Do souls in Hell have any Good in them?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I was getting into a discussion with a Protestant friend of mine who suggested that souls can still have feeling for their loved ones. I told him that souls in Hell cannot obtain Graces or feelings of a good nature since God is not longer accessable to them.

Does the Church say anything about this?

I just got view from a few books on the Saints when they visioned Hell. I also heard other Catholics say something similar before.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), March 13, 2005

Answers

bump

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), March 13, 2005.

Christ gave us an example of a man in Hell who showed love for his brothers on Earth. The damned man begged for his brothers to be given a special warning lest they suffer his fate. )Luke 16:19-31)

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 13, 2005.

That however was simply a story Christ used to illustrate a point, not a description of an actual event. The point He was making is that there is no contact between those in hell and those in heaven; and therein lies the answer to this question. Since God alone is the source of all goodness, love, joy, peace, and all virtue, therefore being in a place where there is absolute separation from God necessarily means absolute separation from all that God is - goodness, joy, love, peace, etc. The result being only the presence of evil, hatred, despair, turmoil, etc. The absolute absence of God means the fullness of all that is opposed to God. On earth we cannot experience the fullness either of God or of evil. In heaven we will experience the fullness of all that is good. In hell, the fullness of all tyhat is opposed to God and to goodness.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 13, 2005.

Any thoughts regarding what people who are in Hell will think or feel is pure speculation, since we have little to base our opinions on.

So here's my opinion, I believe that people in Hell will agonize over being separated from God and the righteous and long for God's grace and Goodness. I don't see why they wouldn't miss those who are in Heaven and that be part of their suffering. We were made in God's image, thus, our inner feelings of loving someone are part of our nature and won't necessarily be removed from us even after eternal Judgement.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), March 13, 2005.


God is love. All genuine love is a reflection of God. Absolute and eternal rejection of God therefore means absolute and eternal rejection of love. Those in hell experience absolute hatred and loathing for God; for one another; for those in heaven whom they may have loved on earth; and for themselves. In the absence of God love cannot exist, for God is love.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 13, 2005.


What Paul has been saying about there being no love in hell (and which I agree with over non-Catholic David) is precisely why some commentators have opined that "Dives" (the rich man) was not actually being depicted by Jesus as being in hell, but instead in Purgatory.

In Purgatory, unlike in hell, he could (say these commentators) have love for, and express concern for, his family members.

Other commentators try to show clues in the parable to indicate that "Dives" could not have been in Purgatory, but they do not explain how he could have had love in hell.

Still other commentators avoid this controversy by saying what Paul said -- that the parable is "simply a story to illustrate a point" (about love of neighbor), "not a description of an actual event."

-- (oyez@oyez.oyez), March 13, 2005.


In as much as they exist, those in hell have some good - it is better to exist than to not exist. In as much as the devil exists, he is good. Pure evil (in fact, evil at all) is not something that can be (exist in and of itself). Evil is the absence of good where good should be, therefore you can never have pure, absolute evil.

Hell is not the absolute absence of God, such an absence would mean non-existence for whatever suffered this absence. All that exists is held in that existence by God.

This is not even Philosophy 101, it is Philosophy 020.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 13, 2005.


To say that Hell is the absolute absence of God doesn't deny the fact that God maintains its existence. It only means that God is not present there in a way He can be experienced by those who are there. Hell is therefore the experience of the absolute absence of God and all that is good.

I don't agree that mere existence qualifies as "good". It is not better that sin exists than if it didn't exist, for it was the will of God that it not exist. Likewise it was not the will of God that Satan should exist. His very existence is a violation of the will of God, and therefore not good in any sense.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 13, 2005.


But Father Paul, doesn't good come from God's Graces? Aren't those in Hell going to be reluctant to willingly recieve such Graces? Why would God even send His Graces to the damned? What is the purpose of this? Are His Graces automatically given out because of His presence?

I'm confused.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), March 13, 2005.


I believe that Fr. Paul is correct. Paul M., your sentiments aren't wrong, really, but I don't know if you've quite grasped the point.

Being, as being, is good, because there is no being of anything that does not come from God and sustained by his love. It is, in fact, God's will that Lucifer exist--it is not God's will that he be evil, of course. A good word for "evil" in this case is "depraved," because it is not the devil's existence which is against God's will, but his rejecting and warring against God's love; the void of his heart; his depravity.

