More on Balthasar, Hell, and Heresy

Alyssa Lyra Pitstick/Edward T. Oakes, S.J.

Alyssa Lyra Pitstick: In his reply in last month's issue of FIRST THINGS to my investigations of Hans Urs von Balthasar, Fr. !"ar! #a$es says his %&hief "orry% is that, in the tra!itional !o&trine of 'hrist's !es&ent into hell, I have offere! %an alternative vision of the gospel,% in "hi&h 'hrist has not atone! for mortal sin. #a$es argues that if (ustifi&ation is not to )e merely forensi&, 'hrist nee!e! to suffer hell, the punishment for sin. #a$es thin$s this logi& is the proper interpretation of St. *aul, impli&it in St. +nselm an! e,pli&it in -arl Barth, an! he &onsi!ers the Catechism open to it. If #a$es is right, 'hrist's !eath on the &ross "as insuffi&ient for re!emption. +ll !o&trine lin$e! to the &ross as the lo&us of re!emption is then also nonsense. .hy then !oes St. *aul glory in 'hrist &ru&ifie!, rather than 'hrist in hell/ 0i! 'hrist esta)lish a 'hur&h to prea&h his .or!, only to have her prea&h falsely for most of her history/ #a$es' first argument la&$s the for&e of ne&essity. #ne may hol! forensi& (ustifi&ation to )e false "ithout having to hol! that 'hrist suffere! the hell of eternal punishment, as any num)er of patristi&, me!ieval, an! 'atholi& Reformation soteriologies prove1an! "ithout a resultant futile gospel or negle&t of St. *aul. 2ean"hile, #a$es' se&on! argument pro&ee!s from authority3 +s evi!en&e for Balthasar's %theologi&al "arrant,% he &ites the a!miration of 4ohn *aul II an! 'ar!inal Rat5inger, no" Bene!i&t 67I. But surely it is falla&ious to suggest that appre&iation for aspe&ts of a person an! his "or$ means appro)ation of all, mu&h less a nihil obstat. Ta$e the most e,treme &ase3 ven those regar!e! as heresiar&hs in the great &ontroversies might )e &ommen!e! for hol!ing fast to "hat they retaine! of the &ommunion of faith8 still, it !i! not ta$e the re(e&tion of all &ommon )eliefs to sun!er that &ommunion1only one. +!! the fa&t that papal utteran&es have varying !egrees of authority, an! some nuan&e emerges. So "hat !i! our t"o authorities thin$ of Balthasar's !o&trine of 'hrist's !es&ent/ 0espite some !ifferen&es, Rat5inger's descensus theology more often resem)les Balthasar's than it re&alls the 'atholi& tra!ition's. Nonetheless, Rat5inger has !eli)erately refuse! to venture "hat e,a&tly o&&urre! in 'hrist's !es&ent. He "as partly hin!ere! )y his metho!ology )ut perhaps also )y an unresolve! tension )et"een his frien!'s proposal an! "hat he $no"s of 'atholi& !o&trine3 In The Sabbath o !istory, Rat5inger reveals strong hesitations a)out Balthasar's vie"s. No", unless one mista$enly as&ri)es retroa&tive infalli)ility to Rat5inger's "or$, Rat5inger's theology remains his private theologi&al opinion. It thus )ears authority only insofar as it &ommuni&ates the 'hur&h's faith. So, until time proves a theologian has e,presse! that faith )etter than the apostoli& tra!ition, tra!ition trumps the theologian. The popes' situation is !ifferent, sin&e their !uty is to &onfirm the faith. Then it matters not ho" many in highest offi&e Balthasar has influen&e! )ut only "hat they tea&h authoritatively, as, for e,ample, the e,pli&it reiteration of the tra!itional !o&trine )y 4ohn *aul II in his promulgation of the Catechism an! in his 4anuary 99, 9:;:, &ate&hesis3 His nomination of Balthasar as &ar!inal !i! not stop him from &learly affirming a !o&trine antitheti&al to Balthasar's. +s for Bene!i&t 67I, let us "ait an! see. His a!!ress to the Balthasar symposium sai! nothing "ith suffi&ient spe&ifi&ity or !ogmati& authority to (ustify mu&h an,iety or re(oi&ing. #a$es' final argument is to &all into !ou)t the tra!itional !o&trine )y implying that I misrepresente! it. Thus the &ontrast )et"een Balthasar's !o&trine an! the tra!ition's is merely my rea!ing an! my tra!ition. In fa&t, it is the &onsensus of historians of descensus theologies. 