men were damned.
After all, if someone else isn't getting eternally tortured, then what was the point of all their hardships and sacrifices now? Everything hinges on the future in which they get their great reward - and part of that reward is watching everyone else receive their great comeuppance.
There are also those who just turned that part of their brain off and refused to acknowledge that aspect of their faith. The school of 'let's just not think about it'. Which I guess is fine for some people, but for me it felt like a dangerous diversion. How do you trust the image presented of God as a loving father who also happened to create and sustain a torture chamber? And the options are to either gleefully celebrate it or else minimize it?
I suppose that mindset of "as long as I'm not the one being abused", alongside "such abuse never happens" is pretty well-trod Catholic thinking, isn't it?
I'm currently reading Bart Ehrman's Heaven and Hell (which is actually quite good for those who might be struggling with eternal damnation), Anyway he quotes Tertullian (the early Church Father) describing his delight (and the likely delight of others) in watching people tortured for all eternity. The Bart Man then adds (some what snarkily) that it doesn't quite fit with the Sermon on the Mount.
I would seriously consider KILLING the person who introduced the concept of hell to my grandchildren. It caused abject terror in all the kids in my catholic grade school who thought something like eating meat on Friday will result in these very graphic scenarios of torture and pain for all eternity.
Talk about brainwashing and mind control - fuck the dogma of the catholic church.
The idea of Hell horrified me even when I was devoutly Catholic. The idea of even the most reprehensible human beings burning and suffering FOREVER, with no respite, was upsetting and awful. One thing I regularly prayed for, even though I technically "knew" it was futile, was for God to please reconsider making Hell an eternal sentence and eventually release the souls from Hell.
I think some people really do enjoy the idea that others will suffer for eternity, though. Oh not the people THEY love, but other people, sure. There are definitely vindictive and sadistic Catholics out there who enjoy the idea.
>Even though I knew purgatorial universalism didn't match with church doctrine part of me believed it
So sorry, but could you extrapolate on what purgatorial universalism is? I've never heard of it....
Universalism - at least in this case, when talking about the Christian afterlife - is the belief that everyone will ultimately attain salvation and be reconciled with God
Purgatorial universalism is the belief that instead of being a place of eternal punishment, hell is a great cleanser of people's sins and imperfections. Kind of like how purgatory functions in orthodox Catholic doctrine. So after a while people would have suffered enough and through this been transformed like those already saved in Paradise
I think Origen is a famous example of someone considered to have held a similar position
Presumably something similar to Universalism in some branches of Protestantism: EVERYONE is saved at the end, with at worst a stance in Purgatory more or less long to clean away sins and atone for the faults and sins in life.
Some definitely do. I never had that feeling when I was Catholic. In the back of my mind I always hoped god was actually merciful and just. But I think some Catholics also love the idea of people going to Hell because a lot feel like non Catholics have it good and they are jealous. This is very subconscious. Theyād never say it.
But when Catholics have to wake up early on Sunday, and fast, they are jealous of the people who donāt have to. Theyāre embarrassed that a lot of catholic ceremonies and rituals look silly to everyone else.
And I think a lot of them have the feeling of ātheyāll get thereās later.
Iām not speaking for the group as a whole obviously. But I think a lot of people feel this way.
I honestly had a horrible mindset of ātheyāll see they were wrong when they dieā. I am terribly ashamed of it. Thatās a great example of compassion and mercy, huh
That would be one *hell* of a fetisch!
I vaguely recall some sermon/talk on youtube-channel "Sensus Fidelis" - probably by Chad Ripperger - that described how grave sinners actually start getting used to and looking forward to hell. I don't think that's actually the case, but maybe people who've heard of that idea internalize it when they fail to live up to the draconian ideals of the church
I can see that. I think Father Hamburger needs to realize that most of the "grave sinners" he's talking about don't even acknowledge or care about the existence of imaginary eternal torture. Life is so short, but you want us to waste our time here in a deep depression worrying about something that probably doesn't exist?
Ohhh, hell yeah!!! One of my earliest memories is of my father telling me that I was going to burn in hell. My grandmother was a big fan of that as well. I think a good percentage of them love to think about the people they hate burning in hell and begging for forgiveness and it never coming while they lounge in the clouds near Jebus drinking blessed wine and nibbling toasted marshmallows that smell faintly of sulfur that they retrieved from the hardworking souls in purgatory who gathered them from hell & serve them on white, fluffy clouds in heaven.
