IS THE FIRE OF HELL ETERNAL AND REAL?
By Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., S.T.D.

The June issue of The Homiletic and Pastoral Review con­
tains an article by the Rev. Dr. John O’Brien, entitled “A Sane
Treatment of Hell.” The article is an exposition of certain
views concerning the punishment meted out to the reprobate
in the future life, which were proposed by Mr. Arnold Lunn in
his controversy with Professor Joad, now published in book form
under the title, “Is Christianity True?” . Mr. Lunn wrote the
affirmative side of this controversy while he was still a non­
Catholic; but in “Now I See,” his apologia which has appeared
since his reception into the Catholic Church, he adopts a some­
what similar attitude toward the subject of the punishment
awaiting sinners in the world to come (pp. 230-232). In view of
the unfavorable criticism of Mr. Lunn’s opinions on this subject
to be presented in this article, let me emphatically state that I
regard “Now I See” as one of the clearest and most convincing
apologetic treatises I have ever read. That Mr. Lunn, despite
his intelligence and sincerity, should err in some technical de­
tails of theology is easily understood and readily condoned.
Dr. O’Brien does not explicitly endorse all the statements
made by Mr. Lunn; yet, he gives the views of the latter a certain
measure of approbation by designating them as a “sane” treat­
ment of hell. He also asserts that “persons who have found the
doctrine of hell, as it is sometimes presented, to prove a stumbling
block to many sincere searchers for the truth, will find much to
commend in Lunn’s presentation.”
Let me premise, as a basic principle for this discussion, that
from the fact that a proposition has never been solemnly defined
as a matter of faith by the infallible teaching authority of the
Church it by no means follows necessarily that Catholics are
free to reject or to doubt this proposition. There are certain
doctrines which have never been the object of a solemn definition
of Pope or of (Ecumenical Council, but which nevertheless must
be accepted with divine-Catholic faith, because they are taught
as divinely revealed by the ordinary and universal magisterium
of the Church.1 To this class of dogmas belong, for example,
1 Cfr. Denzinger, "Enchiridion Symbolorum," n. 1792.

1250

IS THE FIRE OF HELL ETERNAL AND REAL?

1251

the truths that the entire human race is descended from Adam,2
and that bread and wine are the essential matter of the Eucha­
ristic consecration.3 Furthermore, there are certain doctrines
which, though not matters of divine-Catholic faith, are—in the
words of Pope Pius IX (Denzinger, n. 1684)—“retained by the
common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths
and as conclusions so certain that the opposite opinions, although
they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless merit some other
theological censure.” An example of a truth of this nature is
the doctrine that the Eucharistic species are objectively real.4
Now, one of the norms by which the members of the Church can
find out what doctrines are to be believed as matters of faith over
and above those solemnly defined, and what doctrines are to be
accepted as certain theological truths, is the unanimous consent
of Catholic theologians. This criterion of Catholic truth—the
universal and constant consent of Catholic theologians—is ex­
plicitly mentioned by Pope Pius IX in the above-quoted docu­
ment (Denzinger, n. 1683). Theologians, as such, possess no
teaching authority in the Church, but they are the reliable and
recognized witnesses of what the teaching authority proposes.
If, then, for several centuries Catholic theologians have unani­
mously held that a certain doctrine is an article of faith or an in­
dubitable theological truth, Catholics are obliged to accept their
decision and to give assent to this doctrine. As is evident, moral
unanimity among theologians is sufficient in this matter, so that
if only one or other Catholic writer has proposed a view opposed
to the longstanding and unhesitating consent of all the others
who have written on this particular subject, the strength of the
agreement of these latter is thereby in no wise impaired.
The Eternity of Hell-Fire

Now to the topic of our discussion. Mr. Lunn’s presentation
of his subject is concerned chiefly with two points—the eternity
of the punishment of the damned, and the reality of hell-fire.
Concerning the first point, Mr. Lunn says: “Even if we were to
take Christ’s words literally—and Christ often spoke in alle2 Van Noort, “De Deo Creatore,” n. 179.
3 Otten, “De Sacramentis,” I, n. 537.
* Otten, “De Sacramentis,” I, n. 492.

