DIALOGUE AND UNIVERSALISM

No. 7–8/2007

Wacław Hryniewicz

“BUT THE PROBLEM REMAINS”

John Paul II and the universalism of the hope for salvation

ABSTRACT

This article shows that Christianity in its perception of eschatological events has
early on given up the concept of therapeutic and corrective punishment, turning to the
idea of vindictive and retributive punishment. Similarly to other Churches, the Roman
Catholic Church in its teachings does not officially support the hope for universal salva-
tion. Pope John Paul II developed his eschatological thinking in a careful way; he did
not close the way to further search. The Pope reminded that former councils discarded
the theory of apokatastasis (teaching that all creature would be saved), but admitted that
“the problem remains”. He attempted at retaining the tension existing between the New
Testament statement on the general intention of God to save all humankind and Christ’s
words on the “eternal punishment” awaiting people lost through their own egoism and
insensitivity to others. In the Pope’s teachings, traditional concepts are interwoven with
new accents which correct the false idea of God as the cause of damnation and the crea-
tor of eternal hell. Hell is not a punishment imposed by God, but a state of final self-
exclusion from communion with God. According to Pope, hell is above all a moral
postulate, a requirement of justice in view of terrible human crimes which must not go
unpunished. A final punishment is to serve the retention of moral balance in the history
of humanity.
The author of this article argues that all those in favor of the hope for universal sal-
vation do not, by any means, preach impunity or mandatory amnesty. One has to bear
the consequence of one’s evil actions. Moral consciousness is saved. Salvation is not a
necessity or a compulsion but a God’s gift that has to be accepted freely. God does not
remain entirely helpless in view of human freedom. He can attract it to Himself, purify
it and transform it through His patient and boundless love. This can happen only
through unimaginable suffering and terrible torment which, in human terms, can be
even called eternal, taking whole centuries due to their quality and intensity, as sug-
gested by the very Greek term aiōnios. It is a torment directed at correction and healing,
which is prompted by the Greek term kólasis in Christ’s parable on the final judgment.
The position of John Paul II betrays his internal split between the hope for universal
82 Wacław Hryniewicz

salvation and the reality of eternal damnation. The studies instigated by the Church’s
great minds caused also his anxiety, but as a pope and a teacher he wanted to keep faith
with the teachings of councils and the traditional interpretation of biblical texts. The
author of the article is convinced that the Christianity of the future will at some point
achieve greater courage in its attitude to eschatological issues. The pedagogics of hope
and mercy might then take the place of pedagogics of fear of God and eternal hell.
Key words: universalism; hope; salvation; apokatastasis; eschatology.

Original Christianity awaited the second coming of Christ with trust and se-
renity. It called on Him with the words of longing and yearning: “Come, Lord
Jesus!” (Revelation 22:20). Something significant was lost during the subse-
quent epoch of the Church—the extraordinary potential of eschatological hope
and trust. People were no longer able to reconcile the early Christian prayer
calling for the second coming of Christ with the fear of the day of “terrible
judgment”. The appeal “Come, Lord!”, present not only in the Revelation, but
also in the writings of Paul the Apostle (1 Cor 16:22) and in Didache (10:6) of
the late 1st century was pushed from the Christian awareness.
In its teachings, the Church concentrated on those fragments of the Bible
which talk of the “unquenchable fire”, “eternal punishment” and “eternal perdi-
tion”, forgetting about a number of texts offering hope. What is the meaning of
the great vision of the end of history, presented by Paul the Apostle, which
states that thanks to Christ everything leads to the such an end that “God may be
all in all” (1 Cor 15:28; here and below highlighting mine, W.H.)? The univer-
sal nature of the words that God exalted Christ to the highest place and “gave
him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee
should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue con-
fess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:9-11) must
not be weakened. “God is the one who does not liberate by force, but draws
people to Him with His love and His truth, His goodness and beauty. In the
Gospel by St John Jesus assures us: “All that the Father giventh me shall come
to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. (...) And this is the
Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should
lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. (...).And I, if I be lifted
up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (J 6:37-39;12:32). A formidable
promise! In the Gospel according to St Matthew Jesus reminds us that “it is not
the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should
perish” (Mt 18:14).
It ought to be grieved that Christianity forsook the concept of correctional
punishment (Gr. kólasis) so early and instead opted for the retaliation punish-
ment, the vengeance (Gr. timoría). The concept of a therapeutic punishment as
“worthy of God” gradually disappeared in the Church. It was pushed away from
the human awareness, which resulted in a totally different direction of the de-
 “But the Problem Remains” 83

velopment of the Christian doctrine of the final things. Renowned early Chris-
tian thinkers understood Gehenna in the corrective and temporary sense, i.e. as
the post-mortal purification in the afterlife. This conviction may have been en-
joyed by the majority still in the late 4th century. Already in that time in the
West the final salvation was taught to be awaiting only all Christians. The re-
pressive function of punishment began to prevail over its educational and thera-
peutic role, the purpose of which was the correction of the guilty individual.
This was to a large extent assisted by the disinclination of simple Christians to
understand the teachings of Gehenna as presented in the Scriptures as a thera-
peutic punishment. Virtuous people demanded that the sinners be “justly” pun-
ished in the next world. There being no eternal punishment, what was the point
of living virtuously? This question recurred over the centuries as a query for the
sense of Christian morality. It is posed also today.

1. JOHN PAUL II ON HELL AND HOPE

In his book Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul II developed his es-
chatological thoughts very carefully indeed. On numerous occasions he asked
himself questions and attempted to answer them. He did not bar the way for
further search. He was at all times accompanied by the sense of mystery of the
final fate of humankind. He attempted to retain the stance of faithfulness to-
wards the teachings of the Holy Scripture.
Eternal damnation is certainly proclaimed in the Gospel. To what degree is it
realized in life beyond the grave? This is, ultimately, a great mystery. However,
we can never forget that God “wills everyone to be saved and to come to
knowledge of the truth” (l Tm 2,4)1.
At another place, upon quoting the same words the Pope develops this
thought and again poses the question:
This phrase from the First Letter to Timothy is of fundamental importance
for understanding and preaching the Last Things. If God desires this-if, for
this reason, God has given His Son (...) can man be damned, can he be re-
jected by God?2
Further on other questions are posed:
Is not God who is Love also ultimate Justice? Can He tolerate those terrible
crimes, can they go unpunished? Is final punishment not in some way neces-
sary in order to re-establish moral equilibrium in the complex history of hu-
manity? Is not hell in a certain sense the ultimate safeguard of man’s moral
conscience?.3
—————————
1
John Paul II, Przekroczyć próg nadziei [Crossing the Threshold of Hope], Lublin 1994, p. 70.
2
Ibid., p. 140. Highlighted by Author.
3
Ibid., pp. 140–141.
84 Wacław Hryniewicz

