Cardinal Pell heretic (?)

[apostoli]

Here in Oz we have a free-to-air TV programme called Q&A that is basically a talk fest with guests & audience participation - usually political content. Now this Easter Monday they did something different, where apart from the mediator there were just two guest, the infamous British atheist/agnostic Richard Dawkins (author of "The God Delusion"), and Oz's RCC supremo Cardinal Pell (a Papal aspirant at the last Papal elections). I was raised and educated RCC, and I found Pell's responses in this chat fest alienating and not at all up-building from a Christian perspective...humanistic is the kindess way I could describe his opinions...religiousness, biblical faith etc etc etc seems furtherest from his mind...I from my RCC background found him aggevating and offensive...The programme can be viewed online for about the next week...

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/921568

[Thersites]

"Heretic" is a loaded term, but its most specific and innocent meaning goes something like "a willful rejection of orthodoxy". What part of orthodoxy do you think he rejects?

Additionally, I would advise you to think about who the Cardinal thought his primary audience was. If he was trying to reach people who would be more interested in authentic Christian humanism, then it's silly to demand that he go around spouting Bible verses- his intended audience would not be swayed by proof-texts or piety.

[Xru]

Here in Oz we have a free-to-air TV programme called Q&A that is basically a talk fest with guests & audience participation - usually political content. Now this Easter Monday they did something different, where apart from the mediator there were just two guest, the infamous British atheist/agnostic Richard Dawkins (author of "The God Delusion"), and Oz's RCC supremo Cardinal Pell (a Papal aspirant at the last Papal elections). I was raised and educated RCC, and I found Pell's responses in this chat fest alienating and not at all up-building from a Christian perspective...humanistic is the kindess way I could describe his opinions...religiousness, biblical faith etc etc etc seems furtherest from his mind...I from my RCC background found him aggevating and offensive...The programme can be viewed online for about the next week...

http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/921568

Error . . . viewing video is for people that live in Australia only.

[apostoli]

"Heretic" is a loaded term, but its most specific and innocent meaning goes something like "a willful rejection of orthodoxy". What part of orthodoxy do you think he rejects?

To a large extent most of fundemental Christian and RCC orthodoxy. I found his comments evasive. While Pell was prattling on about the feasibility of evolution and mankind probably evolved from a lower species, Richard Dawkins (the atheist/agnostic) picked him up on the doctrine of inherited sin from Adam & Eve, and Pell never gave a coherent answer, he just ignored the logical insinuation.

Additionally, I would advise you to think about who the Cardinal thought his primary audience was.

I got the impression that the only audience he was interested in, was his own voice. Imo, not once in the programme did he actually give a direct answer to anything, but relied on his "authority"...

If he was trying to reach people who would be more interested in authentic Christian humanism, then it's silly to demand that he go around spouting Bible verses- his intended audience would not be swayed by proof-texts or piety.

Bible texts of themselves prove nothing except to those willing to be convinced by them, so you have a valid point there...but there are texts that appeal to the evidence in the natural world that would support an appeal to belief in an intelligent creator...Pell found it difficult to respond to the mediator when he was asked whether he accepted the idea of an intelligent creator - as I recall his flippant response was something along the lines of "I believe there is a God, and he is intelligent". Why didn't he just answer "Yes!" and allow the mediator, Dawkins or the audience to question his reasoning? ie: use the techniques of A.Paul or even Christ, rather than making questionable ascertians...that in my opinion gave credence to the atheist position...

[apostoli]

Error . . . viewing video is for people that live in Australia only.

Pity. You might have enjoyed the programme! Maybe someone around here has a feed via uTorrent (?)

[apostoli]

Pity. You might have enjoyed the programme! Maybe someone around here has a feed via uTorrent (?)

Found a feed on YouTube. I presume there is no international restrictions on this feed...

http://www.youtube.com/v/tD1QHO_AVZA

[Raphael]

"Heretic" is a loaded term, but its most specific and innocent meaning goes something like "a willful rejection of orthodoxy". What part of orthodoxy do you think he rejects?

by the sounds of it he endorses a form of Universalism.

Turretinfan

When an atheist asks Pell (around 41 minutes in) what will happen to him when he dies, he says
(Cardinal) Well, I know from the Christian point of view, God loves everybody. But every genuine motion towards the truth is a motion towards God. And when an atheist dies, like everybody else, they'll be judged on the extent to which they have moved towards goodness and truth and beauty. But in the Christian view, God loves everyone except those who turn their back on him through evil acts.
(Moderator): Oh, so athiesm - not an evil act.
(Cardinal): No, not a - well, no I don't - in most cases its not.
...
(Moderator): Is it possible for an atheist to go to heaven?
(Cardinal): Well, it's not my business.
(Moderator): No, but well, you're the only authority we have here.
(Cardinal): I would say 'certainly, certainly!'

