Debate on Divine Punishment: Observations on the Digital Book by Alejandro Bermúdez

Though I had previously considered the debate concluded, as I believed all significant arguments had been covered, I wanted to make one final post for several reasons.

First, I didn’t want to miss the opportunity to share another digital book on the topic titled Dios perdona pero también castiga, written by my friend and fellow Catholic Adrian “UnCatólico” Ferreira, who manages the apologetics website UnCatolico.com. The book is excellent—well-documented throughout. I offer my heartfelt congratulations to him.

Second, some readers have requested another installment to analyze Alejandro Bermúdez’s new book1. Initially, I thought it wouldn’t be necessary; if he were merely compiling points from his audio programs, there would be nothing new to add. But after examining it carefully, I found this not to be the case. This gives me the opportunity to delve further into the topic and to offer my final reflections on a debate that, though long, I’m confident will benefit many Catholics.

Initial Impressions

One primary issue I found throughout Alejandro’s book is the continual reliance on fallacious arguments. For example, he labels those who disagree with him as being close to “traditionalism” (ad hominem), distorts their position as “defenders of an image of a punishing God” (straw man), and accuses them of labeling anyone who opposes their stance as “traitors” to the Church (falsehood). Numerous other fallacies follow throughout the book (false authority, dialectic of opposites, etc.). The issue here is that much of his audience won’t detect the use of these fallacies, especially since he neither identifies who holds the opposing views nor points to any direct sources for them. He does not mention, for example, either me or my website, nor does he reference Infocatólica. While some motivated readers or listeners may investigate further on their own, the vast majority will simply take Alejandro’s version at face value. Given his reputation as a prominent Catholic journalist with significant influence in the Church, they have no immediate reason to doubt him.

Clarifications

It is important here to clarify that we are not traditionalists, or at least not those of us who have taken a leading role in this debate. I am not a traditionalist (traditionalists who know me can attest to this), nor is our director at Infocatólica, Luis Fernando Pérez, nor is our editor, the priest and doctor of theology José María Iraburu. Nor are those other priests and theologians who have joined the debate in support of our arguments, such as Monsignor Miguel Antonio Barriola, a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission for two terms and an Honorary Prelate of the Pope, or Fray Nelson Medina, an internationally recognized preacher. (I do not list the priests who have privately expressed their agreement, only those who have done so publicly.)

If those who support our position are indeed “traditionalists,” then Alejandro should explain whether he also considers the Benedictional of the Roman liturgy to be traditionalist—a product of the liturgical reform that includes the following prayer:

“Lord, listen to our prayers; as we are punished by our sins and suffer the misfortune of natural disasters, deliver us from these evils for the glory of your name, and preserve our lands from all adversity, so that what grows in them may serve your majesty and meet our needs. Through Christ our Lord. Amen”

Or would he label as “traditionalists” the popes who have consistently upheld that God can and does punish, among them John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio before he became Pope?

Furthermore, we have never claimed that those who hold the opposing view are “traitors to the Church.” Rather, we have cited Benedict XVI, who offers a keen diagnosis of where this error originated, which he calls a “narrowing of the concept of love.” Allow me to quote him here, with key points in bold:

“The Archbishop of Dublin shared an interesting observation. He noted that ecclesial penal law functioned up until the late 1950s; while it wasn’t perfect—it had its criticisms—it was applied. But from the mid-1960s onward, it simply ceased to be applied. There was a prevailing notion that the Church should no longer be a Church of law but a Church of love, which should not punish. Thus, the awareness that punishment could be an act of love was lost.

At that time, even very good people were somewhat misled in their thinking. Today, we must relearn that love for the sinner and the victim is balanced by a punishment of the sinner, applied in a fair and appropriate way. In this sense, there was a transformation of consciousness in the past that led to a fading awareness of justice and the necessity of punishment. Ultimately, this resulted in a narrowing of the concept of love, which is not merely sympathy and kindness, but also resides in truth; and truth includes the need to punish those who sin against true love.”

Observe that we have cited Benedict XVI precisely because we share his view that this error has arisen among what he describes as “very good people.” It should be clear that being “very good people” is not the same as being “traitors” or “ignorant.” From the beginning, I have stated that I do not consider Alejandro, or those who share his view, to be “traitors” or “heretics,” but rather people who are mistaken on an important point of Catholic doctrine—a point which, if taken to its logical conclusion, does indeed lead to heresy.