The first of those questions received a particularly distinctive reply both in

the previous and in the subsequent musings of the Pope.
Before all else, it is Love that judges. God, who is Love, judges through
love. It is Love that demands purification, before man can be made ready for
that union with God which is his ultimate vocation and destiny. Perhaps this is
enough:4
This God is, above all, Love. Not just Mercy, but Love. Not only the Father
of the prodigal son, but the Father who “gave his only Son, so that everyone
who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life” (cf. Jn
3:16).5
What is particularly in the Pope’s discussion is the attempt to retain the ten-
sion existing between the statement of the New Testament on the general inten-
tion of God to save all humankind and Christ’s words on the “eternal punish-
ment” (Matthew 25:46)—the torment of people lost through their own egoism
and insensitivity. John Paul II does not undertake a deeper analysis of the bibli-
cal concept of “eternal” (aiōnios). He thinks that “the words of Christ are un-
equivocal” with reference to the very possibility of perdition and the reality of
hell. However, he reminds that while interpreting these words, the Church has
never took a stand on the issue of eternal damnation of respective persons. One
needs to remain silent in the face of “a mystery, truly inscrutable, which em-
braces the holiness of God and the conscience of man”. Silence is in this case
“the only appropriate position for Christian faith”. Even the words of Christ
relating to Judas's betrayal (Matthew 26:24) do not need to be interpreted in the
sense of eternal damnation.
It should be added at this point that the Gospel of St Matthew contains also
the words of Judas’ sorrow and remorse: “he was seized with remorse (metame-
letheìs) and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. ‘I
have sinned’, he said, ‘for I have betrayed innocent blood’.” (Matthew 27:3).
The former publican, being aware of his own earlier faults, understood Judas’s
sorrow and conversion better than others. He noted things that escaped the at-
tention of other Evangelists. Already this aspect does not render it possible to
treat Judas as a symbol of damnation. The history of Christianity has not seen
even one instance of negative canonization, aspiring to decree on eternal dam-
nation of a specific individual.
Let us return, however, to the eschatological discussion of the Pope. He is
perfectly aware of the fact that the problem of hell has been worrying the great-
est minds over the history of Christianity. He mentions Origen and, of the 20th
century thinkers, the Russian Orthodox theologian Sergei Bulgakov (not
Michail Bulgakov, the author of Master and Margarita, as it was mistakenly

—————————
4
Ibid., p. 141.
5
Ibid., p. 139.
 “But the Problem Remains” 85

stated in the book) as well as the Catholic theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar,
anointed as cardinal directly before his death. They argued, among others, in
favor of the hope for general salvation and the necessity to support that hope.
John Paul II reminded that former councils rejected the theory of apokatasta-
sis which “indirectly abolished hell” stating, that all creatures shall be re-
deemed. It is exactly in this context that an extraordinarily important statement
of the Pope is made:
But the problem remains. Can God, who has loved man so much, permit the
man who rejects Him to be condemned to eternal torment?6
Life is a time for facing questions. I take the very admission that “the prob-
lem remains” as a specific encouragement for further search and in particular to
a more in-depth analysis of the testimony of the Scripture and the Christian
tradition. It would follow from here that the Pope does not rule out the hope or
the sense of further theological inquiries. In his opinion, hell is above all a
moral postulate, a requirement of justice in the face of human “terrible crimes”
which must not go unpunished. The “final punishment” is to serve the retention
of the “moral equilibrium in the complex history of humanity”. Thus hell is to
save the “moral conscience”.
In truth, all those who opt for the hope of general salvation do not by any
means preach impunity or compulsory amnesty. One has to bear the conse-
quences of one’s evil deeds. The moral conscience is saved. Salvation is neither
a necessity nor a coercion, but a gift of God, which needs to be accepted out of
one's free will, with reverence, humility and gratitude. Hope dares to trust that
God is not totally helpless in the face of human liberty and that He can finally
draw it to himself, purify it and transform it through his patient and all-
embracing love. This may ensue solely through unimaginable suffering and
terrible torment, which in human terms may even be called eternal, lasting
whole centuries, on account of its quality and intensity, as is suggested by the
very Greek term aiōnios. This torment is aimed at correction and healing; that
again is suggested by the Greek term kólasis used in Christ’s parable on the
final judgment (Mt 25:46), which denotes a punishment characterized by a cor-
rective, therapeutic, pedagogical and dignifying nature (as opposed to the word
timoría, meaning the punishment in the sense of vindication out of pure justice).
While retaining the basic intuition of the teachings on the reality of hell as
the possibility of self-perdition, John Paul II does not rule out the hope for uni-
versal redemption. Towards the end of his book, he quotes Christ’s sympto-
matic words which appear twice solely in the Gospel of Luke:
To accept the Gospel’s demands means to affirm all of our humanity, to see
in it the beauty desired by God, while at the same time recognizing, in light

—————————
6
Ibid., p. 140.
86 Wacław Hryniewicz

of the power of God Himself, our weaknesses: “What is impossible for men
is possible for God” (Lukas 18:27).7

The mention of the “truth of all human weaknesses” which need to be per-
ceived “in light of the power of God Himself” makes it possible to look
more optimistically also on the history of sin in human fate. The Pope
stressed that “these two dimensions cannot be separated: on the one hand,
the moral demands God makes of man; on the other, the demands of His sav-
ing love-the gift of His grace-to which God in a certain sense has bound
Himself. What else is the Redemption accomplished in Christ, if not pre-
cisely this?”8. It is in this context that we arrive at the words justifying the
very title of the Pope’s book: “It is very important to cross the threshold of
hope, not to stop before it, but to let oneself be led.”9
In his sense of internal freedom, the theologian dares to continue his search
much further. Salvation is a liberation from evil. If we accept damnation as “the
consequence of man’s rejection of God”,10 we need to ask further: Can it be a
truly final state of all the damned? The power of good is greater than that of
evil. The logic of good sheds light on the drama of human freedom. It makes it
possible to see the beauty of humanity as indented by the Creator and restored
by Christ. Despite the fall, man remains the icon of God. John Paul II himself
stressed towards the end of his musings that “The power of Christ’s Cross and
Resurrection is greater than any evil which man could or should fear”11.
Attention should be paid also to John Paul II’s catechesis on hell, delivered
12
during the general audience on 28 July 1999. In his opinion, hell is not a pun-
ishment imposed by God but the effect of the creation’s freedom and turning
away from His love.
“Damnation”, therefore, is not attributed to God’s initiative because in his
merciful love he can only desire the salvation of the beings he created. In real-
ity, it is the creature who closes himself to his love. Damnation consists pre-
cisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person and
confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever. God’s judgment ratifies this
state.13.
The Pope refers also to the teachings of the new Catechism of the Catholic
Church (no 1033):

—————————
7
Ibid., p. 163. Cf. also k 1:37.
8
Ibid., p. 163.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid., p. 68.
11
Ibid., p. 161.
12
John Paul II, Rzeczy ostateczne. Wybór katechez z audiencji generalnych z 1999 r. [Final
Things. Selection of Catecheses from General Audiences in 1999], Poznań 1999, pp. 7–10.
13
Ibid., no. 3, p. 9.
 “But the Problem Remains” 87

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”.
According to the teachings of John Paul II, hell is therefore not a place per
se but rather an internal state of “complete frustration and emptiness of life
without God”. In other words, it is a “It is the state of those who definitively
14
reject the Father’s mercy, even at the last moment of their life.” Further on the
Pope adds: “Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and
15
definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy.”
Such is the “ultimate consequence of sin itself, which turns against the person
16
who committed it”. Already earlier, in the catechesis on judgment and mercy
delivered during the general audience on 7 July 1999, John Paul II reminded
again:
Only those who will have rejected the salvation offered by God in his bound-
less mercy will be condemned, because they will have condemned them-
17
selves.
In his catechesis on hell the Pope stressed, furthermore, that “Eternal damna-
tion remains a real possibility”; however, we did not have the chance to learn
whether that possibility actually materializes in anyone. The thought of hell
should not create the feeling of psychosis or anxiety; however, it constitutes
18
“healthy reminder of freedom”.
Traditional contents intertwine in the papal teachings with new elements,
correcting the erroneous ideas about God as the originator of damnation and the
initiator of eternal hell. Therefore of all the greater significance is the fact that,
upon summarizing his catechesis, John Paul II added to it a prayerful encour-
agement: “Let us pray a lot that the will of man rejecting the redeeming will of
God does not materialize in anyone or anywhere. Let us pray for the salvation
of all people, for eternal salvation for every man.” What can be concluded from
it is the fact that a prayer may be bolder and exceed the catechetic admonition
19
itself.
Let it be reminded that, similarly to other Churches, the Roman Catholic
Church also does not officially pronounce the hope of general salvation. The
new Catechism of the Catholic Church relates, as it was noted previously, to the
—————————
14
Ibid., no 1, p. 8.
15
Ibid., no 3, p. 9.
16
Ibid., no 1, p. 8.
17
Ibid., no 3, p. 14.
18
Ibid., no 4, p. 9.
19
It is a pity that the publishers of catecheses failed to include the text of this prayer. However,
it was noted by the press. Cf. “Konsekwencja odrzucenia Boga” [Consequence of Rejecting God].
Gość Niedzielny, no. 32, 8 June 1999, p. 6.
88 Wacław Hryniewicz

