Pope declares that hell is a myth and stands at odds with the concept of a loving God

POPE Francis has started another fierce debate within the Catholic Church by stating that the concept of a burning hell where people burn eternally cannot be Christian as it goes against the concept of a loving and passionate God.

Over recent months, Pope Francis has been speaking a lot about how Christianity should be loving and caring, challenging a lot of the orthodox views held by the church establishment. Only last week, he challenged weapons manufacturers who claim they are Christians, saying that their work clashed with their faith and as such they cannot call themselves Christian.

Recently named Man of The Year by Time Magazine, Pope Francis has sparked off another debate with controversial remarks at the Third Vatican Council that just held. In what was the largest and most important Catholic gathering of priests since the Second Vatican Council in 1962, Pope Francis also challenged the concept of Adam and Eve.

Pope Francis said: “Through humility, soul searching, and prayerful contemplation we have gained a new understanding of certain dogmas. The church no longer believes in a literal hell where people suffer as this doctrine is incompatible with the infinite love of God.

“God is not a judge but a friend and a lover of humanity and God seeks not to condemn but only to embrace. Like the fable of Adam and Eve, we see hell as a literary device and hell is merely a metaphor for the isolated soul, which like all souls ultimately will be united in love with God.”

In a shocking speech that is reverberating across the world, Pope Francis declared that all religions are true because they are true in the hearts of all those who believe in them. He added that in the past, the church has been harsh on those it deemed morally wrong or sinful but it can no longer judge people today.

“Like a loving father, we never condemn our children. Our church is big enough for heterosexuals and homosexuals, for the pro-life and the pro-choice.

“For conservatives and liberals, even communists are welcome and have joined us. We all love and worship the same God,” Pope Francis added.

Over the last six months, Catholic cardinals, bishops and theologians have been deliberating in the Vatican City, in discussing the future of the church and redefining long-held Catholic doctrines and dogmas. A few cardinals in the Catholic Church are against Pope Francis’ latest declarations that has split opinion within the faith.

One comment

  1. Julie, thank you for posting your qusetion and response. This has been something that I have been struggling with as well. On one hand I know that the Church sees marriage as joining of 2 souls to become 1 with one of the main focus of that marriage is to have children. On the other hand, I see nothing wrong with being able to designate someone you love as being able to make medical decisions for you if you are unable, ability to avoid estate taxes when a person you lived with for 30 years passes away or have someone you can confide in. With the way the laws are set up the only way to achieve this is through marriage (unless you can afford a lawyer to prepare legal documents and this will only take care of some of these issues). The Church is not against love. It isn’t against two people of the same sex living a life together. What it is against is sex between two men or two women because that type of sex is not capable of producing children. So the way I see it is there are really 2 separate issues here that people are confusing as one. The Church is arguing that marriage between 2 men or 2 women is not right in God’s eyes because no children can come of that marriage. Don’t forget we refer to God as Our Father and Mary as Blessed Mother. The gay right movement is focused on the legal benefits of marriage. Being able to visit a partner in the hospital, avoiding tax penalties, provide health insurance to someone they love. I personally believe the gay right movement focusing on marriage and not civil unions is because they feel they would not be treated equally (it would be like a second class marriage). I do see the argument for this. We know how the south was segregated for so many years and how separate but equal was not truly equal. To me the real way to solve this to provide an easy way for someone to designate another that they would like to have the legal ability to make decisions (health, legal or otherwise), ability to designate one person (other then one’s children) that they would like to add to their health care plan, and the right to provide the house 2 people have shared for years to avoid being taxed outrageously when the other person passes. To me this would be more inline with what Jesus would be in favor of. Don’t forget that Jesus told John to take care of Mary after He rose from the dead. In our current legal and health system, John would not have been able to visit Mary if she was in the hospital or make legal decisions if she was not able to do so. I personally don’t think that is what Jesus would have wanted and we should look for a way to provide the benefits that have been attached to those that are married in the government eyes to those that do not fit into the one man/one women marriage role, but to those that are single and want to select their best friend of 20 years or two men or two women that chose to share a life together. As Catholics, we need to stop believing that the best way to stop sin is through the legal system and start looking for ways to support and truly show love to one another.

Leave a Reply