A Punishing God vs. a “Purely Loving” God

In his defense of the image of a “purely loving” God who does not punish, Alejandro attributes to us the defense of a “punishing” God. Because he asserts that God “never” punishes, he implies that we say God “always” punishes. But that’s not what we claim. We do not say that God applies merely retributive justice (we clarified this in our second response); rather, His justice is distributive, hence both rewarding and vindictive. This is simply Catholic doctrine, which can be found in any theology text, teaching that “God is a just judge who rewards good and punishes evil.”2

Here, Alejandro repeatedly falls into what we have identified as the fallacy of dialectic opposites, presenting as mutually exclusive concepts that are perfectly complementary.

A humorous example was the meme he posted yesterday on social media, showing King Leonidas of Sparta furiously shouting “God punishes!” He then reflects on the idea that God is “purely loving,” finally concluding, “God does not punish.” Beyond the humorous tone, which will undoubtedly garner many “likes” on his Facebook page, this illustrates the underlying flaw in his theological “reasoning.” It ignores Pope John Paul II’s teaching that “God’s fatherly love does not rule out punishment, even if the latter must always be understood as part of a merciful justice that re-establishes the violated order for the sake of man’s own good (cf. Heb 12: 4-11).”3 So certain was he that divine mercy and justice are not mutually exclusive that John Paul II titled one of his catecheses God Punishes and Saves. Thus, it is not that God “either” saves “or” punishes, but that the same God who “saves” also “punishes,” as Scripture states: “For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth and proves with adversities” (Hebrews 12:5).

There is a very interesting audience by Pope John Paul I in which he speaks about how some truths of the faith are pleasing and others that we find difficult. He explains that we should not filter or selectively sift through Christian doctrine, choosing only what we find easy to accept. In this regard, he states that holding the belief that God punishes is one of these unpopular truths, yet it is certainly a truth of the faith:

“There was a great French bishop, Dupanloup, who used to say to the rectors of seminaries: “with the future priests, be fathers, be mothers”. It is agreeable. Other truths, on the contrary, are hard to accept. God must punish, if I resist. He runs after me, he begs me to repent and I say: “No!” I almost force him to punish me. This is not agreeable. But it is a truth of faith.”4

It should also be said that this error has appeared at other times in the history of the Church. Even in the early Church, St. Irenaeus—one of the greatest Church Fathers of all time, a disciple of St. Polycarp, who in turn was a direct disciple of the apostle St. John—denounced this error in his famous manual against all heresies:

“Again, that they might remove the rebuking and judicial power from the Father, reckoning that as unworthy of God, and thinking that they had found out a God both without anger and [merely] good, they have alleged that one [God] judges, but that another saves, unconsciously taking away the intelligence and justice of both deities.

For if the judicial one is not also good, to bestow favours upon the deserving, and to direct reproofs against those requiring them, he will appear neither a just nor a wise judge.

On the other hand, the good God, if he is merely good, and not one who tests those upon whom he shall send his goodness, will be out of the range of justice and goodness; and his goodness will seem imperfect, as not saving all; [for it should do so,] if it be not accompanied with judgment.”

“Marcion, therefore, himself, by dividing God into two, maintaining one to be good and the other judicial, does in fact, on both sides, put an end to deity. For he that is the judicial one, if he be not good, is not God, because he from whom goodness is absent is no God at all; and again, he who is good, if he has no judicial power, suffers the same [loss] as the former, by being deprived of his character of deity.”5

Note the striking similarity between Alejandro Bermúdez’s error and the one St. Irenaeus condemned. It’s no coincidence that in his audio programs, Alejandro resorts to the same reasoning used by Marcion in that era, asserting that the God of the Old Testament was indeed a “punishing” God, while the God of the New Testament is a “merciful” God who never punishes. St. Irenaeus and many other Fathers fought this error, teaching that both in the Old and New Testaments, God is just and also merciful.

So, Alejandro, understand that we are not defending the image of a “punishing” God; what we reject is the image you present of a God who “never” punishes. Just because you promote an image of a “purely loving” God does not mean that we support an image of a God who is “purely just.”

Important Acknowledgments

Beyond all this, there are some significant acknowledgments in Alejandro’s new e-book that merit comment. Let’s look at what he now admits, though he previously denied. Alejandro Bermúdez writes:

“Is the idea that God ‘punishes’ present in Scripture, including the New Testament? Yes, undoubtedly.

But does this settle the question of whether God truly punishes? The answer is NO. A definitive answer would only come from a completely Protestant interpretation of Scripture, disregarding allegory, metaphor, and essential exegetical tools.”