traditional teachings on the existence of hell and its eternal nature. It is exactly
these teachings that were criticized by the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I
in his interview given shortly after the catechism was published. He asked:
Why say nothing of the hope and prayer for common salvation, which can be
found in Ambrose of Milan, Gregory of Nyssa, Dionysius the Areopagite,
Isaac of Ninevah, Juliana of Norwich and so many other great contemporary
theologians, such as Hans Urs von Balthasar? These problems are significant
for the man of today, tragically oscillating between the fear of void and delu-
sive promises of reincarnation.20
These words of the Patriarch of Constantinople discreetly remind us of the
tradition which did not disappear in Christianity, neither in its eastern nor in the
western branch. This tradition must not be forgotten. That tradition dared to
pose questions of a nature very significant to the shape of Christian faith and
spirituality.

2. HAS THE CONCEPT OF APOKATASTASIS BEEN CONDEMNED?

According to John Paul II the councils rejected the theory of apokatastasis

since it “indirectly abolished hell”, stating that all creation will be redeemed.
Origen has been named among the ancient thinkers. A question ought to be
posed, then, what kind of teachings has been basically condemned by the
Church.
Fathers of Church, such as Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, formed their ideas
with a significant dose of caution. Upon devising a list of clear and certain doc-
trines in the Prologue to his main work On First Principles, Origen never put
forward the universalism of salvation. He was of the opinion that that case was
an instance of a theological attitude, left to be discussed by people prepared for
that purpose, but based on the Holy Scriptures.21 His opinions, and in particular
his method of interpreting the Scriptures, over many centuries exercised a pow-
erful influence on the development of the theological thought in the Eastern
Church. Origen’s supporters, however, went ever further in their radicalism.
Towards the end of the 4th century his ideas met with increasing resistance. His
opponents grew anxious, among others, because of his statements on the pre-
existence of souls, their fall and connection with bodies as a punishment, on the
spiritual nature of resurrection and the equal reward in heaven, as well as of the
—————————
20
A propos du nouveau Catéchisme catholique: Convergences et divergences entre catholiques
et orthodoxes. Un entretien avec Bartholomée Ier, patriarche oecuménique [About the new
Catholic Catechism: Convergences and Divergences between Catholics and Orthodoxes. Meeting
with Ecumenic Patriarch Bartholomew I], Service Orthodoxe de Presse – SOP, 1993, no. 178, pp.
21–26, fragment from p. 22 [own translation].
21
Some of his statements suggest that at the later period he even denied ever having taught di-
rectly of Satan’s salvation. Cf. W. Hryniewicz, Nadzieja uczy inaczej [Hope Teaches Otherwise],
Warszawa 2003, p. 131 ff.
 “But the Problem Remains” 89

possibility of the redemption of Satan. In the Western Church, the most fero-
cious opponent of Origenist universalism turned out to be St Augustine.22 It was
he that, through his outright opinions of Origen’s errors, led to a situation in
which the Western theology over the centuries refused a priori all thoughts on
the eschatology of general salvation.
The controversies related to Origenism grew in intensity in the 6th century.23
This led to questioning the concept of apokatastasis first by Emperor Justinian
at the local synod (543), and subsequently at the 5th General Council in Con-
stantinople (553).24 Many researches deem the idea of general salvation to have
been condemned on account of its connections with the concept of the pre-
existence of souls, their fall and connection with human bodies as well as with
the teachings on spiritual resurrection.
However, this issue is even more complex than usually presented. Basically,
something more was rejected: the view on apokatastasis as the eternal return,
which was, however, wrongly attributed also to Origen. The concept of eternal
return and the equivalence of beginning and ending was declared a “pre-heresy”
endangering the Christian doctrine. The threat was to be treated with all seri-
ousness.
In the condemned model of apokatastasis, the universal ending of salvation
influences its beginning (arché) in such a way, that the very beginning and all
things between the beginning and ending acquire the nature of Sisyphean futil-
ity.25 Everything may reoccur and recommence cyclically from the beginning. It
was that structure and mode of thinking of apokatastasis as the never-ending
return to the beginning, with no aim or ending different from the beginning, that
was justly excluded from the Christian thought. If the history of the world be-
tween its beginning and end was of no importance and if everything could reoc-
cur ever and ever again, this would be indeed an infernal cycle, proving the
pointlessness of existence.26
It is a fact, though, that many Greek writers in the later period thought the
Constantinople condemnations referred directly to Origen and his supporters
(however, due to his great authority, no one dared to relate them to Gregory of
Nyssa). Consequently, in the subsequent centuries few theologians took the risk
of referring to the concept of apokatastasis. The Church defended the belief in
—————————
22
Augustine, De civitate Dei, XXI, 17. Cf. W. Hryniewicz, Bóg wszystkim we wszystkich. Ku
eschatologii bez dualizmu [God All in All. Towards the Eschatology Without Dualism], War-
szawa 2005, pp. 43, 63.
23
Cf. Hryniewicz, Nadzieja uczy inaczej, pp. 138–139; D. Hombergen,OCSO, The Second Ori-
genist Controversy. A New Perspective on Cyril of Scythopolis’ Monastic Biographies as Histori-
cal Sources for Sixth-Century Origenism. Rome 2001.
24
Cf. Hryniewicz, Nadzieja uczy inaczej, pp. 138–141.
25
The mythological Sisyph tried in vain to roll his stone uphill but it always fell downwards.
Hence he is the symbol of helplessness, life without sense or purpose. All that remains is futile
effort.
26
Cf. Hryniewicz, Bóg wszystkim we wszystkich, pp. 141–149.
90 Wacław Hryniewicz

the human responsibility for the evil done, referring to the warnings and admo-
nitions of the Scriptures understood literally. The theory of apokatastasis was
rejected by the Church, though was understood in the sense of a specific deter-
minism of salvation in the form of forced amnesty on the part of God. The real
intensions of those preaching the hope of salvation for all were not understood.
The Christianity of tomorrow faces the task of fair rehabilitation of that
hope, pushed throughout the centuries into the margin of Christian awareness.
Stunningly, that hope never died. It is revived ever more distinctly in Christian
Churches.
Christ’s vivid language poses numerous difficulties to its interpreters. This
problem relates, among others, to such expressions as “the weeping and the
gnashing of teeth”, casting “into the outer darkness”, the worm that “dieth not”
or the “the fire that never shall be quenched”. There exists an ever-going discus-
sion as to if and which words ought to be understood literally and what is the
appropriate sense of the expressions and imageries used by Jesus. The oppo-
nents of hope for universal reconciliation of sinful creatures with God have been
looking for centuries for the support of the eternal punishment doctrine in
Christ’s statements.