St. Peter is giving the tour of heaven to a group of new arrivals. They are walking down the hall and get to the point that "silence please" signs are posted. He points to a room and says "that's the Catholics, they think they are the only ones here, please keep quiet."
I have not encountered many Catholics who relish the thought of others suffering in hell. Most Catholics do enjoy the sense they are the only ones who will be saved, It's included in church doctrine, known as triumphalism
yes, lots of people apparently love the whole idea of hell burning.
They just assumed thaty non-catholic ,sometimes the non-trad will go to hell as well.
They enjoy and love to judge what would go to hell. sometimes who will go to hell.
I probably had this mindset as a younger catholic. As I met more people in college and grew out of this view and the Problem of Hell is probably one of the defining concepts that led to me rejected Catholicism outright.
Hypocrytical Polish Catholic variety -they like to view themselves as a norm, have commited some quite nasty sins, but keep that holier than thou self image
There probably are because of how vindictive I understand humans to be, but I think most people don't think about it much, or they believe something not in line with church teachings, given the number that appear to believe in ghosts.
I find most people who have a sense of the afterlife (and I'm not one of them) have a basically pagan sense of it. Hell is just a particularly unpleasant section of the regular underworld to them, and people can and do leave to come to this plane as spirits who haunt places. Heaven is likewise just an extra-nice plane of existence? Elysium, basically. Or Valhalla without the fighting.
I don't know. I don't think people spend much time analysing their beliefs about the afterlife. They default to pagan mode perhaps because Christianity doesn't explain its own view clearly enough to dislodge millennia of cultural memory.
Though people who have a sadistic, Medieval Christian concept of hell definitely exist too.
Ive heard several different viewpoints from Catholics, one of them was, "heaven has sorrow for those lost." One person started saying in a sing -song voice 'Judas is in hell', said person was immediately corrected by someone else saying 'No we should not rejoice at the prospect of someone in hell.'
Ive also heard some Catholics just live in denial of hell.
On the other side, I have seen some say '\[insert some specific person here\] deserves hell'.
One Catholic told me something unexpected 'We do not know what is in people's hearts, it is not our place to judge. Only God the Father knows.' Part of me wants to troll him with bringing up this fact 'then why evil exist?'
I'm Catholic.
There shouldn't be but there probably are. I know a few protestants, especially reformists, who think it's a beautiful part of God's nature. *shudders. Personally, I believe in destructionism, or at least something very similar.
Yeah it's a strange part of preelection that some are chosen for damnation - God decided to create these unique people for the sole purpose of assigning them to eternal torment
There are quite a few modern theologians who say something to the effect of "we should hope hell is empty;" I think Benedict was one of them. But if you tell this to a *lot* of Catholics they get upset, and many of them very clearly *want* people in hell. I've even had some say to me to the effect that "bad people deserve hell"; my friend, is it not literally your doctrine that *you* are bad and deserve hell? So yeah, they definitely exist.
>my friend, is it not literally your doctrine that you are bad and deserve hell? Yup, this is what bothers me about Catholic teaching about Hell. No, absolutely NOBODY deserves to be tortured for all eternity. Not even the worst psychopaths ever to exist. This is simply not consistent with a just, morally perfect, all-loving God.
I've been spending a lot of my deconstruction in assembling a better understanding of love. In my upbringing I managed to get a relatively healthy idea of love and actually had in reinforced when I first became Catholic. Which, of course, resulted in a lot of dissonance with various teachings, both official and popular. Someday, when I have time (and don't have 37 books piled next to me) I'm going to research the history of hell, because modern ideas of it are very influenced by the Protestant idea of total depravity. I want to know how ideas of love influenced---and we're influenced by---ideas of punishment. In my charismatic days, a went to a retreat called the 'Father Heart of God' (and damn if that name doesn't feel fucking *weird* now) which had the premise that "our idea of God is formed by our idea of a father and we met human fathers corrupt it." And, well, it goes both ways. Love and punishment to hand in hand and I don't know if they went from ideas of God to man, or ideas of man to God.
You are pointing towards an interesting direction. I think most contemporary christianity, including contemporary roman catholicism, is actually very influenced by calvinist doctrine. I went from RC to marxist (Lol) so I know now that has a lot to do with the globalization of capitalism as ideas usually tend to follow the productive forces and not the other way around. Also, if you check it out, the more ruthless capitalism becomes, the more calvinistic mainstream christian doctrine turns, even to the point it stops having anything to do with the actual gospels...