This is significant, as in his initial podcasts he had strongly argued that the notion of God punishing was confined solely to the Old Testament, stating that the New Testament did not contain any such notion whatsoever6. As we see now, this is not the case; he now admits that even the New Testament affirms that God punishes. Whether this is to be taken purely metaphorically or allegorically, I’ll leave for the reader to decide. But I doubt that Zechariah understood it this way when he lost his voice for nine months after doubting the divine messenger (Luke 1:19–20), or Herod when he fell ill after blaspheming (Acts 12:21–23), nor Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1–10) when they died for mocking the Holy Spirit, much less those Christians who fell ill for profaning the Holy Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11:29–30). I humbly suggest Alejandro study what can truly be considered allegorical or metaphorical in Scripture, as it is evident that he does not fully understand this.

In a further admission, he states:

Does God punish? Is this something affirmed by councils, popes, saints, and even by the Virgin Mary in the Church-approved apparitions? The answer is yes. Supporters of the view of a punishing God have gathered a lengthy list of citations, with the (rather misguided, from an apologetic standpoint) conviction that the more citations they amass, the stronger their argument becomes.”

This is another significant admission, since in his previous series of programs, Alejandro had only acknowledged that councils, popes, saints, and even the Virgin Mary, along with our Lord in Church-approved private revelations, had spoken of some sort of “relationship” between God and punishment. Now, although he still does not concede our point of view, he at least acknowledges what we have been saying—that there is not a distant connection between God and punishment in the magisterium but that it is explicitly affirmed that GOD DOES PUNISH. I repeat, this is an assertion that he himself now recognizes as abundantly present in ecumenical councils, papal magisterium, the saints, and even in private revelations.

However, he falls very short in his next admission, where he states:

It is true that the opposing assertion ‘God does not punish,’ as an explicit quotation, is scarce in the doctrinal corpus of the Church. In a ‘battle of citations,’ the correct theological position is not going to win.”

And I say he falls short because it is not true that the statement “God does not punish” is “scarce” in the doctrinal corpus of the Church. No, it’s not just scarce—it simply DOES NOT EXIST in either the ordinary or extraordinary magisterium. I invite readers to review all of Alejandro’s contributions, from his audio podcasts to his latest digital e-book, to see that he has not been able to cite any magisterial source, theological treatise, etc., that affirms that God never punishes. If this were indeed the case, he would not have needed to supplement his e-book with only:

1) Two articles that are not magisterium, written by two theologians who themselves acknowledge that they do not dispute whether God punishes, but rather whether God might punish the innocent along with the guilty through a natural catastrophe.

2) A single citation from Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope, in a press interview after the September 11 terrorist attacks, in which he does not deny that God punishes but explains, in a very general and non-theological manner, that sins bring about ontological penalties—i.e., consequences of our own actions.

Taking all this into account, it is not reasonable for Alejandro to claim that his position is “theologically safer and more certain than the contrary.” He asks us to believe in good faith something that is not only absent from but explicitly contradicted by the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. Attempting to justify this with supposed “theological reasoning” that can be summed up in a simple meme of Leonidas shouting “God does not punish because He is all love” is hardly convincing. In short, he is asking us to believe that even though the Bible (the Word of God), the Magisterium, the Popes, the Saints, and even the Virgin Mary and Jesus in private revelations teach one thing, we must understand the exact opposite—namely, that God never punishes—all because “God is all love.” Does anyone truly believe this is serious and coherent “theological reasoning”?

Conclusions

With this, I believe I have covered all the important objections. I now consider this debate concluded (although I make no promises). Readers have enough resources at hand to weigh the arguments for and against and to draw their own conclusions. As noted above, I have provided links to the three digital books—Alejandro Bermúdez’s, mine, and Adrian Ferreira’s—so that readers have access to all the information. They only need to click on the images.

Finally, I remind you that, as Catholics, we must remain steadfast in the teaching of the Magisterium so that we “may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine” (Ephesians 4:14). I sincerely hope you have learned much from this debate; I am certain that I have.

May God bless you all.

Footnotes

  1. The new e-book by Alejandro Bermúdez, Dios no castiga, has been published on ACIPrensa
  2. John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris 10,
    Available at https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1984/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris.html
  3. John Paul II, General Audience, September 29, 1999, available at https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_29091999.html
  4. John Paul I, General Audience, September 13, 1978,
    Available at https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-i/en/audiences/documents/hf_jp-i_aud_13091978.html
  5. St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 25, Sections 2-3, available at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103325.htm
  6. Alejandro Bermúdez had stated verbatim: “In the New Testament, there are the 27 books that include the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the letters of St. Paul, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letter of James, First John, Second John, the Letter of Jude, and Revelation. In none of these is there mention of punishment except in reference to the final penalty.
Scroll to Top