1252

THE HOMILETIC A ND PASTORAL RE VIEW

gories—-we should not be forced to believe in the eternal torments
of the damned. The fire may well be everlasting, but Christ’s
words were quite consistent with annihilation by fire, or with the
belief that after a period of punishment by fire the condemned
soul goes on to a less uncomfortable part of Hell.... No Catholic
is free to believe in the annihilation of the damned, but all Catho­
lics are free to reject the view that the individual soul is eternally
tormented. The damned, for all we know, may pass through
the circles of Hell and eventually finish up in Limbo. Limbo is
technically a part of Hell, but the punishment of Limbo is purely
negative, and consists in the loss of the beatific vision.”
The statement that the reprobate may “eventually finish up
in Limbo,” can be taken in either of two senses: first, that the
damned may at some future time be entirely freed from both the
punishment of sense (poena sensus) and the suffering caused by
their separation from God (poena damni), so that their condition
will be identical with that commonly attributed by theologians
to infants who have died without Baptism ; or, second, that the
reprobate, while they will eternally experience the poena damni,
will eventually be released from the pæna sensus.
Understood in the former sense, this proposition is certainly
heretical, for it is the denial of the doctrine of the eternal dura­
tion of the punishments meted out to those who die at enmity
with God—a doctrine that has frequently been taught by Popes
and by Councils. There are, for example, the declaration of
Pope Vigilius against Origen (Denzinger, n. 211), the letter of
Innocent III to Humbert of Arles (ibid., 410), the declaration
of Innocent IV against the teachings of certain Greeks (ibid., 457),
and the definition of the Fourth Lateran Council against the
Albigensians to the effect that sinners will receive “cum diabolo
poenam perpetuam” (ibid., 429). This last, at least, is an in­
fallible pronouncement.
Taken in the second sense, this proposition certainly cannot be
held by a Catholic; for some of the aforesaid declarations are
quite manifestly concerned with the eternity of the poena sensus,
and not merely with that of the poena damnis Thus, Innocent
5 Pæna sensus must not be confounded with pæna sensibilis. The latter will
be possible in hell only after the bodies of the reprobate have been re-united with
their souls. By pæna sensus is signified any punishment positively inflicted either

IS THE FIRE OF HELL ETERNAL AND REAL?

1253

III distinguishes between the privation of the vision of God,
which is the consequence of original sin, and “gehennæ perpetuæ
cruciatus,” which is the punishment of actual sin. Innocent
IV declares that one who dies in mortal sin is punished “æternæ
gehennæ ardoribus perpetuo.” To one who would object that
these decisions were not infallible pronouncements, I would reply
that we have a sufficient argument in the magisterium universale
of the Church, constantly inculcating the eternity of the pæna
sensus, to render this doctrine at least fidei proxima. In fact,
I am sure the vast majority of theologians would agree with
Hervé, who asserts in his recent “Manuale Theologiæ Dogmaticæ”
(IV, η. 681) that it is de fide that the pæna sensus will never end.
Accordingly, Mr. Lunn’s claim that the Church has never de­
clared definitely the duration of the pæna sensus is utterly out­
side the question as far as the possibility of the denial or doubt of
the eternity of this punishment by a Catholic is concerned.
Can we at least admit that part of Mr. Lunn’s statement
which affirms as probable that “after a period of punishment by
fire the condemned soul goes on to a less uncomfortable part of
hell”? This brings us to the thorny question of the mitigatio of
the punishments of the damned. Some theologians admit the
possibility of a mitigatio secundum quid, in the sense that the Al­
mighty inflicts on each of the reprobate, from the very beginning
of his eternal incarceration, less punishment than he deserves in
strict justice. This opinion is solidly probable, and is taught by
St. Thomas (Summa, I, Q. xxi, art. 4, ad I).6 Some theologians
also hold that there will be a mitigatio secundum quid for those
souls that enter hell stained with venial as well as mortal sins, or
burdened with a debt of temporal punishment for sins remitted
in life. According to these theologians—among whom is Scotus
(In IV Sent., dist. 21)—the punishment for these venial sins and
for the debt of temporal punishment will cease eventually, and
thus there will be some manner of mitigation of the pains of hell.
on the souls or on the bodies of the damned by an external agent acting as the in­
strument of divine justice. As is evident, this is entirely distinct from the pæna
damni, which is the interior grief of the soul caused by the deprivation of God.
β I think that this is the passage, somewhat freely translated, that Mr. Lunn
quotes on page 231 of “Now I See,” to show that St. Thomas favors his view of
mitigatio simpliciter. Evidently the words of the Angelic Doctor refer to something
quite different.