To say that "sin exists" is a little like saying that "darkness exists" or that "cold exists" or that "void exists" when in fact none of these is precisely true, given that they are defined by an absence.

God's essence is existence, and things only exist insofar as they partake of this Being. If they do so in an incomplete fashion--they refuse the live-giving graces that flow from God--then that is evil or depravity.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), March 13, 2005.



This is just speculation on my part, but...

I think the souls in Hell do not want to exist. They hate their very Being, not only because it is miserable and tortuous (which it certainly is), but they see with horrible clarity that their Being has no other source than God himself, and the realization of the fact renews the flames of regret, rage, and despair.

Nevertheless, it would not be kindness or an act of mercy to discontinue their existence. Why? The answer is totally inaccessible to us because we can't even imagine what it means to "not be." Void is the only thing that is truly opposite of God--thus it is impossible to say that Void would be preferable to Hell.

Is there good in Hell? For a very long time in Catholic tradition it has been believed that the punishments of Hell are not equal for each sufferer. Personally I don't place much stock in this idea (how can one absence from God be less horrifying than another?) but if there are indeed unequal punishments in Hell, then that means "the good" exists for some insofar as they suffer less.

Jesus clearly speaks of unequal reward in Heaven--to be first, or last in the Kingdom; to have a higher or lower seat at the banquet, etc. So on that level I suppose there is a possibility that there is unequal punishments for the damned, in which case one would have to admit that there is some good in Hell.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), March 13, 2005.


Fr. Paul is right with regard to that "Being" and the "Good" are interchangable terms in the Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy officially approved by the Church. The Good is one of the "transcendental synonymns of Being", along with the One and the True. There are also the "most general properties" of Being, such as the Beautiful. If anyone wants to study this, I would recommend the book "Ontology" by (Monsignor) Paul J. Glenn.

Evil is non-being, the absence of proper relation and order; all that is, is good; only the absence of right order is evil.

All that is, is good and is the effect of God's love. God's LOVE is the transcendental principle of all that is. We are surrounded and immersed by it.

One love.

-- Thomas Brown (private@nospam.thanks), March 13, 2005.


I would agree that the rich man was not in a state of final damnation. He wished good to his brothers, that they go not to that place; to wish someone good is the definition of love (caritas). Its a parable that is intended to make a point; not every aspect of a parable fits with reality; it is only for the Church to teach us theological truth and we cannot conclude from that parable that people actually go permanently to hell. The point of the parable is the importance, in God's eyes, of showing mercy and love to the poor, the weak and the needy. Accordingly, I do not believe that anyone is finally damned. It is, in a certain sense, "possible" that people would be, but I do not think or believe that God allows it. God is Love, as St. John wrote in his Gospel, and He desires only to have mercy. I believe that God wants all to be saved and is able to bring all to repentance and mercy. We are all sinners and I hope that God will have a nice suprise in store for us all.

One love.

-- Thomas Brown (private@nospam.thanks), March 13, 2005.


Is there good in Hell?

NO! Please stop it. Yesterday, it was the possibility that there is no-one in hell, today there the possibility that a poddle might be there?

Time to start getting serious skouybouy!

May Mary's prayers be with you and God bless you.

-- & (.@....), March 13, 2005.


Thomas, it is a short step from there to saying “I will indulge all my selfish desires and scorn God and my fellow men, because God is so infinitely loving that He will be merciful to me no matter how bad I am. I'll count on telling God I'm sorry with my last breath, or even later.”

See Matthew 25:41-46 “Then he will say to those on his left hand, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his angels…..".And they will go away into eternal punishment”

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), March 13, 2005.



This is not even Philosophy 101, it is Philosophy 020

actually, your quote from anselm probably falls more in the range of philosophy 333 (philosophy of religion). however you both misapplied and misquoted anselm. The ontological arguement states that it is GREATER (not better) to exist in reality than only to exist in the mind. this is the proof for God's existance and should not be misconstrued in order to try and prove that anything which exists must be good.

Yes, all things are created good, as an apple on the tree might be all good. sin then corrupts these things. when a brused apple is eaten away by rot until no good fruit remains, this is the same as can happen to that which becomes evil. the presense of God no longer remains as the matter has been corrupted entirely.

HOWEVER, the question is not whether or not satan or hell has good in them, as they assuredly do not, being fully corrupted. but the ultimate question is whether or not a SOUL which is in hell possesses any goodness. i would have to say yes. why? because of all the tortures in the world the worst i could think of would be to desire God with all my soul (which is a good) and to have no access to God. it is the torture of that which is still human which would make hell so excruciating.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 13, 2005.


