Could someone tell me if the Bible or the Catholic Church describe hell as a "state of consciousness"? The reason I ask is that I was reading a book written by a Catholic monk who described hell in those terms. Thanks.

-- Gabo Gaviria (jkcap@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004

Answers

"State of consciousness" is not an adequate decription. The Pope has stated that hell could be a "state of existence" rather than a "physical place". "Could be" - he didn't make a definitive statement one way or the other. But in any case, "state of existence" is far more all-encompassing than "state of consciousness"; and for those souls who end up in that state/place, it won't make any difference which is the more accurate term.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 22, 2004.

State of existence does not equal state of conciousness. I can go along with the former definition, but not the latter. The monk is wrong. Hell is not a figment of our imaginations.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

Here is the official teaching from the Catechism

IV. HELL

1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: "He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him."⁶¹² Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.⁶¹³ To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."

1034 Jesus often speaks of "Gehenna" of "the unquenchable fire" reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.⁶¹⁴ Jesus solemnly proclaims that he "will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,"⁶¹⁵ and that he will pronounce the condemnation: "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!"⁶¹⁶

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire."⁶¹⁷ The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few."⁶¹⁸

Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth."⁶¹⁹

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;⁶²⁰ for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want "any to perish, but all to come to repentance":⁶²¹

Father, accept this offering
from your whole family.
Grant us your peace in this life,
save us from final damnation,
and count us among those you have chosen.⁶²²

V. THE LAST JUDGMENT

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 23, 2004.

We'll I'll be damned if I go to Hell.

Gabo, can you tell us the name of the monk and the title of his book?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), January 23, 2004.

Thomas Keating is the Catholic Monk who wrote: "St. Therese of Lisieux - A Transformation in Christ". On page 26, Keating writes: "By identifying with all the consequences of our sins and taking the suffering of the whole humanity into himself Christ descended into that 'STATE OF CONSCIOUSNESS' that corresponds to hell - or more exactly, is hell." I have read/heard him describe hell as a "state of consciousnes" on other ocassions. It didn't sound right to me. Some time I get criticized for asking about such phrases from Keating. It's as if sometimes he puts his own spin or definition to familiar Catholic/Christian concepts and phrases. That is why I ask all of you for your input/insight. By the way, if you pick up the book, you would think that the book is mostly about St. Therese of Lisieux, but instead it is about 90% Keating's philosophy with only a few sprinkles of St. Therese to "support" his points. That is what disappointed me most about the book. I wanted to know about her and not necessarily about him. Thanks for the great responses.

-- Gabo Gaviria (jkcap@hotmail.com), January 23, 2004.

You asked about Christ's decent into hell in another thread. I have copied the appropriate part of the Catechism in that thread for you. The Catholic Catechism is available online.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 23, 2004.

Fr. Thomas Keating also is one of the founders of the 'centering prayer' movement which has brought a lot of 'New Age', Buddhist, Yoga and Hindu ideas into Catholic contemplation and caused a lot of people to go astray. He is mistaken about a number of his teachings. I would not follow his theology to the letter.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 23, 2004.

Bill,

Thank you for your response(s) on both questions/posts. Your take on Keating is refreshing to hear. He speaks and writes in subtle yet divergent ways. He has influenced a great many people along non- Christian paths. Yet some priests, nuns, friends and family swear by him. It has been a cause of concern for me. Again, thank you.

Sincerely, Gabo

-- Gabo Gaviria (jkcap@hotmail.com), January 24, 2004.

Bill,

Perhaps you can help me even more on this subject. Could you tell me how I can find a way to compare the different theological points Keating talks/writes about with the Catechism (etc.). A concerned family member has asked me to find out. I know it is not an easy task but a nudge in the right direction can surely help. Again, thank you.

Sincerely, Gabo

-- Gabo Gaviria (jkcap@hotmail.com), January 24, 2004.

Some thoughts on Thomas Keating:

He was an abbot of a Cistercian monastery. The position of an abbot in a monastery is a political and administrative, not a spiritual position. One should not infer anything (either pro or con) about an abbots spiritual teachings because his brothers elected him as abbot. There are misconceptions here and I just wanted to clear this point up from the start.