1254

THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL REVIEW

This opinion can safely be held, although it is not the. more com­
mon view among theologians.
But what of the mitigatio simpliciter with which Mr. Lunn is
evidently concerned—the diminution of the pœna sensus inflicted
for unremitted mortal sins, with the result that the soul, though
never entirely relieved of suffering, eventually “goes on to a less
uncomfortable part of hell”? In the course of the centuries not
a few Catholics have maintained such a view. St. Thomas
mentions several different opinions, current about the thirteenth
century, favoring the idea of a substantial mitigation being
granted by God to the reprobate {Supplementum, Q. Ixxi, art. 5).
Even as late as the nineteenth century this view was defended
as probable by M. Emery, Superior General of the Sulpicians,7
and by Padre Ventura in one of his Notre Dame Conferences.8
As far as I know, no formal censure has been inflicted by the
Church on this view as such, although the extreme form in which
it was proposed by Mivart in his article “Happiness in Hell,”9
merited for this treatise a place on the Index. The dissertation
of M. Emery was indeed referred to the Congregation of the Index,
but was not condemned.
As far as the present question is concerned, however, three
points are of vital importance. First, there is a tendency to
exaggerate the force of the arguments from tradition in favor of
the doctrine of mitigation. Of course, those who are striving
to defend this doctrine naturally exhibit such a tendency; but
even those who manifest no positive leaning towards the idea of
mitigation are inclined to believe that it is supported by tradition
much more strongly than is actually the fact. Thus, Father
Faber asserts: “Before the days of Peter Lombard the generality
of theologians held that, as time went on, there were some miti­
gations of the fierce punishments of hell.”10 Now, while it is
true that the authority of the Master of Sentences (Sent. IV,
dist. 45) undoubtedly influenced subsequent theologians towards
a positive approval of the more rigorous view, it is likewise true
7 “Dissertation sur la Mitigation des peines des Damnés.’’
8 Ζα Raison Catholique et la Raison Philosophique, Vol. Ill, Conf. 21.
9 The Nineteenth Century, 1892-1893.
10 “The Precious Blood,” Chap. III.

IS THE FITE OF HELL ETERNAL A ND REAL?
1
j
j

j

!.··.
?
;; :

y

y: >
■

'

1255

that not many of the Fathers and early ecclesiastical writers
were indubitably and positively in favor of the mitigation theory,
St. Augustine’s statements are contradictory.11 Some of the pas­
sages cited from the Greek Fathers (e.g., St. John Chrysostom,
St. Basil, St. John Damascene), when studied more closely, will
be found to be either ambiguous, or to refer to Purgatory rather
than to hell. It must always be remembered that the eschatol­
ogy of the Greek theologians has always been very vague, and
their terminology very indefinite.12
Second, most of those who upheld the theory of mitigation for
the reprobate believed that it is granted only by virtue of the
prayers of the living, and that consequently it will not be granted
after the Last Judgment. The mitigation visualized by Mr.
Lunn would seem to proceed from the gratuitous mercy of God
and to be of a permanent nature. I feel sure that very few passages from the Fathers and early theologians can be adduced in
favor of this form of the mitigation theory.
Third, there is no scriptural warrant for the idea of mitigation ;13
but on the contrary the parable of the rich man who was refused
even a drop of water amid the flames of hell confirms the more
rigid view. Moreover, the custom of the Church of not praying
for the damned confirms the doctrine of severity. There were
indeed in the early Church some liturgical prayers, in Sacramentaries and in Missals, imploring the alleviation of the pains of the
damned ; there were also some references to an old idea that every
year at Easter the pains of hell are suspended. But since the
reform of the liturgy by Pope Pius V, all such prayers and references have been abrogated.
Accordingly, Catholic theologians since the thirteenth century
have been practically unanimous in teaching that there is no miti­
gatio simpliciter in hell. St. Thomas calls the mitigation idea
vain, presumptuous and unreasonable; and argues that, just as
the essential happiness of heaven cannot be increased, so the es­
sential punishment of hell cannot be decreased {Supplementum,
Q. Ixxi, art. 5). Cardinal Lépicier says that the more severe
11 “Enchiridion,” n. 112; Migne, P.L., XL, 284-285; De Civitate Dei, lib. 21,
c. 24, n. 3; P.L., XLI, 739.
12 Cfr. Dictionnaire de Théologie, X (2), col. 2001 sq.
13 Ibid., col. 2006 sq.

