The topic of eternal salvation and where we go when we die is directly related to metaphysical and religious views. For Catholicism, and most other beliefs, the good are saved eternally while the evil are damned. Without getting deeply into the theology of salvation, the fundamental question is: are more people saved or damned? Do more people go to Heaven or hell?
At the outset, it is essential to mention that within Catholic orthodoxy, both a sound optimism and pessimism are held, allowing certain leeway here and there. Only with a truly metaphysical difference, like being an agnostic or straight atheist and therefore denying any transcendent life, does the question of eternal salvation even apply. It makes no sense to even address this topic with those who basically are materialists, skeptics and nihilists, because eternal life does not even exist for them. The more radical you are in optimism or pessimism, the more your position is interchangeable with the other, for extremes have more in common with each other than a more balanced position.
Catholic teaching does not explicitly defend one teaching over the other, though traditionally, according to all Popes, Saints and Doctors, the pessimistic view has been upheld. Even Jesus Christ himself seems to defend eschatological pessimism or the view that most people will be condemned:
“Someone asked Jesus, ‘Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?’ He said to them, ‘Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’ “[1]
There is a typical pattern for anthropological optimists, probably tending towards being unsound. They generally defend eschatological optimism or the view that most people will be saved, much of it based on post-Vatican II theology (it’s a demonic temptation to only be well versed here and not in more traditional sources). One of the most important theologians of this time was the Swiss scholar, Hans Urs Von Balthasar. His infamously ambiguous phrase “dare we hope that all men be saved” caused a firestorm in traditional Catholic circles. Though such a saying can possibly be twisted to be orthodox (plus the translation is not exact from the German apparently), it definitely has overtones of universalism, the belief that all men are eventually saved. Much has been written on the topic, yet the fact that long articles defending such a statement even exist attests to the very problem of ambiguity, a common practice today (“weaponized ambiguity”).[2]
Eschatological optimism is opposed to the so-called rigorist theory for several theological reasons. Let’s name a few: the mercy of God, the universal salvific will of God, the mystery of divine predestination, the superabundant Redemption of Jesus Christ, the intercession of Mary as Refuge of Sinners, the pains of purgatory, etc.[3]
Yet, besides basing ourselves on the argument of authority, which is quite strong for the pessimistic position as we mentioned above, let us use reason as well, utilitarianist reasoning, which works here and is quite convincing. “Pascal’s Wager” or the argument from generalized expectations can be aptly applied here.[4] Rationality requires you to perform the act of maximum expected utility, and just as Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) utilized said argument for the existence of God, we can apply it to man’s eternal salvation, and hence an optimist versus a pessimistic view on eschatology.
The original argument basically concludes that it is more reasonable to believe in God than not to believe in him, again, by means of practicality. Basically, there are four positions with their outcomes: If you believe in God and He exists, good, then you shall be saved. If you believe in God and nothing happens, well then nothing happens when you die. If you do not believe in God and he does not exist, still nothing happens. But if you do not believe in Him and He happens to exist, big problem, you are condemned! So it is more practical to believe in God because you have more, if not total (though the Catholic position is that we cannot be absolutely certain), assurance of salvation.
Let’s apply this to eschatological pessimism. If you genuinely believe that most men are condemned to eternal damnation, then you will probably live accordingly, i.e., a more intense spiritual life of prayer and sacrifice. So if it turns out that you are right, then it was good that you lived as Paul wrote, “work out your salvation in fear and trembling”.[5] You lived a life according to the “narrow gate” that Jesus taught about. So you will be saved regardless of whether eschatological pessimism or optimism is justified. Obviously if more people are saved then you will be one of them since you lived a more intense spiritual life thinking that most would be damned.
But if you live as an eschatological optimist, you will live a morally looser, more lax life as a consequence, because why not? If it turns out that most people are saved and eschatological optimism is the way to go, then good. You will probably be saved. But if it turns out that few are saved and you lived a life thinking most are saved, then more than likely, you will not be one of the saved few. Therefore, believing and living according to eschatological pessimism is a win-win, while the eschatological optimist position has, on the surface, a 50-50 chance of being saved. Though, of course, as Catholics we believe that God’s grace saves us in the end, though God cannot save us if we haven’t cooperated with it. God made us without us but will not save us without us as St. Augustine famously wrote.
My point in this chapter is not to defend absolutely eschatological pessimism. I hope the optimists here are right! The Magisterium does not explicitly teach one or the other, though I have given clear reasons and authority arguments to show the pessimistic position. In general, we need to recuperate a sound anthropological pessimism which is basically when you realize that your weak, your flesh rebels, and hence you depend on God’s grace. Only this sound orthodox spirit can allow us to live the penitential lives we were called to do. We have heard that there is no salvation without prayer, but there is also none without penance:
“We read of our holy Father Ignatius, that he made, greater account of mortification than of prayer, and by that measure he formed his judgment of persons. And our Father Francis Borgia, when anyone extolled or commended another to him as a saint: ‘He will be so indeed,” said he,” if he be truly mortified.’ “[6]
That said, the short work by St. Leonard of Port Maurice (1676 – 1751) titled The Little Number of Those Who Are Saved is a must-read, a proper antidote to the ludicrous optimism that’s so divorced from reality!
[1] Luke 13: 23-25.
[2] If you want to check out the defense of Baltazar´s saying as orthodox, check out the following articles, from Catholic World Report and Gaudiumetspes22 respectively: https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2020/03/27/did-hans-urs-von-balthasar-teach-that-everyone-will-certainly-be-saved/; https://gaudiumetspes22.com/blog/balthasars-dare-we-hope-that-all-men-be-saved-a-defense
[3] Check out the exposition of each reason in the following work in Spanish (not sure if this one is translated into English): Antonio Royo Marin, O.P., La Teología de la Salvación, (Madrid: La BAC, 1965), 121-150.
[4] In its wording from Blaise Pascal, the argument is actually quite complex and difficult to comprehend. See the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/#ArguGeneExpePascWage.
[5] Philippians 2:12
[6] Practice of Perfection and Christian Virtues (1609), on Penance and Mortification.