....

Around 49 minutes in, the Cardinal shares his views on hell and salvation from it:
(Moderator) Where do you draw the line? Do unbelievers go to hell?
(Cardinal) No, no, no. The only people - Well, (1) I hope nobody's in hell. We Catholics generally believe that there is a hell. I hope nobody is there. I certainly believe in a place of purification. I think it will be like getting up in the morning and you throw the curtains back and the light is just too much. God's light would be too much for us. But I believe on behalf of the innocent victims in history, that the scales of justice should work out and if they don't, life is radically unjust: the law of the jungle prevails.

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2012...d-dawkins.html

© source where applicable

There is little different in what he is saying and what Rob Bell says in his book Love Wins

[Raphael]

Just embedding the link Apostoli had to youtube:

[Thersites]

by the sounds of it he endorses a form of Universalism.

Turretinfan

When an atheist asks Pell (around 41 minutes in) what will happen to him when he dies, he says
(Cardinal) Well, I know from the Christian point of view, God loves everybody. But every genuine motion towards the truth is a motion towards God. And when an atheist dies, like everybody else, they'll be judged on the extent to which they have moved towards goodness and truth and beauty. But in the Christian view, God loves everyone except those who turn their back on him through evil acts.
(Moderator): Oh, so athiesm - not an evil act.
(Cardinal): No, not a - well, no I don't - in most cases its not.
...
(Moderator): Is it possible for an atheist to go to heaven?
(Cardinal): Well, it's not my business.
(Moderator): No, but well, you're the only authority we have here.
(Cardinal): I would say 'certainly, certainly!'

....

Around 49 minutes in, the Cardinal shares his views on hell and salvation from it:
(Moderator) Where do you draw the line? Do unbelievers go to hell?
(Cardinal) No, no, no. The only people - Well, (1) I hope nobody's in hell. We Catholics generally believe that there is a hell. I hope nobody is there. I certainly believe in a place of purification. I think it will be like getting up in the morning and you throw the curtains back and the light is just too much. God's light would be too much for us. But I believe on behalf of the innocent victims in history, that the scales of justice should work out and if they don't, life is radically unjust: the law of the jungle prevails.

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2012...d-dawkins.html

© source where applicable

There is little different in what he is saying and what Rob Bell says in his book Love Wins

"I hope that there is no one in Hell" and "I know that there is no one in Hell" are two very different assertions. The latter statement is unequivocal universalism. The former is a relatively common, rational, and orthodox view, as far as I'm concerned.

[Raphael]

"I hope that there is no one in Hell" and "I know that there is no one in Hell" are two very different assertions. The latter statement is unequivocal universalism. The former is a relatively common, rational, and orthodox view, as far as I'm concerned.

He equates hell to being a place of purification. that would imply the same idea Rob Bell promotes where he says that people willl go to hell until such time as they are ready to accept Christ.
I'm coupling it with his statement that he believes even Atheists will be in heaven. That Atheism isn't an evil act.
(Isn't he denying the Doctrine of Original Sin there?)

He is conflating Hell with the Catholic ideas of purgatory. He's extending Purgatory to everyone, not just Christians. Which is the same thing Bell does.

[Thersites]

He equates hell to being a place of purification. that would imply the same idea Rob Bell promotes where he says that people willl go to hell until such time as they are ready to accept Christ.
I'm coupling it with his statement that he believes even Atheists will be in heaven. That Atheism isn't an evil act.
(Isn't he denying the Doctrine of Original Sin there?)

He is conflating Hell with the Catholic ideas of purgatory. He's extending Purgatory to everyone, not just Christians. Which is the same thing Bell does.

What if I told you that I'm fine with all that? As C.S. Lewis famously wrote, the doors of Hell are locked from the inside.

[Raphael]

What if I told you that I'm fine with all that? As C.S. Lewis famously wrote, the doors of Hell are locked from the inside.

So are you saying that you do not believe that the Final Judgement is final and that those who are cast out will eventually be able to say "oops I changed my mind I would like to come in now"?

Do you believe that Hell is merely a part of Purgatory? (Which RCC doctrine teaches us is for those who have died in God's Grace....i.e. Christians but still need to atone for some venial sins)

Do you believe that the total rejection of God is not a Mortal sin? That is is not Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? That it is not Sinful?

IF you can utterly reject God and still go to Heaven then that is pretty much Universalism. And certainly goes against what I was taught at Catechism and at Confirmation classes. And I expect you will find runs contrary to what the CCC teaches.

[Thersites]

So are you saying that you do not believe that the Final Judgement is final and that those who are cast out will eventually be able to say "oops I changed my mind I would like to come in now"?