1256

THE HOMILETIC A ND PA STORA L RE VIEW

view is theologically certain.14 Hervé pronounces the mitigation
theory rash and devoid of foundation.15 H. Mazzella says that
this view is opposed to the sense of the Church.16 Hurter as­
serts that it cannot be reconciled with the state of the lost souls as
exhibited by Scripture and by the Fathers.17 It must be re­
membered that these authorities are primarily condemning the
theory of merely temporary mitigation, effected by the power of
the prayers of the faithful, which will not continue beyond the
Last Judgment. Their judgment of the theory of permanent
mitigation, advocated by Mr. Lunn, would naturally be more
severe, although ordinarily they do not consider this theory dis­
tinctively. Billot, in passing judgment on a somewhat similar
opinion, calls it rash, scandalous and erroneous.18
In view of these considerations, I cannot see how the opinion
that any mitigatio simpliciter is granted to the souls in hell can in
conscience be sustained by a Catholic. One who would do so
would not indeed be guilty of heresy, but he would act rashly,
and consequently sinfully, by rejecting what is abundantly testi­
fied by theologians to be the unmistakable attitude of the Church
towards this question. It would be especially unjustifiable to
hold that mitigation is granted permanently after the Last Judg­
ment.
But what of Dr. O’Brien’s statement that Mr. Lunn’s view,
though not at present the common opinion, may eventually be­
come such? Of course, such a possibility is to be entirely re­
jected if Mr. Lunn’s view signifies that hell will ultimately be­
come a real Limbo in which there will be no suffering, or at least,
no pœna sensus. For, as was stated above, such interpretations
are heretical, or at least close to heresy, so that to imply that they
could ever be admitted by the Church is to impugn her infalli­
bility. But even the mitigation theory, it is my firm conviction,
can never become acceptable. For in defending the more rigor­
ous view theologians are only speaking as the reliable interpreters
of the mind of the Church ; and it surely would not be consonant
14 “De Novissimis,’’ p. 223.
18 “Manuale Theol. Dogmaticæ,” IV, n. 693.
18 “Praelectiones Scholasticae,” IV, η. 670.
17 “Theologiae Dogmaticæ Compendium,” ed. 1908, III, η. 658 nota.
18 “De Novissimis,” Q. Hi., thés. 3, n. 4.

IS THE FIRE OF HELL ETERNAL AND REAL?

1257

with the idea of a special divine assistance given to the teaching
authority of the Church to hold that a doctrine so constantly and
positively favored by the Church for centuries should eventually
be shown to be false or less probable. It is to be noted that as
the doctrine of eternal punishment has become more clarified in
the course of the centuries, the tendency of ecclesiastical and
theological thought towards the denial of the mitigation theory
has grown stronger, and doctrinal progress in the Church takes
place in the direction of truth.
The Reality of Hell-Fire