On the Centering Prayer

"In the book Finding Grace at the Center, written by Keating and Basil Pennington, the following advice is given: 'We should not hesitate to take the fruit of the age-old wisdom of the East and “capture” it for Christ. Indeed, those of us who are in ministry should make the necessary effort to acquaint ourselves with as many of these Eastern techniques as possible … Many Christians who take their prayer life seriously have been greatly helped by Yoga, Zen, TM and similar practices ..."

I see a danger here. Yoga, Zen and TM strive to get someone to abandon ALL attachments and desires. Christian contemplation is designed to heighten our desire to be with God. The goals are very different.

In the Centering Prayer you select a montra. You are told to push all thoughts out of your mind. If a thought enters your mind, you are to return to the ‘sacred word’, the montra. Again, the goal is to drive all thoughts, all desires away. Well, if you do that you are left with a ‘nothingness’. Again, eastern meditation techniques are to get you to a state of ‘nirvana’. Nirvana is ‘nothingness’ it is NOT heaven.

If you want to learn chemistry, you use techniques that will get you there, you don’t play laser tag or do something else that is not set up to achieve the goal you are after.

I am a Scoutmaster, one of the first things I teach my Scouts is to use the right tool if you want to get the job done.

Bottom line: Select a goal (either nirvana or Heaven) and then use the tried and true techniques documented by the Saints to get you there. Don’t try to mix techniques in a hope that by doing so you will get to your goal via an easier path, you are likely to get lost.

The True Self

“The true self, which is what we are trying to awaken through spiritual practice, is not separate from God.” [The Practice of Attention/Intention, by Thomas Keating, O.C.S.O.] This runs extremely close to the deifying of the individual. We are not God. We DESIRE the love of God, we do not give boundless love like God does. We are vessels, not the fountain. Again, I think he is on the wrong track here. I would return to the writings of the Saints and mystics here.

I am sure Fr. Keating has written a lot of good things and I would not want to give the impression that he is totally mistaken in his theology. My advice is to compare what he writes to what the magistarium and saints teach. It they diverge, then go with the magistarium and the saints.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@Hotmail.com), January 24, 2004.

Fantastic. Your points clear up a great deal. My overall impression was that Keating's theology would eventually lead to the individual's "realization" that he/she is God. Keating's words sound "mesmerizing" (to many) but they are "loaded" with terms and concepts that little by little chip away at the concept of Creator and Creation. If they had it there way, there would be no distinction. They blur the lines to a point where the most sincere Christian/Catholic can get lost without even knowing that they are lost.

I will follow your advice. Thank you.

-- Gabo Gaviria (jkcap@hotmail.com), January 25, 2004.

Jmj

Hello, Bill.
You wrote: "The position of an abbot in a monastery is a political and administrative, not a spiritual position."

I am sure, from reading and personal experience, that you are mistaken. It may be true that Fr. Thomas Keating and certain other abbots were/are not primarily spiritual leaders during their abbacies. But that is not as the Church desires it, nor as the founders of monastic orders desired it (e.g., St. Benedict, the first Trappists, St. Romuald, St. Bruno, etc.)

The truth is that the "position of an abbot [or prior] in a monastery [priory/abbey]" is fundamentally "a spiritual position" more than anything else -- the exact opposite of what you stated. The abbacy unavoidably has some "administrative" aspects, and something "political" may enter into the picture at times. But an abbot is supposed to be what the word implies -- a spiritual "abba" (father/papa) -- like the man sometimes called the first abbot, St. Anthony of the Desert.

An abbot should have frequent "conferences" (spiritual meetings) with individual monks. He should guide them in their spiritual studies and private readings. He should choose the works that will be read during common meals. (Some even read them.) He should oversee the celebration of the liturgy (Mass and Hours). If he is a priest, he should offer Mass for/with fellow monks and preach to them, teaching them holiness by lesson and example. I'm sure that there are other pertinent things that I am forgetting to say. (I grew up under the shadow of a Benedictine abbey from 1951 to 1975, and I used to serve at Mass in the chapel.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), January 30, 2004.