"Evil is non-being, the absence of proper relation and order; all that is, is good; only the absence of right order is evil."

A: So, if I fly an airplane into a building, the act itself is not an actual evil? The only evil is the absence of not flying an airplane into a building?? Is Satan than an actual embodiment of evil? Apparently not, since an absence cannot be embodied.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 14, 2005.


Paul M.

Have you studied any philosophy? I am sorry, but this is a serious question as you seem unable to grasp what is being said.

The intentional flying of a plane into a building for other than theatrical effects, such as in the production of a movie, is an evil act - an act that lacks good. However, it is not purely evil in that the one acting perceives it to be a good. Why do we choose to do evil? Because we perceive it to be good: "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

paul h.

For me it was Philosophy 020. Better? Greater? You say tomato, I say tomato.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 14, 2005.


in Paul M's defense, Fr. Paul, he is simply not taking the augustinian view that evil is a no-thing. and his point is quite valid, i wrote a paper on this that i'll post in another thread one of these days.

the reason, however, that anselm used the specific wording greater as opposed to better IS in fact important. this is because the basic premise of the ontological arguement is that God is "that of which no greater thing can be concieved." The agreement comes in handy at this point, because it relates to the fact that we arent really arguing the NATURE of God at this point, merely his existance. because we are discussing the existance of God and not the nature of God is precisely why purely a posteriori qualitative comparisons don't work here and therefore don't apply to the problem of evil. its beyond the scope of anselms initial arguement.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 14, 2005.


"Being, as being, is good, because there is no being of anything that does not come from God and sustained by his love."

Didnt Christ say about Judas that it would have been better if that man had never been born. For Judas, being, according to God was not good.

There is no good in hell. Those in hell cannot be helped because they are blind and deaf to everything but their own paranoia.

Do I remember correctly that those in hell wil be tortured day and night without end in the presence of the angels and saints?

-- abc (abc@d.e), March 14, 2005.


Thanks for reminding me why I get so annoyed at philosophy, because it has nothing to do with "Truth". Again, since scripture is absolutely silent on this issue, all of this is nothing but speculation, thus there should be no arguments about what people should "know". There is nothing to "know" here until the time comes for those who experience it have to "know".

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), March 14, 2005.


One more thought, the more someone tries to speak "definitively" about a subject such as this, the less credibility one has in discussing more important subjects about which we have Truth to base our discussions on.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), March 14, 2005.


Fr. Paul,

Yes I have several philosophy courses behind me, which however I viewed as opportunities to think, not opportunities to "learn a philosophy" or to accept as fact what was presented there.

I reject as fundamentally inadequate the definition of evil as "an act which lacks good". Certainly people sin because of some perceived "good", in the natural sense of some advantage or some personal return. However, that fact is irrelevant to a discussion of morality. You are not using "good" in the moral sense here. There is such a thing as an objectively evil act, and perceiving that act as "good" does not mitigate in any way the degree of objective evil present. It simply means that your perception is objectively wrong.

Going to the movies or whistling a tune or tying my shoes are all acts which produce some natural "good". However, these acts are not morally good, or morally evil. They are morally neutral. Evil is far more than an "absence of moral good". Evil came into the world at a specific time. How could an "absence" enter the world? An absence, such as silence or darkness, cannot "do" anything, because it is objectively a non-entity. Evil however is a pervasive entity which wages war against goodness, that is to say against God and all that God represents.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 14, 2005.


"I told him that souls in Hell cannot obtain Graces or feelings of a good nature since God is not longer accessable to them."

When the soul is in hell he would not receive and Graces going forward. However the Soul would and must retain ALL of the prior knowledge of the good it experienced prior to being sent to hell.

Because without the prior knowledge of good it would never know how horrible hell is.

Much like a person who from day one lives in constant pain. He would not know how bad it really is, unless he had prior knowledge of days without any pain. Or even the opposite of never having experienced pain at all.

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 14, 2005.


"Didnt Christ say about Judas that it would have been better if that man had never been born. For Judas, being, according to God was not good."

Ever stop to think that Jesus was giving a prophesy here? Indicating how Judas would die? What do you hear from almost every, if not absolutely every suicidal person? "I wish that I had never been born."