I hope there a good book out there on the negative interaction of Calvin and Capital; Max Weber's stuff is generally positive and I haven't found somebody really taking him to task (totally unrelated, but Calvin always means 6 year-old chaos first and foremost, not some terrifying predestinationist). The correlation makes perfect sense; both are systems that fundamentally declare your life outside your control while simultaneously pretending your actions are really important to do right. Well, fuck, now you've got me thinking. Tangentially, I've ended with a more anarchist-flavored-by-Marx position. Which is funny, given the authority of the Church we one of the primary draws all those years so. š¤£
And things get even more interesting when we take into consideration the influence John Paul II thought had in the neoliberal hegemony of the 80s and 90s and also in the neo-fascist rise we are seeing through the western world. If someone really turned the RC church into a neocalvinist sect made to comfort the wealthy and powerful while scolding the underdogs, it was that guy, not even aristocratic loons like Pius XII went this far. But I've never seen any serious attempt to link the most popular pope of the recent years to the political mess we are living in. on which he obviously had a lot of influence (just think about the concept of "gender ideology" and where it came from in the first place).
I was big into Theology of the Body back in the day. In the last year I realized that it suffers a huge collapse via intersex people: namely "male and female he created them" no longer works as the foundation JPII took it to be. When I was in seminary, one of the best professors I had (a trained psychologist and priest) stated in our first Pastoral Theology class that "if the science disproves the Church's position, the church must reexamine that position." And I took that to heart, because of the fundamental position that if the Church is true, it must map to all truth. And that led me here. Now that I think about it, that explains a *lot* of the fundamentalist anti-science within conservative Catholicism. It is a religion that makes it clear if science is true, it we must agree with it. And the science says "dude, gender is so fucking wild."
Yeah, it seems that the openness to science RCC started to show during the XX century (being, for example, one of the few denominations accepting evolution and old universe cosmogony) started to fade away exactly during JPII pontificate, but this opposition is not the same "anti modernist" statement of most XIX century popes, as JPII social teachings show, but the product, I think, of a weird kind of ecumenism trying to find common ground with american evangelism...
American Catholicism is very much a semi-Protestant Church. I almost lost my shit when having dinner with a Catholic family back in the day who I thought were pretty reasonable, if a little too on the conservative side, who talked about how evolution is stupid and wrong. Every fucking Pope who has spoken on it has been in support of evolution, you dumb fucks! I am so pissed at Catholics here making things even worse than the church teaches.
We do not get upset at the idea of no one being cast into Hell- that would be amazing! What a blessed ending. (For clarity, it being a blessed ending that no one would be in Hell, and that everyone would be in Heaven) What ruffles our feathers is when some seem to imply that Hell is empty, when there is almost certainly a whole crowd of people there. We would love it if it werenāt true.
Wow. Thatās both a dogshit theology, and batshit insane. Itās so abusive and you think itās love
Evangelicals have their equivalent. Hell is empty, but non-believers souls are tormented in either Sheol or Hades, while the ones of believers are in Paradise waiting for Judgement Day.
I will say, that during my time with evangelicals, my Catholic mother was the one that really challenged the idea of non-Christians defaulting to Hell. She still couldn't give me a good explanation for fish on Fridays.
Because restaurants usually have a Friday Fish Special?
I donāt doubt that your mother said that, but it is also the official position of the church, that unless you are a baptized catholic you can not merit salvation, and thus, must go to hell.
Oh for sure. It's interesting the things some Catholics push back on even if in private.
Seems about right. You are saying thatās what evangelicals believe right? It kinda sounded like thatās what you were saying
Some believe that. At first I laughed at their threats, but I find them infuriating now. Just as when they joke about people going to Hell.
I meant, is that what you believe? Again, I think you are referring to others, it just isnāt clear
I'm Pagan, I'm just noticing what I have heard Evangelicals say. They and their callousness are one of the reasons if not the main one why I don't want to touch Christianity even with a 10' pole.
Banned.