3. UNIVERSALISM OF HOPE IN THE LIGHT OF DIFFICULT ISSUES

The hope for general salvation and eschatological universalism constitute a

still uncared-for domain of theological reflection, worthy of further efforts, re-
search and studies. It is my opinion that it will remain so also in the future,
since it touches the issues relating to each and every one of us. Who is indiffer-
ent to his or her own final destiny? Which issue runs deeper in the sphere of
human hopes and expectations? A believer poses a question whether loving,
good and generous God could sentence anyone to eternal annihilation and leave
them in the state of perdition. Believers ask themselves, whether Gehenna is not
a painful stage of transition through torment necessary to wake up finally in
their humanity and mature to open to the beauty of the new world.
The debate on universalism of salvation is not only a difficult ability to in-
terpret biblical texts. It contains the main problems of Christian theology. It is
necessary to undertake the reflection on the teachings on God, His love, mercy
and justice. It is necessary to ask questions on the relation between His sover-
eignty and the freedom of man. It is required to explain the nature of His final
victory over evil in the universe. This debate reaches the deepest dimensions of
anthropology, soteriology and eschatology.
All these fields of theological thought incline towards universalism. They
talk of God’s love towards all creation. If God’s love is true, He would want to
save what He created. If He truly loves all His creatures, He would want to save
everyone and everything. If God is love, as states the most beautiful expression
of the New Testament (1 John 4:8-16), He loves all people and wishes their
 “But the Problem Remains” 91

salvation. Christ died for all, not only for a limited number of people. Thanks to
His boundless wisdom God can carry out His plans to the very end. Can He
achieve all the aims assumed with regard to his intelligent and free creations?
The debate on the eschatological universalism is basically a debate on the
freedom of man and the supremacy of God. Much depends on the definition of
freedom. Supporters of universalism assume as a rule that freedom cannot be
reconciled with the vision of God a priori determining human choices. A non-
determinist concept of freedom is therefore prevailing. However, if God does
not determine human choices, how can He make all the people accept the gift of
salvation out of their own free will? Because of that difficulty many theologians
reject universalism even today. Therefore, another explanation needs to be
found. Man is an intelligent and thinking creature. If man possesses clear under-
standing of sin and God’s offer of salvation, would he still refuse that gift ever
and ever again? This would be fundamentally irrational. Such a blinded person
would not be really “free” but psychologically enslaved.
These arguments constitute an encouragement to question the thought on
voluntary though irrational choice of eternal fate in hell by the damned. In the
Christian understanding, God is never Deus otiosus, idle God leaving a lost
human on his or her own. He does not cease to act and attract to Himself
through his goodness and beauty. His kind assistance helps the lost individual to
examine the situation and accept salvation. Opponents will not cease to prove
that such an interpretation does not treat seriously the irrationality of sin and its
destructive nature. Thus we enter the domain and philosophy and the theology
of religion.
Philosophical reflection is present also in contemporary debates on just na-
ture of punishment. Does it have the nature solely of deserved retaliation for
the evils done. Such is in the traditional eschatology the vision of final judg-
ment and hell. Pursuant to it, an impenitent sinner deserves solely eternal tor-
ment. Can infinite and consciously experienced torment constitute a just pun-
ishment for human sins, finite in their nature? Human sense of proportion re-
frains from the thought of so disproportional a punishment. Hence some theolo-
gians of free Protestant Churches opt for the theory of annihilation, although it
is also dominated by the aspect of retaliation and God’s wrath.27
Should we assume the failure of conversion pedagogics on the part of God,
all that remains is the negative and repressive function of eternal punishment,
which is additionally disproportional in relation to the wrongs done during life-
time. In the light of more representative texts of human legislation, the sanction
of eternal hell seems exceedingly unjust. The punishment itself does not deserve

—————————
27
With regard to America, cf. E. W. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: The Biblical Case for
Conditional Immortality, 2nd ed., Carlisle 1994; D. J. Powys, Hell Hard Look at a Hard Ques-
tion: The Fate of the Unrighteous in New Testament Thought, Carlisle 1998.
92 Wacław Hryniewicz

the name of creative pedagogical reaction. It is therefore all the more unjust and
disproportional.
According to the universalists, the justice of God is, above all, restorative
justice, and the nature of punishment is therapeutic, educational and correc-
tional.28 Upon experiencing the punishment, the sinner becomes aware of the
dimensions of his or her guilt and the need for redemption. If God is love, the
punishment also needs to have a positive objective. Already in its name restora-
tive justice has an apokatasthatic nature, while it is aimed at reconstructing and
re-establishing what has already been lost (apokatástasis can be translated into
English as the restoration of all things). Restorative justice does not focus on
the punishment itself as a retaliation and a countermeasure. It goes much fur-
ther. It aims at healing the perpetrators and persons tainted with crime within
the frames of a given society. The category of relations enjoys in this mode of
thinking and acting a central role. They need to be repaired and healed. How-
ever, firstly the change needs to take place in the very people, in whatever
tainted with an evil deed.
Restorative justice covers not only the perpetrators of crimes and their vic-
tims but also their families and the society in which the crime has been commit-
ted. The philosophy of care for the good of man comes of assistance here. It
encourages to take into consideration a number of motives, attitudes, emotions
and means. It points to the need for compassion, will of forgiveness and recon-
ciliation. Another requirement is the mediation of competent persons who could
provide their assistance in the difficult process of healing mutual relations.
Should need arise, the process might even require the application of certain
sanctions.
It is worth it to ponder the long-term consequences of such an interpretation
of the restorative justice. It has strong links with the biblical concept of justice
and mercy. And these links are of surprising nature.29 The concept of restorative
justice encourages to attempt an in-depth revision of the resocialization model
of the penal law, which often enough does not take into consideration the dig-
nity of a human being and which, furthermore, is ineffective. Therefore, the
effort of resocialization needs to be undertaken in another way. The method
inspired by the spirit of restorative justice produces resocialization effects at
—————————
28
Cf. J. Consedine, Restorative Justice: Healing the Effects of Crime, Lyttelton, N.Z., Plough-
shares Publications, ca. 1995; W. Osiatyński, O zbrodniach i karach [On Crimes and Punish-
ments], Poznań 2003. The latter book contains a series of interviews with outstanding interna-
tional specialists in crime and methods of preventing and fighting it. In the context of further
discussion, of particular significance is the conversation with James Gilligan (psychiatrist, profes-
sor at Harvard University, former head of a prison psychiatric hospital) and Jim Consedine
(Catholic priest from New Zealand, propagating an innovative concept of the so-called restorative
justice, who wrote several books on that subject; however, he is not only a theoretician but par-
ticipates actively in sessions inspired by that concept; he is a coordinator in that field in his coun-
try and possesses great practical experience, obtained when he had the post of prison chaplain).
29
Cf. Hryniewicz, Nadzieja uczy inaczej, pp. 78–97.
 “But the Problem Remains” 93