Let's get back to the "good in hell" issue. Yes, there are distinctions between moral goods and natural goods, and yes there are acts that are objectively evil; but this is not the issue.

Better vs Greater again: the meaning that I always give to the word better is 'greater good'. Example: "This is a better car than that." = "This car holds greater good than that car."

OK, now back to the souls in hell again. Answer these simple questions: which is the greater good? To have existed, or to not have existed? Simpler questions: Is there any good at all in non- existence? Is there any good at all in simple existence?

Yes, existence = being here. Evil? It does not equal non-being, but rather corrupted or deficient being. Ill health is a natural evil (not moral evil, although it can come about due to moral evil), the good of health is deficient.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 14, 2005.


When the soul is in hell he would not receive and Graces going forward. However the Soul would and must retain ALL of the prior knowledge of the good it experienced prior to being sent to hell.

But just retaining All of the prior knowledge of the good the soul experienced doesn't mean he is still capable of using and acting upon this knowledge. I'm sure satan remembers his time with God but i doubt he can put it to good use.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), March 14, 2005.


I saw an old man with the D.Ts once. He was rolling around in absolute mental agony trying to beat off something immaginary with his arms. It was a nice sunny summer day in the park, but he was oblivious to his surroundings. I thing hell could be like that. Hell must exist somewhere in God but those in it will be oblivious to everything good. The devil will be the master of their hearts and minds. They will only percieve the things which he gives them.

-- abc (abc@d.e), March 14, 2005.

"But just retaining All of the prior knowledge of the good the soul experienced doesn't mean he is still capable of using and acting upon this knowledge. I'm sure satan remembers his time with God but i doubt he can put it to good use."

Nobody makes such a claim, so why do you bring this into the mix. The issue is whether or not souls in hell retain any good at all, not whether or not they are able to do good or act on that good in any way.

Too many people are reading way to much into the posts of others.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 14, 2005.


"But just retaining All of the prior knowledge of the good the soul experienced doesn't mean he is still capable of using and acting upon this knowledge. I'm sure satan remembers his time with God but i doubt he can put it to good use."

Actually in theory it is possible that even in hell the remaining good which the souls remember could come together to make an attempt to overthrow evil. Highly unlikely only on the basis that absolute evil will insure that nothing good can or will happen. It would really be the true opposite of the Good in Heaven (structurally).

Heck a soul could really be stuck if he is not good enough for Heaven and not evil enough to stay in hell. (only joking maybe?)

-- Michael G. (NoEmail@Nowhere.no), March 14, 2005.


"Aristotelian-Thomistic philosophy officially approved by the Church"

Slightly off topic but can anyone tell me whether Catholics are "bound" by any one philosophical system -ie Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy as Thomas seems to be suggesting upthread?

I thought the Church while acknowgling the importance of these schools of thought certainly doesnt limit us in any way to them as obv. human wisdom and philosphies evolve...

Thanks and Peace

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@homtail.com), March 15, 2005.


Studies in St. Thomas (at least 2 yrs.) is required by Canon Law for all aspiring to Holy Orders. 1st ordered by Leo XIII I believe.

-- Fr. Paul (pjdoucet@hotmail.com), March 15, 2005.

Nobody makes such a claim, so why do you bring this into the mix. The issue is whether or not souls in hell retain any good at all, not whether or not they are able to do good or act on that good in any way.

Sorry Father but that is mostly what I was getting at when i first posted this topic. Can souls in Hell have good such as acting compassionately? It's my fault for not wording the initial question properly. Though i still find what yourself and all the other posters are saying quite interesting.

-- DJ (newfiedufie@msn.com), March 15, 2005.


being by itself doesn't have to be good

just as absence or not-being doesn't have to be evil

if being is good,and evil does exist,this means that the being of evil is good

this makes no sense

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 15, 2005.


"Do souls in Hell have any Good in them?"

i think we can't really tells this,we don't know what happens in hell...

-- sdqa (sdqa@sdqa.Com), March 15, 2005.


Thankyou Father for stressing the imporance of such wisdom to our faith. Can I repeat the question I wanted answered though; are we constrained or limited in the way we are to think about the world and God by these schools of thought? That is, can we as Catholics explore other systems of thought in as far as they dont conflict with the magisterium?

Peace

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@homtail.com), March 15, 2005.


Thing about Thomism is that it is not a "system." The idea of a philosophical "system" was not really around until the 19th century, with German idealists who were confident that they could capture the whole of reality within finite concepts.