The second point at issue concerns the reality of hell-fire. Mr.
Lunn says that the “fire” of hell may be understood metaphori­
cally; and Dr. O’Brien, commenting on this opinion, remarks:
“This milder view which has so many champions today is not
simply a concession to modern sentiments or an attempt to pla­
cate modern criticism, but it is the flowering of a view that has been
in existence in the Church from the time of Christ down to the
present day.”
For an adequate grasp of this question, we must consider four
points concerning the fire of hell—its reality, its materiality, its
specific nature, and its mode of action.
First, is the “fire” of hell something real, or is the use of this
term only a metaphor, chosen to designate the keen spiritual
torments that, so to say, burn into the souls of the damned?
There have been Catholics—for example, Ambrose Catharinus,
O.P., in the sixteenth century and H. Schell in the nineteenth
century19—who have defended the metaphorical interpretation
of hell-fire at least as a probable view or as an opinion free to
Catholics. As in the question of mitigation, so in this point the
authority of the early writers is invoked—for example, St. Greg­
ory of Nyssa, St. John Damascene, and even St. Augustine. But
in passing judgment on the sayings of the Fathers, it must always
be remembered that in the early centuries, when eschatology
was in an undeveloped state, it was believed by many that the
just are actually admitted to heaven and the wicked actually
cast into hell only after the Last Judgment. Those who held
19 Schell’s "Katholische Dogmatik” has been placed on the Index.

1258

THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL RE VIEW

this opinion logically believed that at present the reprobate
suffer the pains of fire only metaphorically, not because they
denied the reality of hell-fire, but because they thought that the
damned are not yet actually in hell.20 The opinion that entrance
to heaven and to hell is delayed until the end of the world was
condemned by Pope Benedict XII in the fourteenth century
(Denzinger, n. 531); and from about the same time it has been
the consistent view of practically all Catholic theologians that
the “fire” of hell, the chief instrument of divine justice in the
infliction of the pcena sensus, is a real entity. I should like to
know who are some of the “many champions” of the milder view
at the present day of whom Dr. O’Brien speaks, and what stand­
ing they possess as Catholic theological authorities. I cannot
agree with Dr. O’Brien’s statement that the Church has never
censured in any way the metaphorical interpretation of hell-fire.
There is not, it is true, any doctrinal censure affixed to this Anew,
but there is a disciplinary censure; for on April 30, 1890, the
Sacred Penitentiary decreed, in response to a question sent by a
confessor, that penitents who acknowledge only metaphorical—
not real—fire in hell, are to be diligently instructed; but if they
persist in this idea, they are not to be absolved.
Mr. Lunn quotes Father Martindale, S.J., who argues that since
the “worm” in the text, “Their worm dieth not and the fire is not
extinguished” (Mark, ix. 43),21 is to be taken metaphorically,
the “fire” is to be understood in the same way. However, the
argument breaks down when it is remembered that hell-fire is
spoken of in many other scriptural passages in which the literal
sense not only is not incongruous, but is even positively demanded
by the expressive mode of speech employed by the sacred writers.22
The doctrine of the reality of hell-fire is therefore adjudged by
theologians to be certain; and they do not hesitate to declare
that one who would deny this would be guilty of a grievous sin of
temerity.23
ï0 Dictionnaire de Théologie, V (2), col. 2208.
21 Fr. Martindale, who was apparently misunderstood by Mr. Lunn, makes clear
his position on the question in our August issue.—Editors.
22 Dictionnaire de Théologie, V (2), col. 2196 sq.
23 Cfr. Arendzen, “Eternal Punishment,” p. 24; Tanquerey, “Synopsis Theologiæ
Dogmaticae,” ed. 1929, III, n. 1160; Hervé, “Manuale,” IV, η. 681; Hugon, “De
Novissimis,” Q. iii, art. 1.

IS THE FIRE OF HELL ETERNAL A ND REAL?