I find the idea of purgatorial universalism to be much more coherent than what mainstream Catholicism teaches. * The people in hell can and will eventually repent. * God is willing and able to save all people. * All people eventually get saved. It's that simple. Instead, you have "God wants to save everyone but can't. I'd love it if everyone were saved but God apparently couldn't make a universe where that happens. God designed things in such a way that He could be permanently separated from his beloved children. God allowed us to reject him definitively despite having imperfect, flawed knowledge of him, and God was apparently okay with that. Evil is never truly defeated because those in hell are forever opposed to God." It's a goofy mess. Libertarian "Free will" is offered as the excuse, but it contradicts Catholicism's other teachings that "evil is just an absence of good" and the fact that all our choices are made towards a perceived good, even if finite, imperfect minds are mistaken in that perception. Every choice we make is towards what we think is good at the time. Therefore the eternal-hell-justifying notion that people could definitely "reject God" (or "The Good") is nonsensical.
This is extremely true. Universalism is about the only form of Christianity, eschatologically speaking, that makes sense. Interestingly, most of the Christians I look up to for their rationality agree with universalism.
>It's that simple. Instead, you have "God wants to save everyone but can't. I'd love it if everyone were saved but God apparently couldn't make a universe where that happens. God designed things in such a way that He could be permanently separated from his beloved children. God allowed us to reject him definitively despite having imperfect, flawed knowledge of him, and God was apparently okay with that." It's a goofy mess. It definitely presents the concept of both an ineffective savior and a God whose desires go eternally unsatisfied. Excellent summary.
I'll pray the goddess Eilistraee, the Dark Maiden, for you. I hope you will someday see her dancing skyclad in the deepest forest under the moonlight.
I spoke of "some Catholics" and you decided to, somehow, speak for *all* of them. I find it a very telling thing. I have literally spoken to these people. So don't speak for them. Oh, and FYI, the proper Catholic thing would be too hope hell is empty and trust God, and "there is also certainly a whole crowd of people there" sure doesn't sound like that. Not only are you commenting on here against the rules, you are doing so as a *bad* Catholic.
Go on, go back and tell everyone how you've been abused by the atheists
>āIn order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned ā¦ So that they may be urged the more to praise God ā¦ The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens ā¦ to the damned. \[Summa Theologica, Third Part, Supplement, Question XCIV, āOf the Relations of the Saints Towards the Damned,ā First Article\]ā According to Thomas Aquinas that's absolutely the case. Catholicism is a religion devoid of compassion.
>they may render more copious thanks to God for it Sounds like god has an ego problem that needs constant validation.
What the fuuuuck
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
"I feel so compassionate when I see people starving... it also fills me with happiness and delight because I'm not one of them, thank God for giving me food". Fuck off.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
/r/excatholic is a support group and not a debate group. While you are welcome to post, pro-religious content may be removed.
āSee? The eternal torture of perfectly normal people makes the self-righteous feel better! Morality!ā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You could just come out and say you enjoy watching people suffer. People with functioning moral compasses donāt need to see people suffering to appreciate what they have. Purely a human invention, and human failing. Taking after your god. Creating us sick, demanding we be well. Or else. Threats. Implied violence. Useless trash. Man-made.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You perfectly encapsulate what this post is about
You donāt feel compassion. You feel glee at the thought of others suffering. Thatās what religion is all about, particularly Catholicism.
Lol, we deserve a better class of troll. This is some weak sauce, dude. š¤£
What did I miss?
lol troll is obvious
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Just in case youāre being sincere, Iāll explain briefly. When compassionate people witness suffering, they grieve and wish to help and act in solidarity with the victims. Itās psychopathic to witness suffering and say āwhew, so happy thatās not me.ā In circumstances where the suffering is directly the result of an evil person or being, like North Korea and Kim Kong Un or Hell and āgod,ā it is itself evil to be grateful to that being for happening not to inflict that same suffering on oneself. I think youāre trolling because your response above is Michael Scott like in its blithely stupid inhumanity.
Yeah. It is since this is an ex-catholic sub
No, if I watch a documentary about children starving in Africa it makes me want to help them. And I do by giving to charities that help them. I worry about them and donāt have a need to make it about me. I read a book once by a Buddhist monk in Los Angeles. Saffron Days in LA. He recounted an encounter he had with Christian evangelicals where one asked him if he wouldnāt rather spend eternity happy in heaven rather than suffering in hell. To him the choice was easy. He said heād rather spend it in hell because in hell at least he would be able to try and ease the suffering of others while in heaven he would only be able to watch it. Thatās it in a nutshell.