2y un!erstan!ing of the tra!ition is purporte!ly %mono&hromati&.% <et the sour&es of 'atholi& theology &onsistently paint the same pi&ture. 2y ina!e=uate rea!ing of the tra!ition allege!ly %for&es% me to hunt for influen&es on Balthasar outsi!e the tra!ition an! not to grant him !ue %theologi&al "arrant.% In fa&t, the man himself for&es me to this sear&h, sin&e his &laims to support "ithin the 'atholi& tra!ition !o not )ear up un!er s&rutiny. #a$es !oes my "or$ for me )y highlighting the pro,imate influen&e of Barth, a man "ho neither regar!e! himself as a 'atholi& e&&lesial theologian nor has )een assimilate! as su&h. +!!itionally, o"ing to &ertain misrea!ings, #a$es as&ri)es to me untena)le positions that taint the tra!itional !o&trine )y asso&iation. He &laims, for instan&e, that I i!entify the lim)o of the fathers "ith purgatory. Rather, in my )oo$ I say it is reasona)le to thin$ purgatory "as preparatory for the lim)o of the fathers so long as heaven "as &lose!. .ith this erroneous i!entifi&ation in min!, #a$es argues that a !es&ent )y 'hrist into purgatory, "here only venial sins are purge!, "oul! not atone for mortal sin. Neither the 'atholi& tra!ition nor I hol! that 'hrist "ent to purgatory to e,piate sin. Instea!, I )elieve "hat the tra!ition reiterates3 that after atoning for all sin through his !eath upon the &ross, 'hrist !es&en!e! in his soul to the lim)o of the fathers to &onfer heaven on the holy souls there, "ho "ere other than those in purgatory.

#a$es is also &on&erne! that the e,isten&e of any holy souls prior to 'hrist's !es&ent implies that some "ere (ustifie! "ithout 'hrist, "hi&h &ontra!i&ts the >etter to the Romans. I hol! that some "ere (ustifie! )efore 'hrist, though only )y virtue of him "ho "as to &ome. This !o&trine of prevenient gra&e a&&ounts for the #l! Testament's &alling some the frien!s of Go!1no one in a state of mortal sin is su&h1an! for St. *aul saying, also in Romans, that +)raham "as (ustifie! )y his faith. No 'atholi& "ho )elieves in the sinlessness of 'hrist's mother &an !eny this !o&trine. Both #a$es an! Balthasar !ra" an ontologi&al &on&lusion from an epistemologi&al premise3 If pre?'hristian !es&riptions of the afterlife la&$e! stru&ture, the afterlife itself must have la&$e! stru&ture. This &ornerstone of Balthasarian theology also rests on an overly sele&tive use of S&ripture, as I argue else"here. The )asis in revelation for a !ifferentiate! afterlife &annot here )e !emonstrate!. 2ean"hile, of my use of S&ripture, #a$es suggests I am negligent of St. *aul, the 2agisterium's !uty to S&ripture, an! the inspire! human authors. He a!!u&es the Barth?Balthasar?#a$es interpretation of Romans an! one =uotation from my !issertation. >et us provi!e some &onte,t to that =uotation. In )rief, as my !issertation is not a "or$ of histori&al?&riti&al e,egesis, I properly use! the metho!s appropriate to other forms of theology. In one &hapter, I e,amine ho" those "ho )elieve! in the tra!itional !o&trine sa" it groun!e! in S&ripture8 thus, my sear&h for %&larity an! ortho!o,y% &on&erne! non?s&riptural "riters. The histori&al?&riti&al approa&h is not the only "ay to interpret S&ripture or even the most influential in the history of e,egesis. 