Thomism, and to a lesser degree Aristoteleanism, are descriptive more than they are circumscriptive. They are expansive and permeable, pointing outside of themselves rather than in toward themselves. As such they need not really compete with new ways of thinking--this was the conviction of St. Edith Stein (Theresa Benedicta of the Cross), who was both a Husserlian phenomenologist and a Thomist.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), March 15, 2005.


I reject as fundamentally inadequate the definition of evil as "an act which lacks good". [...] There is such a thing as an objectively evil act, and perceiving that act as "good" does not mitigate in any way the degree of objective evil present. It simply means that your perception is objectively wrong.

Paul M., I have no intention of "mitigating" an objectively evil act. Your suspicions, that either Fr. Paul or I are trying to do a sneaky slight-of-hand, to make Hell seem "not as bad" or sin as "not as evil," are totally unjustified. If you think that defining evil as the absence of the good is inadequate, then that's your problem, not mine. This is solid Catholic tradition. Augustine taught it; Aquinas taught it; and it seems to be a necessary part of any explanation of how there can be evil in a world created ex nihilo by a God who is absolute and good. Just now reading the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on evil, I believe that I'm in good company.

An absence, such as silence or darkness, cannot "do" anything, because it is objectively a non-entity. Evil however is a pervasive entity which wages war against goodness, that is to say against God and all that God represents.

("Evil... is an entity.") This have the consequence of falling into Manicheism, the belief in two independent and competing positive forces in the world.

Silence, darkness, etc., can do terrible things; silence can war against truth; darkness against vision, and cold against life. "Non-entity" and privation, nihilism, the raging against God's creative and salvific will, seem to me to be the very "essence" (loosely termed) of evil. Sin is, at bottom, uncreation (or the vain attempt thereof).

Non-being is not a neutral concept, because Being is not.

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), March 15, 2005.


I was not suggesting that you or Fr. Paul are "trying to do a sneaky slight-of-hand, to make Hell seem "not as bad" or sin as "not as evil". I don't know what I might have said that gave you that impression.

However, the fact that morally neutral situations exist demonstrates that mere lack of specific moral good does not equate with moral evil. Even on a purely natural level, some things are esentially neutral in terms of the natural good they may embody. Mere lack of specific natural good therefore does not make something evil, even on a natural level. Something is "bad" not simply because it "lacks goodness" but because it possesses "badness".

To recognize that evil is an objective entity, and that it opposes goodness, is not Manichaeism. Manichaeism proposes that two opposing ETERNAL forces of good and evil existed before the creation of the universe and of time itself. We know that before the Creation God alone, and therefore goodness alone, existed. At some time after the Creation evil came into existence, and since that moment has waged active, conscious warfare against goodness.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 15, 2005.


continued ...

It isn't silence that can war against truth. It is reluctance to speak. By "silence" I refer to the absolute physical absence of sound waves, not to patterns of cowardly human behavior. Sound, if it is sufficiently intense, can rupture an eardrum or shatter glass. Silence can do nothing, because it is a non-entity. It cannot be measured, intensified, or muted, because you cannot measure, intensify or mute "nothing", and silence is precisely nothing. It is merely the absence of a specific kind of energy.

Likewise "darkness" does not war against vision, because "darkness" does not actually exist as an entity. Light exists as a form of energy which can be quantified, diffused, concentrated, reflected, diffracted. No such processes can be applied to "darkness" because there is no such thing. It is merely an abstract term to indicate the absence of something real - light, and an "absence" cannot "do" anything.

Since heat is essential for life, lack of heat is indirectly detrimental to life, but not because "cold" exists as a distinct entity. Food is necessary for life as well, but "absence of food" is not a distinct entity, and neither is absence of heat. "Cold" cannot be measured, for it does not exist. Heat can be measured because it is an objectively real entity.

In contrast, evil, embodied in the person of Satan, "prowls about the world like a roaring lion, seeking souls to devour". That description goes far beyond mere "lack of goodness". This is entirely distinct from human beings who commit evil deeds. All human beings possess some measure of goodness and some measure of evil, and the measure of their personal goodness or personal evil is a measure of their response to the two personal absolutes who wage active warfare for their souls - God, who is absolute goodness, and Satan who is absolute evil.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), March 15, 2005.


Paul is absolutely right and speaks the belief of the Church!

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), March 16, 2005.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