least with regard to a certain category of crime perpetrators. What is important

is the fact that it does not violate the dignity and rights of a person, which lends
it a distinctly personalistic image. Respect for human dignity constitutes in it an
indispensable condition of the whole pedagogy of restoring damaged interper-
sonal relations.
Another difficult theological issue struggled against by the Christian uni-
versalism is the posthumous possibility of repentance and conversion. The
eschatological tradition excludes such a possibility outright since it perceives
hell as a deserved, final and irrevocable state of persons lost and damned for
ever, which does not permit any chance of conversion. Supporters of eschato-
logical universalism perceive this attitude as problematic. If God loves the
damned, why would He not save those who invoke Christ as Savior? Does Di-
vine justice really require them to be left to their miserable fate? We all believe
that God does not act unjustly in forgiving sinners in their lifetime in this world.
It is not certain why His justice would require for Him to refuse His forgiveness
to the damned and not to help them free themselves from the sinful blindness.
Does God’s love also prove absolutely helpless in the face of resisting will of
those sentenced to perdition? Is He unable to attract the rebels towards Him? Is
a human being able to be so locked in its obstinacy and hate God to such an
extent that it will be unable to accept the offer of rescue?
The idea of restorative punishment makes it possible to answer these ques-
tions differently from the traditional eschatology. The main issue is the under-
standing of God’s final triumph over all evil, sin and resistance. Questions need
to be posed about the nature and character of this victory, due to which all crea-
tures will willingly reconcile with their Creator, will accept His rule with grati-
tude and will praise His love, goodness and mercy. Opponents of universalism
are convinced that impenitent sinners will be forced to acknowledge God’s su-
premacy but will not accept it out of their own free will. Debates often feature
the biblical motif of military victory. This metaphor, however, has its weak
points. It may not be treated literally with regard to God. The destruction of His
enemy would not be for Him a success, but a pedagogical and ethical failure. A
real pedagogical success and a real reconciliation to not consist in the destruc-
tion of the sinful person but in his or her rescue and transformation.
General reconciliation of creation with the Savior is not a hazy and unspeci-
fied hope. The wisdom of hope universalism states that He wishes the salvation
of all that are lost, that the Divine plan of saving the world will not fail and that
the new world will not feature the definite division between those saved and
damned for eternity. The world is penetrated even now with God’s saving love
to all creation.
The debate on universalism is much deeper than only the interpretation of
biblical texts on hell and salvation. It is directed towards the very core of theo-
logical thinking of God, the nature of man and human freedom, on redemption
and reconciliation. Questions need to be asked constantly whether He is able to
94 Wacław Hryniewicz

achieve his plan of salvation with regard to the universe of His creatures. If
Christ died for all, does His act of salvation proves effective for all? Can an
intelligent being destroy for ever God’s desire of salvation? Questions are fre-
quently more numerous than adequate answers. Investigative theology does not
fear this state of affairs.
There are questions which we will never be able to answer in a way exclud-
ing all doubts. We do not know how God will cure the wounds of humanity,
inflicted by evil throughout the history of its existence. We do not know how
He will achieve the reconciliation of victims and criminals, how justice with
regard to those injured can be combined with mercy and forgiveness towards
the perpetrators of crimes. It is frequently impossible in earthly life. Theodicy
can be studied but cannot be explained in full. The issue of universalism is very
similar.
In the state of lostness rescue is possible, for there exists Someone who can
and wants to save. Lostness and perdition do not sentence a person to total an-
nihilation. They are rather a situation which calls for rescue through its very
existence; it is a call de profundis, call for the Savior. It can be stated, referring
to liturgical terminology, that it is an eplicletic situation (Greek epikaleō—I call,
invoke). Correct are those who maintain that the religious concept of salvation
makes sense only when something really bad happens to a person. The situation
of self-annihilation we are discussing is exactly that. Thanks to the existence of
the Divine Savior and the possibility of rescue, however, it is not something
finally bad. Lostness and perdition open the way to salvation.
The danger of perdition and lostness constitutes a real possibility for every-
one. However, the state of perdition or lostness means that someone lost in his
or her humanity has not been found yet. This state by no means signifies the
eternal separation from God. In the parable on the lost sheep the shepherd does
„go after the lost sheep until he finds it” (Lucas 15:4; highlighting mine, W. H.).
In the parable on the prodigal son, the father twice says that “he was lost and is
found” (Lucas 15:24-32). In the house of Zacchaeus the publican vital words
were uttered: “the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost” (Lucas
19:10). What is significant here is the very fact that Christ’s words of those lost
are matched by those on seeking and finding.

4. OPUS IUSTITIAE PAX

The concept of eternal hell is a total contradiction of the educational and re-
habilitational sense of punishment. All this while, in the light of norms of hu-
man legislature and international treaties safeguarding human rights, the signifi-
cant objective of punishment dealt to culprits is their correction and social
rehabilitation. This is a general principle, common to all contemporary legal
systems. It requires from penitentiary systems to serve the reinstitution of hu-
man dignity and its development insofar as it is possible. Contemporary experi-
 “But the Problem Remains” 95

ence with the re-education of criminals are very instructive in this respect.
Prison psychology and psychotherapy show that, above all, they need to experi-
ence kind and honest assistance so that their trust can be gained. Criminals need
to be cured, otherwise the number of victims of violence will increase. Preven-
tive work is a complex process. It is not enough to deal punishment in the sense
of retaliation, to lock the culprit in prison. Re-education consists in something
more than the judiciary and the achievement of the punishment objectives. Peo-
ple who deal violence and commit violent acts were usually treated with physi-
cal and emotional brutality in their childhood.
Violence experienced during childhood is usually suppressed in the subcon-
scious and results in the feeling of shame. James Gilligan, American psychia-
trist, pointed to the fact that criminals commit brutal acts to hide from them-
selves and others that they too were the victims of violence. Culprits using vio-
lence almost always were treated brutally in the past, both physically and men-
tally. They are ashamed of that. The experience of physical or mental harm,
deep humiliation and shame in childhood constitutes an important factor condu-
cive to the occurrence of violence. It takes place when children are neglected,
harmed and humiliated instead of having their sense of self-esteem strength-
ened.
Therefore, it is necessary to help people cope with shame lurking at the very
source of violence. Shame is easily transformed into anger and fury. Culprits
need to be assisted in understanding the source of their own violence and in
expressing feelings other than anger. That, however, is only the beginning of
therapy. Violence killed in them the ability to experience feelings: love, under-
standing, compassion, real remorse or bad conscience. Inside a criminal there is
a dead personality, an internal void. A lot of time and effort is needed to help
them discover it and develop a new feeling human nature. They still remain
humans. What they had done do not deprive them of their due dignity or the
right to re-education and correction. What is particularly important is the work
on waking the feeling of self-esteem. Gilligan stated that over 20 years not one
prisoner who graduated from studies while serving the sentence returned to a
penitentiary institution. The sense of self-esteem counteracts recidivism. That is
why teachers are important members of a therapeutic team. Education is the
most effective mans of increasing the feeling of self-esteem. However, therapy
needs to be planned for many years or even for the whole lifetime of an individ-
ual. Awareness of the harm experienced is not enough for a criminal to de-
nounce violence. What those people need is a motive to lead a different life in
the form of education. It is one of the most peaceful, most efficient and least
costly methods of re-instituting the feeling of self-esteem.30
—————————
30
J. Gilligan. Wstyd i przemoc. Refleksje nad śmiertelną epidemią. [Shame and Violence. Re-
flection on the Lethal Epidemics], Poznań 2001. Cf. also the interview with the book’s author
entitled Biją, bo się wstydzą. [They Hit Out of Shame], Gazeta Wyborcza, no. 110, 12–13 May
2001, pp. 16–17.
96 Wacław Hryniewicz

