What Denying That God Punishes Implies
I now proceed to the second part of my commentary on podcasts two and three of Alejandro Bermúdez on the question of whether God punishes or not. As I mentioned in the previous installment, Alejandro’s entire argumentation can be heard on the Catholic news portal ACI Prensa, or on his YouTube channel ACITV.
Before beginning I again wish to thank all those who in the comments section have made contributions to the topic, helping to enrich the debate. In particular, I thank Monsignor Miguel Antonio Barriola and Father José María Iraburu; their interventions have been very timely and necessary, since from the very first installments many people have asked to hear the opinion of authoritative figures within the Church. Well, there they have what has been said — not by a mere layman, but by two doctors of theology, one of them a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission — in addition to other recognized theologians who, though they have not participated in this debate, have said the same as we have. I also thank Fray Nelson Medina, who, by sharing the link to the first article in this series on his website, has helped give what we present here a wider readership.
And now let us begin…
How Heresy Is Born
In the first of Alejandro’s podcasts that I comment on here, he warns that we must be very careful that a concern about what seems to be a theological distortion does not end up leading us to another. He adds that many heresies at the beginning of Christianity not infrequently led to the affirmation of other heresies simply to counterbalance the first. He gives as examples Arianism — which denied the divine nature — versus Priscillianism; the heresies concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and many others. The problem with these heresies, as he rightly says, was that they went to the opposite extreme of what the other was denying.
Precisely because I share his opinion is why I have taken the trouble to correct him on this matter — first, because I have always held him in very high esteem, and second, because his error in misunderstanding divine mercy to the point of presenting it as exclusive of divine justice leads directly to far more serious errors, and is therefore not a trivial or unimportant matter. If we pause to examine the very manner in which he reasons on this topic (not on others, on which he reasons very well), we will see that it is essentially the same as that employed by many heterodox thinkers who do great harm to the Church by denying a great number of truths of faith. Let us give some examples.
If God Does Not Punish, Christ’s Sacrifice on the Cross Would Have Been Unnecessary
We have seen that besides mercy, divine justice is also an attribute of God; and if divine justice did not require that the transgressor of God’s law receive a punishment for his sin, the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary would not have been necessary. Our Lord “was pierced for our sins, crushed for our guilt. The punishment reconciling us fell on him, and we have been healed by his bruises” (Is 53:5) precisely because, although He is merciful, He is also just, and man’s sin required a satisfaction. And this is an idea difficult to understand under the modernist way of thinking, for if God is pure mercy, why would He desire the sacrifice of His own Son as payment for our sins? Could He not have forgiven based exclusively on His mercy?
Hence the same reasoning that Alejandro uses is also employed by Jesuit theologian González Faus, but with a different aim: to deny that God the Father willed to save us through the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross — an error that was combated precisely here on Infocatólica by the portal’s director. We also combated at Infocatólica the priest Juan Masiá, who said that “only our smallness, the Jewish tradition of expiation, and wild mythological interpretations — even in good faith — could have attributed to God such a crime [the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross]. Now we can see it. And we must proclaim it to the believing People, repenting of the ignorant nonsense of the past.” And we also combated Jairo del Agua, when he maintained that “the pain of the Cross was never willed or planned by the Father; it was (and is) human perversion that invented injustice and torture, which the Father had (and has) to endure in order not to eliminate our murderous freedom.” Many more examples could be cited, but let us leave it there so as not to weary the reader.
Of course, I do not mean to say that Alejandro reaches the same conclusions as those heterodox thinkers; I am quite certain that if the occasion arose he would join forces with me to combat them (doctrinally, of course). But the problem is that his manner of reasoning objectively contributes to theirs, since it is essentially the same: that since God’s nature is merciful and He cannot in any way will punishment, etc., it is not possible that He willed His own Son to be punished for our sins — and therefore, throughout history we have understood the death of Christ incorrectly. Now, here is an important point that must be said: under Alejandro’s way of thinking, the arguments of the heterodox are irrefutable — yes, irrefutable — for if God does not punish, and therefore the punishment of the sinner does not enter into the design of His will, still less would He demand or will the punishment of His own Son in our place. And so we see how one error in this matter — denying divine punishment and its vindicative character — leads by consequence to others far more serious, even if that is not the intention. But the fact is: if God does not punish, He does not save either.