'onse=uently, a)ove all I foun! typologi&al interpretations1a form of e,egesis employe! also )y the inspire! authors themselves. .hile not inattentive to =uestions of linguisti&s an! anthropology, this approa&h fo&uses on !is&erning the 0ivine +uthor's intention more than that of the human authors1first, )e&ause these latter are of interest only insofar as the 0ivine +uthor is spea$ing through his .or!8 an!, se&on!, )e&ause Go! alone is the author of typology through his &reative po"er an! provi!en&e. In using this an! other e,egeti&al metho!s, the tra!ition !oes not trump S&ripture )ut !ra"s out its salvifi& signifi&an&e an! em)o!ies it in 'hristian life, even as S&ripture originate! "ithin an alrea!y living tra!ition. By authoritatively interpreting S&ripture an! gui!ing tra!ition, the 2agisterium thus serves )oth S&ripture an! tra!ition 1"hi&h in their mutual inter!epen!en&e, an! not one "ithout the other, are a&$no"le!ge! as Go!'s revelation )y 7ati&an II's 0e&ree on Revelation. #a$es follo"s Balthasar in setting tra!ition against S&ripture. >i$e"ise, )oth )egin )y a&$no"le!ging "hat the tra!itional 'atholi& !o&trine is )ut en! )y hol!ing it to )e erroneous. Then, too, #a$es &laims I !ismiss >uther an! 'alvin %(ust for )eing *rotestant% an! that I &onsi!er the genealogy from Ni&holas of 'usa to Balthasar via these t"o %pro)ative merely )y mentioning% it. I highlighte! this lineage first to in!i&ate that the !o&trine of 'hrist suffering in hell has relatively re&ent origins8 from its )eginnings to the Reformation, the 'hur&h )elieve! =uite the opposite. But this genealogy is also important to the =uestion of Balthasar's status as a Catholice&&lesial theologian3 The 'atholi& tra!ition re(e&te! Ni&holas' proposal, "hile the i!ea "as !eli)erately !evelope! a"ainst the 'atholi& !o&trine in the *rotestant am)ien&e. If Balthasar ta$es up "hat 'atholi&s re(e&te! an! "hat *rotestants use! to !istinguish themselves, one may legitimately =uestion Balthasar's 'atholi&ity on these groun!s?for it is not "hat "e share that separates us )ut pre&isely our !ifferen&es. It is falla&ious for #a$es to suggest I thin$ non?'atholi&s spea$ no truth simply )e&ause I argue that some of them are mista$en on one point. *erhaps #a$es might no" a!!ress my original !iffi&ulties3 'an one !o&trine truly )e the !evelopment of another if the t"o are &ontra!i&tory/ 0oes the tra!ition's material profession @the &ontent of )eliefA have as mu&h authority as the formal profession/ +n! sin&e Balthasar's theology of 'hrist's !es&ent entails a !e fa&to re(e&tion of 'atholi& tra!ition an! its authority, "hat must "e &on&lu!e a)out Balthasar's servi&e as a 'atholi& e&&lesial theologian/ *erhaps in the en! "e must say, ho"ever relu&tantly, that after >uther, 'alvin, an! Barth, Balthasar has ma!e a real &ontri)ution to *rotestant e&&lesial theology.

Edward T. Oakes, S.J., replies: I too "ish to e,press my gratitu!e for this e,&hange, an! a)ove all for +lyssa >yra *itsti&$'s servi&es to theology in airing these important issues. I !ou)t, ho"ever, that she "ill mu&h appre&iate my no! of than$s in her !ire&tion, for I hol! that her real servi&e has )een to argue against Balthasar so !isagreea)ly that she "ill en! up mi!"ifing his theology into the mainstream of 'hur&h thin$ing far more than my o"n poor efforts have so far manage! to !o. Be&ause my o)(e&tions to her prose&utorial )rief against Balthasar fo&us a)ove all on the three issues of *rotestantism, papa&y, an! purgatory, I shall ta$e a!vantage of this a&&i!ental alliteration an! &luster my response a&&or!ingly. >et us )egin "ith *itsti&$ an! *rotestantism. I &hose the =uotation from -arl Barth on the nonne&essity of hell !eli)erately. -no"ing of her &urt !ismissal of the Reformers in her !issertation an! )oo$, I e,pe&te! she "oul! fall