This is the mode of action for human institutions when preparing programs
for counteracting and treating violence. A question needs to be asked here: is
man to be better than his Creator? Is it possible that God accepts or tolerates the
existence of reality contradictory with the noblest human establishments? It is
obvious, though, that the teachings on the eternity of hell exclude for ever the
possibility of reconciliation with God and the fulfillment of a human being,
even after the longest restorative and healing punishment. The sense of capital
punishment has been questioned on numerous occasions over the last years. It
was abolished in the majority of democratic societies as not humanitarian.
However, hell is the state of “eternal death”, excluding for ever any form of the
pedagogics of rescue and change of fate. Again, the disproportion is striking. It
is exactly in this sense that we might talk of the highest degree of negating the
feeling of justice with regard to the teachings on the eternal nature of hell.31
The general principles of the positive law are supported also by the philoso-
phy of justice understood as the philosophy of human rights. As an intelligent
and free person, a human has a right to retrieve the lost dignity, to be awarded a
chance for correction and development. In this light, hell appears as its absolute
contradiction.
Theology often referred to the justice of God as Father and warden of the
violated order. Can we really consider a Father someone who excludes for ever
any possibility of reconciliation with His children, thus rendering them vulner-
able to the most terrible and absolute evil in the form of eternal exclusion? If
God is truly the Father of His creation, His justice is of pedagogical, creative,
transforming and resurrecting nature. If God is Father, eternal punishment
would be the greatest fiasco of His role as Creator, Savior and Teacher of the
whole humankind. The re-educational and healing function of punishment
would necessarily fail. In relation to God, such an assumption seems highly
incredible. It is true that resocialization and rehabilitation of culprits in our pe-
nal institutions rarely brings good effects. The failures of human penitentiary
pedagogics are understandable in many respects; however, they do not under-
mine its sense. Pressure is placed rather on the preventive function, the aim of
which is to counteract crimes and to protect the society against possible threats.
In relation to the future life, the preventive function cannot be taken into con-
sideration. However, the pedagogical and therapeutic functions of punishment
apply also in this respect.
The sanction of eternal hell appears in the light of the most authoritative
texts of human legislature as infinitely unjust. The punishment per se in the
sense of retaliation does not deserve the name of a creative pedagogical reac-
tion; the less so a punishment that is unjust and disproportional. A significant
aim of justice is to reinstitute peace between people: opus iustitiae pax. It is a
—————————
31
Cf. L. Lombardi Vallauri. Dissezione giuridica dell’inferno. “Biblioteca della libertà”
34:1999, no. 148, pp. 51–68.
 “But the Problem Remains” 97

justice far more noble than only a procedural and punishing one. It often re-
quires a direct psychological mediation between the culprit and victims. God
accepting the existence of eternal hell would be either Somebody totally help-
less in the face of human guilt or would turn out of His own will the greatest
opponent of reconciliation, mediation, forgiveness and peace. His pedagogical
and ethical failure would thus constitute also a fiasco with regard to interper-
sonal communication of creatures called by Him to existence. God is not and
may not be the enemy of mutual understanding and forgiveness. Neither is He
as helpless with regard to human freedom as it is stressed by the traditional es-
chatology.
In considering God, one needs to rule out all adversities and the final failure
of his salvation plan. This relates both to the pedagogical and ethical failure
and to the adversity in the field of interpersonal relations (the fiasco of recon-
ciliation) and the final happiness of intelligent creatures. The doctrine of eternal
hell assumes that God's justice accepting this punishment of culprits in no way
whatsoever diminishes the eternal joy of God Himself and all those redeemed.
To the contrary: the infernal triumph of divine justice would constitute an addi-
tional motive for joy. Just and deserved torment of the damned would add to the
eternal happiness of the heaven’s chosen.
Such a concept contradicts the basic human feeling. Torment of even one
culprit sentenced to eternal hell would undermine the joy felt in heaven. It
would be like an uncured wound on the body of humankind. How could heaven,
worthy of that name, be a community of creatures devoid of compassion and
love towards all, including the ones lost to the greatest extent? The Gospel says
that the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost (Lk 19:10). Would
He become indifferent to the fate of those who got lost during the course of
their earthly lives? Can loving parents of a child be happy, seeing it lost forever
in the torment of hell? Can loving children feel the joy of heaven, when one of
the parents is sentenced to infinite Gehenna? Can I be happy seeing one of my
kin or friends lost beyond rescue in his or her humanity? Eternal happiness
would cease to be real happiness and the fate of heaven would be forever tainted
with suffering. Could God Himself be truly happy?
Questions of this kind haunt any rational human, sensitive to the fate of oth-
ers and to all suffering. They will be posed by people of all generations until the
end of the world. All talk of deserved punishment and the triumph of God’s
justice that needs to be celebrated seems to be only an empty apologetic maneu-
ver. I cannot become a defender of such a vision of God and His final victory. I
cannot believe that a happy human being loses the sensitivity of heart at the
very moment when it should shine in its full beauty. Why should we get rid of
that which determines the dignity and brilliance of humanity? A happy creature
wishes to share its joy with others. I am inclined to think that the joy of God
Himself consists also in the joy of all the creatures He called to existence. Their
final failure would constitute also His failure. Their misery, their eternal perdi-
98 Wacław Hryniewicz

tion would be an inconceivable hell also to Him. If God is truly love,

how can we think with faith about these issues differently? Hope teaches other-
wise.
N. Bierdayev, a Russian philosopher, expressed a similar sensitivity when he
wrote in the past “Paradise is possible for me if there is no everlasting hell for a
single being that has ever lived. One cannot be saved singly, in isolation. Salva-
tion can only be a communal, universal deliverance from torments.”32 Whoever
thinks that way and prays that God redeems all, enters the sphere of spirituality
diverging from the traditional ways of experiencing Christianity. It is a spiritu-
ality of solidarity and intercession, of compassion and understanding for all
people wounded and rejected who for those very reasons often become cruel
and merciless towards others. Cruel figures of tyrants noted over the history of
humanity are a constant reminder of that. Someone has to plead before God also
for them, someone has to remember them and commend them to the mercy of
our Creator. In this way we become the advocates of the good news for every-
one without exceptions, witnesses of the "more beautiful God:, God with a more
human and real face.
For many years now critical opinions were voiced on the subject of the
Church doctrine on the eternity of hell. It was subject to a critical assessment as
unclear, unjust and unethical also from the juridical point of view. The problem
consists above all in the disproportion of the punishment and its purpose. Con-
temporary penal legislature focuses on these two elements in its most humanis-
tic norms and principles. Norms expressed in the great penitentiary texts safe-
guard the basic human rights. In their light the teachings of eternal hell appear
as almost anti-juridical, since they violate the principle of proportion and ex-
clude the corrective sense of punishment. Man deserves punishment for his
wrongs. However, no worldly wrong deserves an eternal punishment. A pun-
ishment ought to be proportionate to the wrong done, which in this life neces-
sarily is always of a finite nature. The greatest tormentors and criminals in the
history of Earth, though they were the cause for loss of many lives and immense
human suffering, fortunately did not have any power over the afterlife of their
victims. They cannot deprive their victims of that. Therefore, even in their case
there would be no proportion between a finite crime and an infinite and eternal
punishment. The eternal punishment would exhaust itself in its negative and
repressive nature. It would constitute a punishment for its own sake, devoid of
the therapeutic and restorative function.
Supporters of the eternal torment doctrine reason that an insult to an infinite
God is also of an infinite nature. Therefore they try to argue that each and every
mortal sin deserves eternal hell. This, however, is an a priori assumption which
does not take into consideration the image of God conveyed by the Bible. The
infinite God is infinitely good and merciful, not prone to insults, wise and free
—————————
32
N. Berdiaev, Opyt eschatologičeskoj metafiziki. Paris 1947, pp. 205.
 “But the Problem Remains” 99

from all egoistic narcissism. The logic of injured honor is infinitely alien to
Him. He can forgive endlessly the faults of His imperfect creation. The more
somebody is great, merciful and good, the less is he prone to be insulted. This
premise is proved by simple human experience. A created individual is not ca-
pable of causing an infinite damage to God. Infinite damage can be taken into
account solely in the case if the said individual could sentence God Himself or
another of his creation to eternal hell. Only hell created for someone could jus-
tify the existence of hell for the culprit. Eternal hell, consequently, would be
deserved by those who inflicted the same fate in the form of eternal hell n other
people (and God!). In that case the proportion would be retained. This, however,
is an absurd assumption.