1259

Nature of Hell-Fire

Second, is the fire of hell -material? Theologians commonly
answer this question also in the affirmative ; and indeed it seems
to follow logically and necessarily from the doctrine of the reality
of the fire. For, according to Catholic philosophy, every sub­
stance is either material or spiritual ; and all spiritual substances
are also intellectual. Now, it would seem unsuitable that God
should employ an intellectual creature as the tormenting medium
of hell. However, since the Church is concerned principally
with the reality of hell-fire, one who would hold it to be real but
immaterial WOuld satisfy his obligations as a Catholic, however
erroneous his view might be from a philosophical standpoint.
Third, what is the specific nature of hell-fire? This is a matter
of free discussion among Catholics. Some believe it to be sub­
stantially of the same nature as fire on earth—that is, an incan­
descent gaseous substance;24 others think it is some material
medium substantially different from the fire with which we are
familiar.25
Fourth, in what manner does the material fire exercise its puni­
tive action on the souls of the reprobate before they are re-united
with their bodies at the end of the world? This question offers
difficulties, for it is not easy to conceive how a material thing can
directly affect a spiritual substance. St. Thomas depicts the
punitive efficacy of hell-fire as chaining the souls to a certain
place (Supplementum, Q. lxx, art. 3). Others, emphasizing the
fact that the fire is the instrument of God and consequently can
be endowed with power to transcend its natural sphere of opera­
tion, contend that it produces directly in the soul of the reprobate
the same suffering that a living person experiences when fire is
applied to his body.26 As is evident, this is also a question that
is open to free discussion among Catholics.
In conclusion, let me state that I have no patience with those
who depict hell in a lurid manner that is unjustified by revelation
and Catholic teaching. If we confine ourselves to the doctrine
proposed and approved by the Church, we shall present a concept
of hell-fire sufficiently forceful to inspire a salutary fear of the
24 Hugon, "De Novissimis,” Q. iii, art 1.
« Hurter, III, n. 653.
” Cfr. Lessius, "De Divinis Perfectionibus,” XIII, 30.

1260

THE HOMILETIC AND PASTORAL RE VIEW

divine vengeance in any one who believes the Christian Revela­
tion. i It is indeed a deep and awful mystery how the all-merciful
God can punish some of His intellectual creatures with excruci­
ating tortures for all eternity. But it is an explicitly revealed
doctrine, and it behooves us not to minimize this truth in order
to harmonize it with the concepts of our fallible reason, but
rather to adapt our ideas to the indubitable fact that God does
punish sinners for all eternity. In this way we shall be led to the
realization that mortal sin must be something immeasurably
wicked, since for one mortal sin God will cast an immortal soul,
beautified with His own image, into everlasting flames. The
Catholic Church has never made any compromise with the doc­
trine of eternal hell-fire in order to make it less repugnant either
to her own members or to those outside the Fold; but she has
constantly proposed it in all its terrifying force, ever repeating
Our Saviour’s solemn injunction: “Fear Him that can destroy
both soul and body in hell’’ (Matt., x. 28).

TOWARDS LOVING THE PSALMS
By C. C. Martindale, S.J., M.A,

XII.

Shall We Save the Psalms?

It is clear from the New Testament that the Apostles, St. Paul
included, were steeped in the Psalms (cf. the magnificent ex­
ordium to “Hebrews”). The Psalms were at once incorporated
into the Liturgy; if the New Testament provided the first Chris­
tians with the image of the Shepherd and the Lamb, it was the
Psalms which handed on that of the Stag eagerly seeking the living
water. The Acta Martyrum are full of instances which show
Martyrs, even quite young boys, desperately (or rather naturally)
repeating verses from the Psalms while they were being tortured.
St. Ambrose says that people talked in church when other parts
of the Scriptures were read, but, when the Psalms were recited,
all were dumb ; and that a man should blush if he did not begin
the day with a Psalm, since even the birds devoutly sing at morn­
ing and at dusk (a St. Francis before his time!). The very classicminded Sidonius Apollinaris says that the river banks reëcho with
the bargemen’s “psalm-songs”; and Paula and Eustochius wrote
from Bethlehem to Marcella that the ploughman, the reaper, and
the vinedresser sang the Psalms to lighten their work. St.
Gregory Nazianzus, while still a pagan, dreamed that he was
singing Lætatus sum in his and the dream haunted him, and he
came thus to baptism. When St. Monica died, the whole of her
son’s companions sang the Psalm Misericordiam (Ps.c) to console
him; and he died with the Penitential Psalms written up large
before his bed. Marcella, mentioned above, actually gathered a
group of women around her, studied Hebrew so as to sing the
Psalms properly (and Greek, so as fitly to read the Gospels),
learned the entire Psalter by heart, and apparently recited the
whole of it daily. Paula died with the Psalms Quam dilecta and
Domine dilexi on her lips; and round her dead body Psalms
were sung in Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Syriac for three whole
days.
As for St. Jerome, who in a sense controlled these ladies, we
know how continuously he worked at the Psalter: to my mind,
it is disastrous that his Psalter according to the Hebrews (i.e.,
1261