into the trap I set for her, an! fall she !i!. But if she o)(e&ts to Barth here, !oes that mean she hol!s "ith St. +ugustine's theory of !ou)le pre!estination1that some go to hell )y ne&essity/ 2ay)e yes, )ut presuma)ly no. In "hi&h &ase she then a"rees "ith Barth that no one goes to hell )y ne&essity )ut only )y free &hoi&e. Then "hy o)(e&t to the statement/ 4ust )e&ause a *rotestant sai! it/ But as 7ati&an II tea&hes, %'atholi&s must gla!ly a&$no"le!ge an! esteem the truly 'hristian en!o"ments in our &ommon heritage "hi&h are to )e foun! among our separate! )rethren.% +t all events, if *itsti&$ is loo$ing for an offi&ial statement from the 'atholi& 2agisterium affirming Barth on the single pre!estination of all human )eings in the pre!estine! status of 'hrist as the Ne" +!am, she may fin! it in 4ohn *aul II's en&y&li&al #i$es in %isericordia3 %'onne&te! "ith the mystery of &reation is the mystery of ele&tion, "hi&h in a spe&ial "ay shape! the history of the people "hose spiritual father is +)raham )y virtue of his faith. Nevertheless,...that mystery of ele&tion refers to every man an! "oman, to the "hole great human family.% This same anti?+ugustinian @an!, ironi&ally, anti?Reforme!A !enial of limite! atonement an! !ou)le pre!estination "as reaffirme! )y 'ar!inal Rat5inger in his )oo$ &od 's (ear )s, "here he says, %4esus !ie!, not (ust for a part of man$in!, )ut for everyone. . . . BGo!C !oes not ma$e any !istin&tion )et"een people he !isli$es, people he !oes not "ant to )e save!, an! others "hom he prefers,% a position "hi&h he, of &ourse, reiterate! in his first papal en&y&li&al, #eus Caritas Est. .hi&h )rings me to the ne,t point3 *itsti&$ an! the popes. *itsti&$ tries manfully to put some light )oth )et"een Balthasar's &ar!inalatial status an! his ortho!o,y, an! )et"een Rat5inger's %private theologi&al opinions% as a professor an! his ne" responsi)ilities in the 'hair of *eter to !efen! &hur&h tra!ition. In her attempt to fin! su&h light, she mentions his )oo$ The Sabbath in !istory. Unfortunately, I &oul! fin! no su&h )oo$ )y that title in *ooks in Print or in any online sour&e, either in nglish or in German. So let me &ite, in turn, a more a&&essi)le =uotation, from 'ar!inal Rat5inger's homily at Balthasar's funeral 2ass in >u&erne, S"it5erlan!, on 4uly 9, 9:;; @printe! as an appen!i, to 0avi! S&hin!ler's !ans )rs $on *althasar+ Li e and ,orkDA. ,plaining "hy Balthasar ha! earlier %thri&e thrust asi!e% the proffere! re! hat, an! yet "hy 4ohn *aul II insiste! un!er holy o)e!ien&e that he a&&ept the honor, the &ar!inal?homilist sai!3 %This BrefusalC "as not motivate! )y a &o=uettish !esire to a&t the great one, )ut )y the Ignatian spirit "hi&h &hara&teri5e! his life. . . . But "hat the pope inten!e! to e,press )y this mar$ of !istin&tive honor remains vali!3 no longer only private in!ivi!uals )ut the 'hur&h herself, in her offi&ial responsi)ility, tells us that he is right in "hat he tea&hes of the Faith, that he points the "ay to the sour&es of living "ater1a "itness to the "or! "hi&h tea&hes us 'hrist.% This is pre&isely the same point *ope Bene!i&t ma!e in his a!!ress )efore the >ateran University in #&to)er EFFG, "here, "ithout $no"ing of her "or$, he en!e! up !ire&tly refuting *itsti&$'s &laim that Balthasar "as !issem)ling "hen he assume! the mantle of an e&&lesial theologian3 %#n an o&&asion su&h as this, it "oul! )e easy to fall into the temptation to return to personal memories, )ase! on the sin&ere frien!ship that unite! us an! on the numerous "or$s that "e un!ertoo$ together, a!!ressing many of the &hallenges of those years. . . . Ho"ever, I !o not "ish to ma$e referen&e to memories, )ut rather to the ri&hness of von Balthasar's theology,% sai! the pontiff. %Hans Urs von Balthasar "as a theologian "ho put resear&h at the servi&e of the 'hur&h, as he "as &onvin&e! that theology &oul! only )e theology "hen it is e&&lesial.