5. IS GOD HELPLESS IN VIEW OF HUMAN FREEDOM?

The issue of freedom recurs in relation to difficult issues and posed ques-
tions. I am convinced that a free creature, even after even the longest resistance
and struggle marked with suffering, is capable of making the final decision in
the face of the highest Good, manifesting itself to it gradually in all its obvious-
ness. Such a fundamental option is ontologically possible only after death. Dur-
ing the life on Earth man does not possess the sufficient sense of clarity about
good and evil and can change both to the better and to the worse. The Good
Thief, revered by Christians, when crucified with Christ managed to change his
current way of thinking and understanding life thanks to His direct presence. He
made a great turn towards Good. Sensual good and directly perceptible worldly
beauty are perceived by man as more desirable than real good, or even God and
His invisible other world.
The fundamental and definitive option in favor of God requires full cogni-
tion in the light of all truth. This truth is not perceptible during lifetime on earth.
In the situation of partial and unclear cognition, cognition “as in a mirror” (1
Cor 13:12), no one may definitely and for ever reject God whom they do not
really know or whom they know only in the darkness of faith. No one is capa-
ble, existentially and ontologically, establish for the whole eternity the orienta-
tion of their existence. It is possible only after death, in the full flash of eternity
and the obviousness of the invisible world.
The definite and final nature of choice can be mentioned only in the case
when it refers to something good and rendering happy, when there is no longer
the motive and reason to change one's decision. However, if the choice was
mistaken, erroneous and wrong, it rendered the chooser a miserable creature. In
that state an intelligent creature does not stop to receive stimuli forever encour-
aging it to convert. After all, that creature retains its reason, memory and will;
retains the ontological memory of being only a created individual. It is this
very anámnesis, hidden at the core of being, that remains for ever the helping
hand of the Creator, reached out to rescue the lost creation. I believe that the
100 Wacław Hryniewicz

chance for the good transformation has never been definitely rejected. In the
book Crossing the Threshold of Hope John Paul II wrote:
Yes, in a certain sense one could say that confronted with our human free-
dom, God decided to make Himself “impotent”. And one could say that God
is paying for the great gift bestowed upon a being He created “in His image,
after His likeness” (cf. Gn 1:26). Before this gift, He remains consistent.33
However, it is difficult to believe that God is impotent in the face of the
freedom of His creation, that He is paralyzed by the infinite respect for that
freedom. His love is inconceivably creative. It is His love that exercises its in-
fluence on freedom and attracts it to Him without any violence. It is His love
that finds the paths unknown to us and penetrates the deepest secrets of being.
The Loving and the Omnipotent does not suffer the final defeat with regard to
even the most obstinate creatures. The doctrine of eternal hell states that there
would be no true freedom if it could not make final, definitive and irrevocable
decisions. Eternity of hell is defended parallel to freedom. From this perspective
those who contradict the doctrine on the eternal nature of hell undermine the
truth of freedom and the great seriousness of life. No wonder, then, that God
Himself appears helpless and bound with respect for the freedom He Himself
gave us.
It is true that man can have subjective consciousness of making a definite
and irrevocable decision. Is that decision irrevocable, however, from the onto-
logical and objective vantage point? Is it really final in the eyes of God who is
greater than our hearts, and he knows everything” (1 J 3,20)? Whoever retains
the capability of changing a bad decision is in reality more free than anyone
who cannot change it.
I am convinced that God respects this very “greater freedom” of His crea-
tion to change a bad decision in a truly divine way. That freedom is the “last
resort” for all those who are lost and who lost themselves through making
wrong decisions. I believe that God and Father of the universe is the best and
unfailing Teacher, most effective and creative. He can convince and attract to
Him the freedom of creation without destroying or damaging it. “I will draw all
men to myself” (J 12,32), announced Christ before His death. Can a Christian
treat these words as an insignificant or empty promise? Effective and creative
pedagogics has something of the captivating force of persuasion. The Bible does
not refrain from mentioning “persuasion” on the part of God: “O LORD, you
persuaded me, and I was persuaded” (Jeremiah 20:7). The category of attrac-
tion, charm and persuasion has a divine aspect to it. God can do it without en-
slaving or decreasing the dignity of an intelligent creature. He is at that infi-
nitely patient, good and merciful. Where the philosophy of justice stops in its
conclusions, theology can continue due to the words of revelation.
—————————
33
Przekroczyć próg nadziei [Crossing the Threshold of Hope], p. 65.
 “But the Problem Remains” 101

Pedagogical fiasco is in its nature inseparable from an ethical failure. Even

the most just punishment for a crime committed is not an ethical success per se.
A success can be invoked only when the culprit converts, changes his or her
way of thinking as well as his or her life. What is significant in this case is the
biblical category of conversion, that is the change of the way of thinking after
certain experience (Greek metanoia from meta-noeō I think after...). Dealing a
punishment and inflicting pain on the culprit can be perceived as a specific suc-
cess of a juridical, but not of ethical nature. Philosophers of justice are of the
opinion that a convict is in definition a person not converted, devoid of the
sense of value or even the understanding of good and evil. The very infliction of
pain on somebody is something unethical. Punishment ought to serve the trans-
formation of conscience. Eternal torment, excluding the possibility of conver-
sion, would be even more removed from ethics and its internal purpose.
The gift of freedom is of its own nature neither unequivocal nor complete. It
is a reality oriented on development and purpose. Truth and freedom create an
optimum state for the development of an intelligent creature. How many people
are deprived of this chance during their lifetime! How often one is unable for
years to pierce even the stupidity of one’s own environment and free from it!
How many people enjoy the optimum conditions for the development of hu-
manity during the decisive years of their childhood? Is not their freedom de-
creased or even destroyed as a result thereof? Is it really only their own respon-
sibility? Who will justly provide them with a new chance? Will those harmed in
any way during their lifetime be deprived of an equal chance after death? Is it
only their fault that their lives have been wasted?
Christian faith in resurrection adds the aspect of corporeality to the final acts
and, consequently, an indelible reference to time. A human creature is never
deprived of the ability to change a bad decision. What was “before” can be sub-
stituted by what was “after”. A bad decision needs not to be final. The road to
transformation for the better is always open. One can go through Gehenna as a
result of a wrong choice of freedom. However, one can also leave Gehenna as a
consequence of changing that wrong decision and conversion. In this perspec-
tive, punishment acquires its most significant pedagogical, ethical and curing
dimension, so clear in the early Christian tradition.
Eschatological tradition teaches of the possibility of post-humous purifica-
tion in the state called the purgatory. This refers to all those who have already
taken their positive decisions in favor of God but who still needs to repent for
the wrongs done during their lifetime. With reference to the purgatory, the
change of situation or the liberating role of prayers of the living are not ex-
cluded. The traditional doctrine, however, rejects the possibility of conversion
with regard to the damned. It accepts the process of purification in the purga-
tory, but excludes conversion in hell. It accepts a certain succession of trans-
formation (“before” and “after”) in relation to those being purified on the other
side of life, but only those already redeemed and excelling in the knowledge of
102 Wacław Hryniewicz

God and experiencing happiness. The right to change is outright refused those
who are lost and called damned. This ensues on the basis of the assumption that
no restorative, therapeutic or re-educational punishment exists with regard to
them and that everything has already been decided upon the moment of death
and establishment of decision against God.
It is here that the very core of difficulty in the traditional eschatology is lo-
cated. It forgot the old Christian vision of therapeutic punishment. The Divine
Healer cures instead of condemning and admitting punishment for the sake of
punishment itself. If God admits punishment, He does it to correct, purify and
convert lost sinners. Pedagogical fiasco is in its nature inseparable from an ethi-
cal failure. Even the most just punishment for a crime is not in itself an ethical
success. A success can be invoked only when the culprit converts, changes his
or her way of thinking as well as his or her life. Dealing a punishment and in-
flicting pain on the culprit can be perceived as a specific success of a juridical,
but not of ethical nature. Punishment ought to serve the transformation of con-
science. Eternal torment, excluding the possibility of conversion, would be even
more removed from ethics and its internal purpose.

