I oppose the SSPX’s schismatic acts, past and imminent, for the reasons outlined recently by Eamonn Clark. But not infrequently, the Society’s mainstream opponents reveal themselves to be less than Catholic in their thinking. Take a recent article by
Sadly, Weigel's article demonstrates how "conservative conciliarism" lacks the theological resources to deal with the present crisis and thus represents a dead-end similar to that offered by the SSPX. Its appeals to Scripture and tradition are awkward and contrived, its fascinations and priorities utterly inconsistent with contemporary circumstance and the needs of the moment.
Me too im there every day except sunday! I wasnt speaking of mass attendance but the theological class that is perpetually trying to square the circle as regards novelties in the magisterium. From what little ive read of you, it seems you arent comfortable with their sophistries! God bless you!
“It is a pure appeal to emotion, the same tactic used by atheists and universalists: I don’t want to think of anyone I care about going to hell, therefore it can’t be true.”
The doctrine of hell is also a pure appeal to emotion. It is an attempt to scare people into switching off their brains and obeying the church. The accusation will always cut both ways.
An eternal hell doesn’t make rational sense—it is neither a just punishment for any act a finite human creature could commit, nor would it have any deterrent value after the end of this current world. If God prefers to torture his defective creations forever instead of simply destroying them, then he is more sadistic than any dictator or serial killer in human history.
It’s not an emotional appeal. It’s based on both the order of justice and divine revelation. You might not agree with the arguments, but there are arguments. Weigel made no argument against the SSPX’s statement other than saying it sounds unpleasant and therefore it must not be true.
Nobody goes to hell who doesn’t choose to reject God. He isn’t going to force them to be with Him, nor is He obligated to destroy them so they can avoid the consequences of their crimes.
You can keep saying that hell defenders are not emotionally motivated, but it’s quite obvious that they are.
I’m Catholic. I went to Christendom College. I’m familiar with the arguments for hell. Only recently did I put aside my extreme terror of going to hell for doubting Catholic doctrine to carefully consider opposing arguments like that of David Bentley Hart.
Terror is an emotion. We terrorize our children with hell while they are small, before they can evaluate the idea rationally. A loving, merciful God who also tortures people for eternity? Why not? Grownups know everything.
I’ve talked to hell partisans who *refused* to reply to my rational objections, saying that they didn’t need human reason, only loyalty to the church. That’s pure tribal emotion.
Hell is scary, that’s what makes it such a useful idea.
It’s ok to have emotions. You have emotions about hell and Catholicism. Why even bother denying it?
First, there can be emotional arguments for anything and certainly either for or against the existence of hell. Weigel's argument as presented seems to be of that sort. That doesn't then entail that all arguments about hell are primarily emotional.
Second, it seems that you are correctly rejecting a false image of hell. The idea of God as some sort of eternal torturer should be rejected. However, this does not then entail that hell is a false doctrine. There are many reasons from scripture and tradition to hold to it. To offer two non-emotional arguments in favor of hell (as opposed to annihilation or universalism): being is always better than non-being (even when we can't grasp it) and the inherently non-coercive nature of love.
Sadly, Weigel's article demonstrates how "conservative conciliarism" lacks the theological resources to deal with the present crisis and thus represents a dead-end similar to that offered by the SSPX. Its appeals to Scripture and tradition are awkward and contrived, its fascinations and priorities utterly inconsistent with contemporary circumstance and the needs of the moment.
Exactly
Yeah, when I read Weigel's comment, I was like, "and your point is?"
Novus ordo conservatism is braindead. Embarrasing mistakes outlined here.
I prefer not to use such an inflammatory label. After all, I mostly attend the Novus Ordo and I wrote this critique of Weigel.
Me too im there every day except sunday! I wasnt speaking of mass attendance but the theological class that is perpetually trying to square the circle as regards novelties in the magisterium. From what little ive read of you, it seems you arent comfortable with their sophistries! God bless you!
“It is a pure appeal to emotion, the same tactic used by atheists and universalists: I don’t want to think of anyone I care about going to hell, therefore it can’t be true.”
The doctrine of hell is also a pure appeal to emotion. It is an attempt to scare people into switching off their brains and obeying the church. The accusation will always cut both ways.
An eternal hell doesn’t make rational sense—it is neither a just punishment for any act a finite human creature could commit, nor would it have any deterrent value after the end of this current world. If God prefers to torture his defective creations forever instead of simply destroying them, then he is more sadistic than any dictator or serial killer in human history.
It’s not an emotional appeal. It’s based on both the order of justice and divine revelation. You might not agree with the arguments, but there are arguments. Weigel made no argument against the SSPX’s statement other than saying it sounds unpleasant and therefore it must not be true.
Nobody goes to hell who doesn’t choose to reject God. He isn’t going to force them to be with Him, nor is He obligated to destroy them so they can avoid the consequences of their crimes.
You can keep saying that hell defenders are not emotionally motivated, but it’s quite obvious that they are.
I’m Catholic. I went to Christendom College. I’m familiar with the arguments for hell. Only recently did I put aside my extreme terror of going to hell for doubting Catholic doctrine to carefully consider opposing arguments like that of David Bentley Hart.
Terror is an emotion. We terrorize our children with hell while they are small, before they can evaluate the idea rationally. A loving, merciful God who also tortures people for eternity? Why not? Grownups know everything.
I’ve talked to hell partisans who *refused* to reply to my rational objections, saying that they didn’t need human reason, only loyalty to the church. That’s pure tribal emotion.
Hell is scary, that’s what makes it such a useful idea.
It’s ok to have emotions. You have emotions about hell and Catholicism. Why even bother denying it?
A few thoughts here.
First, there can be emotional arguments for anything and certainly either for or against the existence of hell. Weigel's argument as presented seems to be of that sort. That doesn't then entail that all arguments about hell are primarily emotional.
Second, it seems that you are correctly rejecting a false image of hell. The idea of God as some sort of eternal torturer should be rejected. However, this does not then entail that hell is a false doctrine. There are many reasons from scripture and tradition to hold to it. To offer two non-emotional arguments in favor of hell (as opposed to annihilation or universalism): being is always better than non-being (even when we can't grasp it) and the inherently non-coercive nature of love.