% Finally, there is the matter of *itsti&$ an! purgatory. +nother reason I am grateful for this e,&hange &omes from *itsti&$'s &larifi&ation of her vie"s on pre?'hristian purgatory. I a!mit I initially thought she ha! i!entifie! the lim)o of the fathers "ith purgatory @in her )oo$, the point is o)s&urely ma!eA. But no" I fin! out that purgatory is )ut the pre?'hristian antechamber to lim)o, a &on&lusion she &alls %reasona)le,% "hi&h it no !ou)t is, given her monophysite presuppositions. For I no" see that, on her a&&ount, 4esus could not !es&en! into purgatory, lest his ra!iant !ivinity &ome into &onta&t "ith even trivial sin. No, the only souls 4esus &an meet are those alrea!y &ompletely purge! of sin @an! prior to his !eath, to )ootHA, lest he e,ten! his ta)le fello"ship "ith sinners in the un!er"orl!. No "on!er for her 'hrist's glorious entran&e into hell )egan at I3F9 p.m. on Goo! Fri!ay, sin&e there "as only an alrea!y glorious an! sinless region for him to !es&en! into. ,a&tly "hy so trivial a "or$ of res&uing the alrea!y re!eeme! re=uire! a three?!ay so(ourn @or "hy the 'hur&h's liturgi&al tra!ition never &ele)rates 'hrist's vi&tory over !eath until the !ar$ness of Holy Satur!ay is a)out to give "ay to the light of aster Sun!ayA is never e,plaine!. But the "hole point of Balthasar's !evelopment of !o&trine here rests on the fa&t that only 4esus' human soul, still hypostati&ally unite! to his !ivine person, !es&en!e! into hell. In other "or!s, "hen *aul says @!ra"ing on the earliest formulation of the 'hur&h's $erygmaA that 'hrist !ie! %a&&or!ing to the S&riptures% an! %on the thir! !ay% rose again, that !uration must itself )e theologi&ally signifi&ant. #n&e more "e &ome up against *itsti&$'s aversion to anything *rotestantism has tou&he!. +s Stephen Green)latt sho"e! in his )rilliant !amlet in Pur"atory, no !o&trine prove! more &hur&h?!ivi!ing in the si,teenth &entury than that of purgatory. *erhaps ? e&umeni&al agreement @ho"ever &on&eive!A "ill finally rea&h &onsensus on this issue in the t"enty?first &entury. But "hat "ill happen if the !is&ussants then fin! out that they no" have one more hur!le to

s&ale3 assent to *itsti&$'s pre?'hristian purgatory/ None of my o)(e&tions to *itsti&$'s innovations "ill of &ourse mitigate the an,iety Balthasar &auses, )oth among the hostile an! the frien!ly. *ersonally, I "oul! never assert an empty hell, an! not (ust )e&ause #rigenism is a heresy, )ut more )e&ause I &annot ma$e the ini=uity on !isplay in the !aily hea!lines (i)e "ith the i!ea of universal salvation. So ho" then !o I re&on&ile that position "ith my enthusiasm for Balthasar/ By &iting the Fren&h anthropologist RenJ Girar!'s re&ent )oo$ Celui -ar .ui le Scandale Arri$e @the title allu!es to 4esus' saying that %s&an!als "ill &ome, )ut "oe to him )y "hom they &ome%A. In that )oo$, Girar! spea$s retrospe&tively of his "or$ in a "ay that un&annily mimi&s Balthasar's voi&e3 %.e have no &hoi&e )ut to go )a&$ an! forth, from alpha to omega. +n! these &onstant )a&$?an!?forth movements for&e us to phrase matters in a &onvolute!, spiraling fashion, "hi&h eventually runs the ris$ of )eing unsettling an! even in&omprehensi)le for the rea!er....I thin$ one nee!s to rea! Bmy "or$C li$e a thriller. +ll the elements are given at the )eginning, )ut it is ne&essary to rea! to the very en! for the meaning to )e&ome &ompletely apparent.% #ne other thing. *itsti&$ &on&lu!es her argument in last month's issue of FIRST THINGS )y &laiming that Balthasar stan!s not only in %a de acto B)utC sometimes even &ons&ious re(e&tion of 'atholi& tra!ition.% By using the "or! conscious, *itsti&$ &learly means that Balthasar is lying "hen he professes to )e a 'atholi& theologian. This is no mere innuen!o8 it is !efamation, "hi&h has no pla&e in theologi&al !isputation.

AL/SSA L/0A P'TST'C1 recei$ed her doctorate in theolo"y rom the An"elicum in 0ome. !er book, >ight in 0ar$ness3 Hans Urs von Balthasar an! the 'atholi& 0o&trine of 'hrist's 0es&ent into Hell , is orthcomin" rom ,.*. Eerdmans. E#,A0# T. OA1ES, S.J., teaches theolo"y at the )ni$ersity o St. %ary o the Lake in %undelein, 'llinois, and is the author o *attern of Re!emption and many other studies o *althasar.