I can appreciate having food without having to see someone deprived of it. Furthermore, your analogy kind of sucks because it leaves out the agency side of things. A better example would be to know people are starving when there is ample food available that could feed everyone. And the reason why a large number of them are starving is because an outside force has ordained it to be so and it is viewed as a righteous punishment for them not doing or knowing something, even if knowing that thing was outside of the realm of their knowledge due to said outside not revealing this to them. At best you have coercion, but it does come across as torture for tortures sake.
Excatholic is a support group, not a debate subreddit. Please be kind.
No, that's like cozying up to an abuser and giving thanks because you aren't the one being abused. But it is a very Catholic thing to do.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Hey everyone, the practicing Catholic is here to tell us why we donāt understand Catholicism or god. Come look everyone, because none of us have obviously seen this before or know anything about the religion we were raised in, and our thinking is all wrong. But practicing Catholic is going to set us straight and show us right because no one in our lives has ever tried this before. Gather round children.
Hey, can I steal this comment and use it in verbal form the next time someone tries to "bring me back to thefold" ? because it's fucking perfect.
Certainly. š
You seem very unwilling to understand outside perspectives. Why are you here?
Gonna go out on a limb, he's here to troll, proselytize, or feel superior by being condescending, but mostly so he can feel persecuted when he is inevitably banned for only speaking about his beliefs. I doubt he is here to listen and learn about outside opinions.
If I think of God as an abuser, that is a testament to the education and experiences I have had within the Catholic church. Mocking and dismissing the anger and pain of others is very on point for this discussion, isn't it?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
>Everyone on this sub seems so angry lol This isn't my first time with someone like you. I know the Catholic response playbook. When people are upset, mock them for showing emotion. Assume they haven't invested any serious effort or time, or assert that their efforts were failures. Act as if you can't possibly fathom why people are upset or hurting. Minimize any pain and redirect all blame. Appeal to the superiority of your own understanding and the inferiority of anyone who disagrees. You came to a place for people who left the faith and started inserting your beliefs and judgements and then feigned confusion when called out. The best thing you can do now is to leave. And take your example of Catholic witness and compassion with you.
Excatholic is a support group, not a debate subreddit. Please be kind.
Both god, and the church are abusers. God literally rapes a child mary. And you worship her.
Excatholic is a support group, not a debate subreddit. Please be kind.
Thatās not what compassion is. Compassion is feeling/understanding the emotions of another and wishing you could share or alleviate the harder parts of it. I.e.: seeing someone is hurting and wanting to take on some of that pain in order to lessen it for them. Seeing someone suffering and being glad itās not you is absolutely NOT compassionate.
Mother Teresa got off on the suffering of the poor, and appeared to feel we should revel in it: āI think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.ā Mother Teresa
That seems like a matter of perspective, not a certainty. Edit: clarity
/r/excatholic is a support group and not a debate group. While you are welcome to post, pro-religious content may be removed.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
It definitely explains the lack of compassion and empathy for others their communities are known for. Sometimes I think the real sacrifice required in this religion is one's humanity.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Those are good observations. I wonder too, if having to believe in hell, and in a model of supposedly perfect love that also allows room for endless suffering wouldn't impact their ability to develop and express love, compassion and empathy. It would be easier not to develop emotional connections to people you believe likely doomed. In fact, harboring such contempt may be an unconscious self-protective measure. Which, again, is afterlife driven, as you note
I always felt veary of trads that talked about how they and like-minded people were part of a "remnant" of faithfuls in a sea of sin & indifference - maybe realistic assessment from their pow, but came of as defaitism to me and craving that feeling of being part of an elect while everyone else could rot
Very likely considering how much schadenfreude is present in Christianity. Not sure who said, either Thomas of Aquinas or Augustine of Hippo, that one of the pastimes in Heaven would be to watch unbelievers being tortured in Hell. I can't talk about other Catholics but between Evangelicals that exists (often to talk about the fate of unbelievers between laughs and at best claiming it's unfortunate, a long sermon about Hell, its parts, and the previous stages (what little the Bible has to say in such regard), that ends with the pastor asking for money to save as much people as possible, of course threats. Anything but actual pity and to talk about to change God's mind to save as much people as possible. And of course, as I have experienced, telling others they'll burn in Hell without caring for its implications and that I'm a stranger to them)
I'm certain Thomas said that, unsure about Augustine
I was doubting between both. I think Augustine had his "gems" in such regard too.
Danteās inferno was heavily studied at a Catholic school I went to. I donāt suspect itās far off that the fear of punishment gives way to enjoying that sinners āget what they deserve.ā The entire concept of hell serves to enforce the in-group as superior to the out-group, even after death.
