This newsletter exists to keep watch for storm clouds as well as glimmers of light. The persistent glimmer has been an upsurge of interest in the Catholic faith by young people, not only in the United States but even in those parts of Europe that have been worse wracked by secularism. While this uptick is not nearly enough to offset the number of young people leaving the Church, the Spirit blows where it wills. Our task is to deal with the revival given us.
While cultural and political forces provide many a threatening cloud, the ones of greatest interest here are those we have some hope of controlling, i.e., those inside the Church. Mostly, I have examined the difficulties surrounding the Church’s ongoing reception of the Second Vatican Council, especially for those young Catholics who want a Church clearly contrasted with the desultory culture they inhabit. The Council, however, did not draw clear and crisp lines between the Church and all that is outside of it. Instead of condemnations, the Council sought points of consonance between the best of the modern world and a rearticulation of the Catholic faith. While one can debate whether or not this decision resulted in significant doctrinal development, there is little point in denying that it had the effect of changing the ways Catholics think of and practice their faith.
The question of whether the changes that happened were required by the actual teaching of the Church is of great importance, and one that theologians ought to debate. Yet, the theological issue is distinct from the historical one. For example, although the conciliar fathers certainly did not intend anything they produced to result in a decrease in Catholics availing themselves of the sacrament of confession, the decline is in some way connected to the Council. One can say something similar about missionary zeal, Marian piety, and a whole host of other aspects of Catholic life. Despite intention or even logic, the Council changed things. What makes things interesting is that while many changes were expected to make the faith more attractive to the young of the last century, a significant number of new and aspirant Catholics today are drawn to Catholicism prior to the changes.
It was with these thoughts in mind that I approached the recent internet brouhaha over hell between Ethan Muse, a recent convert to Catholicism, and David Bentley Hart. While Hart needs little introduction, I suspect Muse does. He is a doctoral student in philosophy at Rutgers with an array of essays on his Substack arguing on behalf of supernatural claims associated with Our Lady of Fatima, St. Pio of Pietrelcina (Padre Pio), and the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano. Employing his background in natural science and math, his style is highly technical, rationalist, and focused on “motives of credibility,” that is, objective evidence of divine action. In addition, he frequently pops up on YouTube debating other uncombed, precocious youngsters on this or that issue in Catholic apologetics. The eternity of hell and what is now called “eternal conscious torment” for the damned is a recurring topic. Muse upholds the traditional Catholic view that a majority of human beings will end up being punished eternally in hell, here, here and here. He is not innocent of the difficulties in this position but insists that an everlasting hell is consistent with God’s justice and the dignity of human freedom.
Ethan Muse’s musings caught the attention of Hart, whose book That All May Be Saved: Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation stirred up a hornet’s nest six years ago. Suffice it to say that Hart is the foremost proponent of the position that the logic of Christianity precludes the existence of an eternal hell, and he takes forceful exception to those who cannot or will not acknowledge this as fact. A good analysis of his back-and-forth with Muse can be found here. Hart, in his own reflection, allows that he lost his temper “at an especially depraved defense of the idea of a hell of eternal torment floated by a young philosopher still damp and dripping from the waters of the Tiber.” At the same time, he excuses his intemperance by saying “I no longer have much patience for people like Muse who are so morally obtuse as not to grasp the foulness of this dogmatic psychopathy.”
It is not my purpose to adjudicate the dispute between Hart and Muse. It was mostly rhetorical and, on Hart’s part, ad hominem. Of greater interest is the fact that such a debate is happening at all and that it was sparked by a recent Catholic convert. It points to the kind of dynamic described above. If there is an instance of a clear dividing line between Church and world, the traditional notion of hell is surely one. It is worth it, therefore, to take a look at where hell stands in Catholicism. Something has changed, but we need to be clear on just what.