If God Does Not Punish, the Sacrament of Penance Would Not Be Necessary
Let us recall that the sacrament of Penance is that by which all sins committed after baptism are forgiven through priestly absolution to the repentant sinner who sincerely confesses them and has the purpose of making satisfaction. The term “penance” is used precisely to designate this part of the sacrament: the satisfaction in which a “penalty” or “punishment” is imposed to expiate the fault — whence comes the word “peni…tence.” But if God does not require this satisfaction, why then does the priest impose a penance on us? To deny that God punishes is also to deny an essential principle of Catholic faith that distinguishes us from Protestants: namely, that through our sins we incur a temporal punishment or debt of penalty that remains even after we have received absolution. On this point Ludwig Ott explains:
“The virtue of penance, so insistently recommended in the Old and New Testaments (cf. Ezk 18:30ff; 33:11; Jer 18:11; 25:5f; Jl 2:12f; Sir 2:22; 17:21ff; Mt 3:2; 4:17; Acts 2:38), and which in all times has been a necessary condition for the forgiveness of sins (Dz 894), is that moral virtue which inclines the will to turn away from sin interiorly and to make satisfaction to God for it. This virtue consists in sorrow of soul for having sinned, because sin is an offense against God, a sorrow united with the purpose of amendment: sorrow ‘for sin committed, inasmuch as it is an offense against God, with the purpose of amendment’ (S.Th. III, 85, 3). External exercises of the virtue of penance are confession of sins, the performance of all kinds of penitential works — e.g., prayers, fasting, almsgiving, mortifications — and the patient enduring of divine punishments.” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma)
The same manual of theology further explains that the Church condemned as heretical the doctrine of Luther, according to which penance consisted solely in amendment of life (Dz 747, 923) — which is precisely what many people understand penance to be: receiving absolution without satisfaction. And although when they go to confession and are given a penance they fulfill it, they never quite understand why they do it or what its purpose is. Let it be clearly understood: when we fulfill our penance, what we are doing is carrying out a punishment in expiation for the debt of penalty incurred by our sins.
If God Does Not Punish, Then He Is Not Provident Either
Another error in Alejandro’s argumentation is that, in attempting to prove that God does not punish, he argues that if He did, it would not happen that very good people suffer while very wicked people prosper. Even with good intentions, he ends up resorting to the same argument frequently used by atheism to deny the existence of God: “If God is good, why does He not intervene by rewarding the just and punishing sinners each time they sin?” Atheists begin from there to attempt to demonstrate that God does not exist, or that if He does, He is not a good God. Alejandro uses it to attempt to demonstrate that God does not punish — simply because He apparently does not appear to intervene in events, either by rewarding or punishing in the present life. The problem is that in doing so, even unwillingly, he objectively denies Divine Providence and reduces God to the level of a mere spectator who waits only for the next life to give each one what they deserve.
And yes, it must be affirmed that this is nothing other than a subtle form of denying Divine Providence, or misunderstanding it to the highest degree — even if he does not recognize it — because it is a matter of Catholic faith that the God in whom Catholics believe is not a mere spectator, but the Creator of the spiritual and material universe, the absolute Lord of all things, governing them with His providence. He is in no way a God who acts like a clockmaker who sets the mechanism in motion and then forgets it, but a God who governs and actively intervenes in the history of humanity.
If this is lost from view, the consequences are disastrous. For if God does not intervene — both to rescue the righteous who cry out for his help and to punish the evildoer for his sins — then why do we pray? Why do the martyrs before the divine Throne implore him to hasten to avenge their blood that was shed? (Rev 6:10). How can we cry out with the Psalmist: “You will not fear the terror of the night, the arrow that flies in the daytime, the plague that stalks in the dark, the scourge that wreaks havoc in broad daylight. Though a thousand fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, you yourself will remain unscathed. You have only to look with your eyes, to see how the wicked are repaid” (Ps 91:5-8)? How shall we believe in the God who “has pulled down princes from their thrones and raised high the lowly; he has filled the starving with good things, sent the rich away empty” (Lk 1:52-53)?
Now, you will ask: how does one respond to Alejandro’s objection? For if we judge events from the outside and in a human manner, it can indeed give the impression that God behaves in this way — abandoning the just to all kinds of calamities while the wicked prosper. And although in my second intervention on this subject I already gave a satisfactory response to this objection, I take the opportunity to complement it a little further.