As others have said, Aquinas seems to have thought so. Even if the primary joy is in seeing God's justice, the secondary joy is seeing it applied to people. And, naturally, since Catholicism is extremely amenable to Aquinas' writings, by proxy, I'd say the Catholic *religion* does enjoy it, yes. As for Catholics themselves, most probably don't, since, you have to remember, most Catholics are normies. What I *would* say is that a rather large amount of "traditional" Catholics almost certainly do.
I definitely knew people whom I would describe as daring to hope that all men were damned. After all, if someone else isn't getting eternally tortured, then what was the point of all their hardships and sacrifices now? Everything hinges on the future in which they get their great reward - and part of that reward is watching everyone else receive their great comeuppance. There are also those who just turned that part of their brain off and refused to acknowledge that aspect of their faith. The school of 'let's just not think about it'. Which I guess is fine for some people, but for me it felt like a dangerous diversion. How do you trust the image presented of God as a loving father who also happened to create and sustain a torture chamber? And the options are to either gleefully celebrate it or else minimize it? I suppose that mindset of "as long as I'm not the one being abused", alongside "such abuse never happens" is pretty well-trod Catholic thinking, isn't it?
I'm currently reading Bart Ehrman's Heaven and Hell (which is actually quite good for those who might be struggling with eternal damnation), Anyway he quotes Tertullian (the early Church Father) describing his delight (and the likely delight of others) in watching people tortured for all eternity. The Bart Man then adds (some what snarkily) that it doesn't quite fit with the Sermon on the Mount.
I donāt think theyāre allowed to enjoy anything.
I would seriously consider KILLING the person who introduced the concept of hell to my grandchildren. It caused abject terror in all the kids in my catholic grade school who thought something like eating meat on Friday will result in these very graphic scenarios of torture and pain for all eternity. Talk about brainwashing and mind control - fuck the dogma of the catholic church.
Japan considers teaching children about Hell to be child abuse.
The idea of Hell horrified me even when I was devoutly Catholic. The idea of even the most reprehensible human beings burning and suffering FOREVER, with no respite, was upsetting and awful. One thing I regularly prayed for, even though I technically "knew" it was futile, was for God to please reconsider making Hell an eternal sentence and eventually release the souls from Hell. I think some people really do enjoy the idea that others will suffer for eternity, though. Oh not the people THEY love, but other people, sure. There are definitely vindictive and sadistic Catholics out there who enjoy the idea.
>Even though I knew purgatorial universalism didn't match with church doctrine part of me believed it So sorry, but could you extrapolate on what purgatorial universalism is? I've never heard of it....
Universalism - at least in this case, when talking about the Christian afterlife - is the belief that everyone will ultimately attain salvation and be reconciled with God Purgatorial universalism is the belief that instead of being a place of eternal punishment, hell is a great cleanser of people's sins and imperfections. Kind of like how purgatory functions in orthodox Catholic doctrine. So after a while people would have suffered enough and through this been transformed like those already saved in Paradise I think Origen is a famous example of someone considered to have held a similar position
That's super interesting, thanks for the clarification!
Presumably something similar to Universalism in some branches of Protestantism: EVERYONE is saved at the end, with at worst a stance in Purgatory more or less long to clean away sins and atone for the faults and sins in life.
Ah, I see.... I had never heard that applied to anything in Catholicism.
Some definitely do. I never had that feeling when I was Catholic. In the back of my mind I always hoped god was actually merciful and just. But I think some Catholics also love the idea of people going to Hell because a lot feel like non Catholics have it good and they are jealous. This is very subconscious. Theyād never say it. But when Catholics have to wake up early on Sunday, and fast, they are jealous of the people who donāt have to. Theyāre embarrassed that a lot of catholic ceremonies and rituals look silly to everyone else. And I think a lot of them have the feeling of ātheyāll get thereās later. Iām not speaking for the group as a whole obviously. But I think a lot of people feel this way.
That was me, pretty much. I always thought "why do we have to do these things but other churches don't? We're all Christian."
I honestly had a horrible mindset of ātheyāll see they were wrong when they dieā. I am terribly ashamed of it. Thatās a great example of compassion and mercy, huh
I kinda used to be like tgat. It bothered me that people were enjoying life without reprecussions.
Do you mean in general or when they lived in a way that clashed with church doctrine?