Do you believe that Hell is merely a part of Purgatory? (Which RCC doctrine teaches us is for those who have died in God's Grace....i.e. Christians but still need to atone for some venial sins)

Hell, a place of eternal suffering exists, but the only thing that can keep a person there, in the end, is their own refusal to repent. If they leave, they weren't in Hell after all, but only Purgatory the whole time. I think I got this understanding at least partly from The Great Divorce, if that sheds light on this at all.

We can't know for sure whether there is anyone in Hell if for no other reason than that that is something that is decided in eternity, and eternity is a concept that is at least somewhat outside the bounds of our understanding. It is possible that a person can end up in Hell for all eternity. Does Bell (I've never heard of him before this thread, incidentally) concede that possibility? Perhaps more relevantly, can you prove whether or not Pell does?

Do you believe that the total rejection of God is not a Mortal sin? That is is not Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? That it is not Sinful?

IF you can utterly reject God and still go to Heaven then that is pretty much Universalism. And certainly goes against what I was taught at Catechism and at Confirmation classes. And I expect you will find runs contrary to what the CCC teaches.

I sincerely doubt that most modern atheists have actually made that conscious decision. They may be indulging sinfully in their own egos by allowing themselves to think they're smarter than everyone else, but not believing that God exists is not the same as fully recognizing the reality of God and rejecting Him nonetheless.

That aside, mortal sin requires a grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent. Does the atheism of the modern atheist satisfy all three of these criteria?

[apostoli]

Hell, a place of eternal suffering exists, but the only thing that can keep a person there, in the end, is their own refusal to repent. If they leave, they weren't in Hell after all, but only Purgatory the whole time. I think I got this understanding at least partly from The Great Divorce, if that sheds light on this at all.

We can't know for sure whether there is anyone in Hell if for no other reason than that that is something that is decided in eternity, and eternity is a concept that is at least somewhat outside the bounds of our understanding. It is possible that a person can end up in Hell for all eternity. Does Pell (I've never heard of him before this thread, incidentally) concede that possibility? Perhaps more relevantly, can you prove whether or not Pell does?

Here is a fuller transcript of what Pell said on the topic...

MICHAEL MATTY: Is it okay to tell a child that God doesn't exist?

TONY JONES: Richard Dawkins?

RICHARD DAWKINS: I think it is okay to tell a child the truth but I would prefer to encourage a child to make up her own mind and to think about the evidence and to believe things when there is evidence. What I think is not okay, what I think is deeply immoral, is to tell a child that when she dies if she's not good she's going to go to hell. That seems to me to be mental child abuse and an utter disgrace.

TONY JONES: Okay.

GEORGE PELL: I remember when I was in England we were preparing some young English boys, they were from very...

(AUDIENCE LAUGH)

GEORGE PELL: Preparing them for...

(AUDIENCE BOO)

TONY JONES: Come on.

GEORGE PELL: Thank you. Preparing them for the first communion and they were very patriotic young lads and one of them announced very breezily to me that he didn't believe in hell and I mean certainly the idea of any child being sent to hell, I agree that that is grotesque and that’s not the Christian God but, anyhow, I said to this kid - I said simply "Hitler. You think Hitler might be in hell? Started the Second World War, caused the death of 50 million or would you prefer a system where Hitler got away with it for free?" Anyhow the little kid was quite patriotic and he said, “Mm.” He realised hell was in with a chance if Hitler was going to go there.

TONY JONES: What about a system where he was obliterated and didn't exist anymore?

GEORGE PELL: Well, he would have got away with too much, as far as I am concerned.

TONY JONES: So you actually - well, prefer the idea of hell as a place of punishment for - but for who? Where do you draw the line? Do unbelievers go to hell?

GEORGE PELL: No. No. No. The only people - well, one - I hope nobody is in hell. We Catholics generally believe that there is a hell. I hope nobody is there. I certainly believe in a place of purification. I think it will be like getting up in the morning and you throw the curtains back and the light is just too much. God's light would be too much for us. But I believe on behalf of the innocent victims in history that the scales of justice should work out. And if they don't, life is radically unjust, the law of the jungle prevails.

I'm guessing Pell has never read Ezekiel 18:23-29.

I've never heard of [Pell] before this thread, incidentally

I'm not suprised, given he is an Australian Caardinal! I wouldn't have a clue who the Cardinals are in the USA or elsewhere.

Here is his Wiki bio...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pell

Given his public views on a lot of things, it was a bit of a worry that he was considered as a possible successor to Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

[robrecht]

I'm not suprised, given he is an Australian Caardinal! I wouldn't have a clue who the Cardinals are in the USA or elsewhere.

Here is his Wiki bio...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Pell

Given his public views on a lot of things, it was a bit of a worry that he was considered as a possible successor to Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

I think Sparticus was saying he had never heard of Rob Bell before. How do his views differ from those of Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, or some other Eastern fathers on apocastastasis? If you want to plough through the patristic tradition on this question, see the work of Hans Urs von Balthasar.