First of all, it must be borne in mind that God’s justice does not require that every crime be punished in this world, nor that virtue receive its reward in it. On the contrary, it belongs to the order of Providence that the present life be a state of freedom and trial, that merit precede reward and crime precede punishment. The opposite would be absurd and incompatible with human nature.
a) If God were to reward virtue immediately in this life, he would deprive the just of the merit of perseverance and the value of trust in him; he would banish from the world the merit of heroic virtue and patience; he would make man a kind of slave or mercenary. If he were to punish sin the moment it is committed, he would deprive sinners of the time and means for doing penance. Such a manner of acting would be excessively harsh with regard to a being as weak and variable as man.
b) An action that men consider meritorious is often truly worthy of punishment, because it was done from a dishonest motive; and a sin that seems to deserve punishment is often pardonable, because it was committed under extenuating circumstances of which we are unaware. God would thus be compelled to reward false virtues and punish excusable sins, merely by conforming to human ideas of justice.
c) The sufferings of the innocent are often the effect of a general evil in which they are caught up; the prosperity of sinners is a consequence of their natural talents and of the circumstances in which they find themselves. God would need to perform continual miracles to deliver the former from a general misfortune and to take from the latter the fruit of their talents. Such a plan of Providence would not be wise.
d) The temporal trials of the just and the passing prosperity of sinners are not an injustice or a disorder demanding reparation. On the contrary, it is in the order of things that the former should merit through patience the eternal reward that has been promised them, and that the latter should have time to avoid through penance the eternal punishment.
Therefore, the fact that God does NOT ALWAYS punish in this life but reserves the punishment of some for the life to come is no pretext for thinking that God does not punish at all — just as we should not think that we cannot expect rewards in this life, even though greater rewards await us in the next.
Thus, what for some is a blessing — not being punished in this life for their wrongdoing — is for Christians rather a misfortune; and conversely, being punished here is a blessing before facing punishment in the life to come. It is not without reason that Thomas à Kempis writes in his Imitation of Christ — the most important and widely circulated book of Christian spirituality in history after the Bible:
“I give Thee thanks, O Lord, because Thou hast not withheld evils from me, but hast afflicted me with bitter scourges, sending upon me inward and outward sorrows and anguish. There is none who can console me beneath heaven but Thee, O Lord my God, the heavenly Physician of souls, who dost wound and dost heal, who dost bring into great torments and dost deliver from them. Let Thy correction be upon me, and that very chastisement of Thine shall be my teacher.”
“Beloved Father, behold me here in Thy hands; I bow myself under the rod of Thy correction. Strike my back and my neck, that I may bend my crookedness to Thy will. Make me a devout and humble disciple, as Thou art wont to do, that I may walk always in submission to Thy will. I give myself wholly into Thy hands with all that I have, that Thou mayest correct me. It is better to be corrected here than hereafter. Thou knowest all things, one by one, and nothing is hidden from Thee in the human conscience. Before it comes to pass, Thou knowest what is to come, and there is no need that any should teach Thee or tell Thee of things done on earth. Thou knowest what is helpful for my progress, and how greatly tribulation serves to cleanse the rust of my vices. Do with me according to Thy will and good pleasure, and scorn not my sinful life — better known to none than to Thee alone.”
But that God can also punish in this life, and that he does so, no one should doubt. The Pope made it very clear when he was still a cardinal (and I venture to assume he has not changed his mind since then):
“There are means here that do not justify the end. And the other text that I also strongly recommend — and that you should read in its entirety — is the prophet Amos. The prophet Amos says: because of this, because of this, and because of this, I am going to punish you, says God through the prophet, and he lists all the unjust means by which you took advantage of your brother, or things that cannot be done. So the Bible itself makes clear to us that a bad means cannot be used for a good end, that God punishes the one who uses bad means for a good end, that God punishes deceit, that God punishes fraud, that God punishes exploitation — I think of clandestine workshops, for example, right now, in this city; I don’t say it is full of them, but there are many, and the prophet Amos is very clear about that: you are exploiting your brother. God punishes whoever grows rich or takes possession of something or consolidates himself or achieves any end whatsoever through a bad means. That is the biblical tradition, and therefore the end does not justify the means.”
And it is not only the current Popes who have said the same thing. I have cited John Paul II and Benedict XVI to show that the present teaching of the Church has not changed; but they are not the only ones, and as evidence of this, a partial compilation has been placed in the appendix of this book.