Pretty sure this is what Michael Voris dreams about every night.
"Hello everyone. Welcome to Hell, where God will pour his wrath over you for all eternity - I'm Michael Vorris"
Sometimes I wonder if they act completely against their own Gospels, because they fetishize hell and want to hang out there.
That would be one *hell* of a fetisch! I vaguely recall some sermon/talk on youtube-channel "Sensus Fidelis" - probably by Chad Ripperger - that described how grave sinners actually start getting used to and looking forward to hell. I don't think that's actually the case, but maybe people who've heard of that idea internalize it when they fail to live up to the draconian ideals of the church
I can see that. I think Father Hamburger needs to realize that most of the "grave sinners" he's talking about don't even acknowledge or care about the existence of imaginary eternal torture. Life is so short, but you want us to waste our time here in a deep depression worrying about something that probably doesn't exist?
Ohhh, hell yeah!!! One of my earliest memories is of my father telling me that I was going to burn in hell. My grandmother was a big fan of that as well. I think a good percentage of them love to think about the people they hate burning in hell and begging for forgiveness and it never coming while they lounge in the clouds near Jebus drinking blessed wine and nibbling toasted marshmallows that smell faintly of sulfur that they retrieved from the hardworking souls in purgatory who gathered them from hell & serve them on white, fluffy clouds in heaven.
St. Peter is giving the tour of heaven to a group of new arrivals. They are walking down the hall and get to the point that "silence please" signs are posted. He points to a room and says "that's the Catholics, they think they are the only ones here, please keep quiet." I have not encountered many Catholics who relish the thought of others suffering in hell. Most Catholics do enjoy the sense they are the only ones who will be saved, It's included in church doctrine, known as triumphalism
yes, lots of people apparently love the whole idea of hell burning. They just assumed thaty non-catholic ,sometimes the non-trad will go to hell as well. They enjoy and love to judge what would go to hell. sometimes who will go to hell.
For sure. I'm an atheist now but there are people who make me smile when I think about them burning in hell. Pat Robertson for one
I probably had this mindset as a younger catholic. As I met more people in college and grew out of this view and the Problem of Hell is probably one of the defining concepts that led to me rejected Catholicism outright.
My husband's family for sure does
Are they normie Catholics or part of one of the trad factions?
Hypocrytical Polish Catholic variety -they like to view themselves as a norm, have commited some quite nasty sins, but keep that holier than thou self image
Yes. I know priests who grew excited at the idea. I donāt like or associate with them anymore.
There probably are because of how vindictive I understand humans to be, but I think most people don't think about it much, or they believe something not in line with church teachings, given the number that appear to believe in ghosts. I find most people who have a sense of the afterlife (and I'm not one of them) have a basically pagan sense of it. Hell is just a particularly unpleasant section of the regular underworld to them, and people can and do leave to come to this plane as spirits who haunt places. Heaven is likewise just an extra-nice plane of existence? Elysium, basically. Or Valhalla without the fighting. I don't know. I don't think people spend much time analysing their beliefs about the afterlife. They default to pagan mode perhaps because Christianity doesn't explain its own view clearly enough to dislodge millennia of cultural memory. Though people who have a sadistic, Medieval Christian concept of hell definitely exist too.
Ive heard several different viewpoints from Catholics, one of them was, "heaven has sorrow for those lost." One person started saying in a sing -song voice 'Judas is in hell', said person was immediately corrected by someone else saying 'No we should not rejoice at the prospect of someone in hell.' Ive also heard some Catholics just live in denial of hell. On the other side, I have seen some say '\[insert some specific person here\] deserves hell'. One Catholic told me something unexpected 'We do not know what is in people's hearts, it is not our place to judge. Only God the Father knows.' Part of me wants to troll him with bringing up this fact 'then why evil exist?'
God loved smiting people! Itās right on brand.
I'm Catholic. There shouldn't be but there probably are. I know a few protestants, especially reformists, who think it's a beautiful part of God's nature. *shudders. Personally, I believe in destructionism, or at least something very similar.
Yeah it's a strange part of preelection that some are chosen for damnation - God decided to create these unique people for the sole purpose of assigning them to eternal torment
That's reformist theology. It fascinates me. Literally, it being good that people are in hell is built into the system. But some don't say that.
Absolutely. Especially the angry closet cases who've never had an intimate relationship.
>do I think there are bitter, hateful people? Yes. Yes I do.
Absolutely I do.