John, I was a Benedictine monk for 7 years. Here is how it works. An abbot is elected by the monks of the abbey who have made life long vows (solemn vows). When the monks elect the abbot they consider his spiritual side, but they are maybe more interested in his administrative and political side. It is important he can keep the abbey on an even financial and political keel and in line with the visions the monks have for their abbey (should it be large or small, strictly disciplined, or more of an outreach house, etc.). They are especially careful to pick a man that will not take political sides in disputes internal to the abbey (and there are usually many of these), or if he does he will fall on their side of the issue (monks are human too and want to ‘win’ arguments). St. Benedict is a good example of a saintly man who was not a good political leader and found himself almost poisoned by his monks a number of times. Monks remember this as a lesson to pick a good 'neutral' political leader .

Abbots are not usually spiritual directors within the abbey, there are other monks that fulfill that role. Meetings abbots have with their monks tend to be administrative in nature.

This is a generalization, I will admit and there are big and small abbeys out there. The small abbeys tend to have more spiritual leaders as abbots (but even small abbeys have politics). I remember a time when Christ in the Desert, a small Cistercian priory (now an abbey), folded in New Mexico because of all the in-fighting. It was resurrected by a young Benedictine monk from Mt. Angel Abbey in Oregon who acted as spiritual director, inspiration, visionary, and Prior. Now Christ in the Desert is doing fine, is an abbey on its own and has founded other houses around the country. But it is a small abbey and has its founder still at its head. When abbeys get large and older, the abbots become more administrators than spiritual leaders.

In Christ,
Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 31, 2004.

I was reading this thread and it struck me that we refer to Abbots here on the same terms as Diocesan Bishops. We afford them the same titles and address them thus when speaking or writing to them. I thought that would imply that they were indeed called to spiritual leadership, like a bishop would be, within the Abbey.

From somewhere in the recesses of my mind I remembered reading that there are several different types of Abbot. Here's an excerpt from New Advent, which I belive supports what John had said earlier regarding the spiritual role of the Abbot.

VI. AUTHORITY OF THE ABBOT

The authority of an Abbot is of two; kinds, one relating to the external government of the house, the other to the spiritual government of his subjects. The first is a paternal or domestic authority, based on the nature of religious life and on the vow of obedience, the second a power of quasi-episcopal jurisdiction, by virtue of which he is truly a prelate. His domestic authority empowers the Abbot to administer the property of the abbey, to maintain the discipline of the house, to compel the religious, even by penalties, to observe the Rule and the Constitutions of the Order, and to ordain whatever else may be essential for the preservation of peace and order in the community. The power of jurisdiction which the Abbot possesses, both in foro interno and in foro externo, authorizes him to absolve his subjects from all cases of conscience not specially reserved, and to delegate this power to the priests of his monastery; to reserve to himself the eleven eases enumerated in the Constitution of Clement VIII, "Ad futuram rei memoriam"; to inflict ecclesiastical censures; and to dispense the members of his house in certain eases for which a dispensation is usually obtained from the bishop of the diocese. He cannot, of course, dispense a religious from the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Abbots, like the monks over whom they ruled, were originally laymen, and subject to the bishop of the diocese. It was not long, however, before they were enrolled in the ranks of the clergy.

To read the rest of the article please go to:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01015c.htm

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), January 31, 2004.

Jmj

Hi, Bill. You missed the key point I was trying to make. (Maybe I didn't make it well, so I'll try to do better this time.) I stated:
"It may be true that Fr. Thomas Keating and certain other abbots were/are not primarily spiritual leaders during their abbacies. But that is not as the Church desires it, nor as the founders of monastic orders desired it ..."

I was trying to dissuade you from speaking in generalizations based on your limited knowledge or experience. Even though you yourself lived in an abbey, you don't have a right to assume that the majority of abbots (worldwide, in all monastic orders) were and are like your own, that the majority of monks vote in the way you described, etc..

I sense that you are only speculating. I think that, unless you are a researcher who has surveyed all the world's abbeys (and thus have hard facts), you need to avoid making blanket statements like the one that caused me to post my last message -- namely, "The position of an abbot in a monastery is a political and administrative, not a spiritual position."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 31, 2004.

If one had to be a "researcher" prior to commenting on matters, this message board would be silent. Bill said "most" and not "all". We can always agree or disagree, giving our reasons why. It promotes a healthy discussion.