6. PURIFYING MEETING AND THE SENSE OF GEHENNA

Being aware of the nuances of their own language, some of the early Greek
Fathers decisively stressed the corrective and educational nature of punishment
also with regard to Gehenna.34 It is especially visible in the teachings of Clem-
ens of Alexandria (died ca. 212). According to that Christian “gnostic”, the
incarnated Divine Lόgos, Christ, is not only the “good Teacher”, but also the
best or even the only Healer of people.35 Clemens developed an optimistic con-
cept of man. It was his reaction to the pessimistic views of gnostics who differ-
entiated between and confronted a good God, the God of love manifested in
their opinion only in the New Testament, and the terrible and vengeful God
presented on the pages of the Old Testament. Clemens argued that there is only
one God and Lord treating us as a good Father who, even if he punishes his
—————————
34
Already Socrates assigned punishment a distinctively pedagogical sense. Plato pointed addi-
tionally to the therapeutic nature of punishment. These ideas contributed to the shaping of the
Christian image of God as Healer who uses even fire to retrieve the lost health of human soul
through burning. Cf. Origen, De principiis, II, 10,6 (parallel between the fire of Gehenna and
cauterizing wounds; a bitter medicine); Hom. in Jeremian, XII, 5. SCh 238, pp. 27–29 (comparing
God to a doctor cauterising wounds with fire „for the common good”). Concept of restorative
punishment of educational and therapeutic nature enabled early Christian thinkers, among others
Gregory of Nyssa, to propagate the concept that God acts through everything for the good of His
creation. The punishment of hell is also of restorative and temporary nature for it serves the cor-
rection of those punished and their healing. In that respect cf. Morwenna Ludlow, Universal
Salvation: Eschatology in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner, Oxford 2000, pp.
34, 82–85.
35
Clemens of Alexandria, Paidagogos,I, 6, 1–2. Sources Chrétiennes 70, 118. Cf. there: I, 1, 4;
I, 3, 3; I, 51, 1; I, 83, 2; III, 70, 1; III, 98, 2.
 “But the Problem Remains” 103

children, means the punishment for their own good and salvation. In his
Strómata Clemens wrote: “But God does not punish, for punishment is retalia-
tion for evil. He chastises, however, for good to those who are chastised, collec-
tively and individually.”36 In the East, the Fathers of the Church such as Greg-
ory of Nyssa (4th c.) or Isaac of Ninevah (7th c.) still preached in all conviction
the hope for God’s reconciliation even with Satan and they were not con-
demned.37
Meeting an individual created by God is an inescapable meeting with the Pu-
rifying Fire. Anyone in the face of that Fire is exposed to the influencing force
of divine Truth, Good and Beauty. They need to undergo the incredible and
surprising experience of contact with pure Truth, pure Good and Beauty. Best
human intuitions prove helpless in the attempt to describe such an experience. It
escapes our earthly perception. It is only possible to have a premonition that
those who were guided in their lives by good and truth will feel infinitely happy
in the face of divine Light. In it they will find their final fulfillment. They will
see the sense of orienting their whole loves towards It. They will see the reward
in themselves, in the harmony of their beings with the divine Good, Beauty and
the divine Truth.
On the other hand everything that was not worthy of God or desisted needs
to go through the purification in meeting with God’s reality. It is impossible to
predict what terrible consequences such a meeting will have for anyone hard-
ened in their heart, dealing in evil and insensitive for the fate of others. What it
would be to stay aflame in the fire of self-judgment, with the painful awareness
of wrongs done to others! I believe that all victims of human villainy will for-
give their offenders with all their heart. Perhaps it is this very forgiveness that
proves to be the fire purifying the whole being of culprits. As long as that great
transformation, repentance and conversion take place, so long the state de-
scribed as Gehenna will continue. The internal state of every culprit will be the
measure of the intensity of their suffering.
Gehenna is a symbol of great suffering. That suffering, however, has a thera-
peutic sense. It is a punishment dealt by sinners to themselves. It is not endless
suffering. It is not a state of abandonment by God, in contrast to what is com-
monly said and thought. Gehenna is incessantly visited by God. As the highest
Good and Beauty, He does not cease to attract and persuade without destroying
the freedom of intelligent creatures. Divine Good can mould the rock of
insensitivity and resistance patiently and kindly, even in the flames of torment
and suffering. Nobody here on Earth can predict how long that state of obduracy
and obstinacy can endure. It is not, however, an eternal state. Divine pedagogics
effectively leads in the end to the reconciliation of all those not reconciled with
themselves, with all the others and with the Creator and Saviour Himself. A
—————————
36
Clemens of Alexandria, Stromata VII, 102, 5.
37
Cf. W. Hryniewicz, Nadzieja uczy inaczej [Hope Teaches Otherwise], pp. 142–166.
104 Wacław Hryniewicz

Himself. A sinful creature needs to undergo a great and inconceivable process

of internal healing transformation.
The suffering of culprit is a “just retribution” for the wrongs done, but it is
transitory and not eternal. Eternal Fire of divine love is, however, above all a
purifying transformation, re-education and healing process. Gehenna is God
Himself, loving, purifying and treating his lost creation. His eternity does not
exclude the change of decision in a man in the state of perdition. We may face
the greatest paradox of eternity and change. The change ensues not in God, but
in the creation, finally discovering the original beauty of its being. Divine Light,
divine Good and divine Beauty are the greatest motive of the ensuing transfor-
mation. Freedom of an intelligent creature is healed and saved for ever. We do
not know the divine paths of salvation. They are known only to God Himself,
who can penetrate with his liberating love every corner of human tangle in ego-
ism and blindness.
A deeper understanding of the sense of Gehenna as a therapeutic punishment
makes it possible to avoid many charges addressed at Christian faith. It presents
God in a totally different light. It eliminates unnecessary rebellions of people
unable to accept the idea of eternal hell. Many questions, however, remain un-
answered. We will not be able to deal with numerous questions until the end of
human history. We need to learn to live with them and leave with them into the
unknown.
***
The standing of John Paul II as presented above betrays his internal di-
lemma between the hope for saving all and the reality of eternal damnation. The
search of “the great minds of the Church” caused also his anxiety, but as a pope
and teacher he wanted to remain faithful to the teachings of councils and the
traditional interpretation of biblical texts.
Traditional teachings of eternal hell constituted great terror to people
throughout the centuries. What havoc it wreaked in human minds, hearts and
spirituality. Many were internally opposed to that doctrine, seeing in it the ex-
pression of infinite lack of justice. They accused theologians that, while preach-
ing it, they were unable to explain why the damned retain the ability to think but
are unable to undertake the act of repentance. Why would death result in a fee
creature becoming a fossil, unable to verify its own decision? How could a
good, merciful and omnipotent God tolerate the eternal perdition of His crea-
tion, whom He after all never stopped to love? These questions still haunt ra-
tional persons. How could it be otherwise? Only a thoughtless or insensitive
man does not care about them. After all, the issue is about the final sense of
existence.
I am deeply convinced that Christianity of the future will at some point ac-
quire more courage in its attitude to eschatological issues. Pedagogics of hope
and mercy will then be able to assume the place of the pedagogics of fear of
 “But the Problem Remains” 105

God and eternal hell. Man can develop correctly in the atmosphere of hope, joy
and peace and not under the burden of paralysing fear. Hope teaches other
things than anxiety and panic. It teaches to create good. It is an inspiring and
creative factor. It lends wings and carries away. It educates for another form of
religiosity and spirituality, where there is a lot of place for trust to God and joy
of His existence. Joy of His being for ever the Friend of man, the Lover of peo-
ple, a just, merciful and good Judge who undertakes all to save and redeem
those who are lost.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR — professor, theologian, Lublin Catholic University, chief of

the Department of the Orthodox Church Theology, a co-creator of Ecumenic
Institute, the author of numerous books.