-- Gabo Gaviria (jkcap@hotmail.com), January 31, 2004.

John, Neither of us have surveyed all the worlds abbeys. My knowledge is of the inner workings of about 20 monasteries and I admit it is limited. Of those 20 monasteries, I described the one prior then abbot I knew who was a spiritual director, an administrator, and a natural visionary. The rest were good administrators and very neutral politically. They were good men, but there were others in the abbey who were spiritual directors.

Take care, and please don't assume anything about abbots, they are people too and come in all flavors. No matter what the Church may want an abbot to be like, they are very much like bishops, in the modern Church, they tend to be politically neutral administrators, those that are not are often controversial.

I have no idea what Keating was to his monks. I don't assume anything about him because he had the title abbot. That was the point I was trying to make. Probably not well....

In Christ, Bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

Gabo,

"If one had to be a "researcher". prior to commenting........"

Stop it Gabo! Your not one. Whats the point Missy?

-- - (David@excite.com), February 01, 2004.

Jmj

Hello, Gabo.
You wrote: "Bill said 'most' and not 'all.'"

I'm sorry, Gabo, but you are mistaken, because Bill did not speak of "some" abbots (with which I would have agreed) nor of "most." Instead, the following are the words he used:
"The position of an abbot in a monastery is a political and administrative, not a spiritual position."
To the average reader, this implies a "norm" -- or a comment that all abbots are (or should be) this way. That's why I objected.

Gabo, you also said: "If one had to be a 'researcher' prior to commenting on matters, this message board would be silent."

But I never claimed that we always have to be researchers before we can speak here. Instead, in order to make such a wide-ranging claim as Bill made, one must be a researcher or rely on (and quote) the work of other researchers. I would not have objected if Bill had said any of the following:
-- "All [or 'most of'] the [nnn] abbots I have ever known have been political and administrative men, not spiritual leaders."
-- "I suspect that all [or 'most'] abbots today [etc., etc.]"
-- "I have read in '_______' that all [or 'most'] abbots today [etc., etc.]

Do you see how this more careful, more specific way of writing allows us to express ourselves, but keeps us out of trouble? Expressions like the three I've suggested are much more accurate and fair than generalizations like this one: "The position of an abbot in a monastery is a political and administrative position, not a spiritual position."

Hi, Bill. You wrote:
"Neither of us has surveyed all the world's abbeys."

I can't quite figured out why you said this to me, because I had not claimed to have done a survey. I made no generalizations about abbots. I neither said what "some" or "most" or "all" of them are like -- because I don't know. I don't have an intent to make a generalization about them, so I don't need to do a survey. However, you did make a generalization about them -- without a survey. Since we can have no idea how accurate or inaccurate your statement was, it would have been better off not being made -- or, as I explained to Gabo, it would have been well to have been worded very differently.

Bill, you also wrote: "Take care, and please don't assume anything about abbots, they are people too and come in all flavors."

If you would review my prior comments, you would see that I did not "assume anything about abbots, so your statement comes as quite a shock. All the more is it a shock when one considers that your generalization reflects the fact that you have "assume[d]" something "about abbots."

Bill, I admire you for your tenure in a Benedictine abbey. I'm sorry that you found it necessary to depart. Besides my service to the Benedictines as an altar boy in the abbey, I was baptized by a Benedictine priest, lived for 18 years in a parish staffed by Benedictines, and attended a Benedictine high school. The abbey now has as its abbot a priest who was one of my "religion" teachers and who is a profoundly spiritual man.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

David,

How do you know I am not a researcher?

Sincerely, "Missy" Elliot, PhD

-- Gabo Gaviria (jkcap@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

David,

Further, I could be an Abbott.

Sincerely, Bud "Abbot" (aka, Lou Costello's buddy)

-- Gabo Gaviria (jkcap@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.

I'm sorry that you found it necessary to depart.

Don't be. Some people have a monasitc vocation and some don't. I found the life too easy for me. After leaving I have been presented with a number of challenges that I would not have had as a monk. God calls us all to different vocations. I have no regrets, the monks taught me a lot of valuable lessons.

I am glad the abbot is your spiritual director. Some are, and some are for some monks. But most are not for most of their monks.

In Christ,


-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), February 01, 2004.