Debate on Divine Punishment: What it means to deny that God punishes

I now proceed to the second part of my commentary on Alejandro Bermúdez’s podcasts two and three on whether God punishes or not. As I mentioned previously, Alejandro’s full argumentation can be heard on the Catholic news portal ACIPrensa, or on its YouTube channel, ACITV.

Before beginning, I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the discussion in the comments section, enriching the debate. Special thanks go to Monsignor Miguel Antonio Barriola1 and Father José María Iraburu2, whose contributions have been both timely and essential, as many people had requested the opinions of authoritative Church figures from the outset. Now, they can hear the perspectives of two doctors in theology—one of whom is a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission—along with other respected theologians who, although not directly involved in this debate, share the same views we’ve expressed3. I also thank Fray Nelson Medina, who helped broaden our reach by sharing a link to the first article in this series on his website.

With that said, let’s begin.

How Heresy Arises

In the first podcast by Alejandro that I’ll address, he warns of the need to be cautious that a concern over what appears to be a theological distortion doesn’t lead us into another one. He adds that, in early Christianity, many heresies arose simply to counter others. He cites examples like Arianism, which denied the divine nature, Priscillianism, and heresies concerning Christ’s presence in the Eucharist. As he correctly states, these heresies often sought to go to the opposite extreme of what the other denied.

I agree with his opinion, which is why I felt compelled to address him on this topic—firstly, because I have always held him in high regard, and secondly, because his misunderstanding of divine mercy, to the point of presenting it as mutually exclusive with justice, leads directly to far more serious errors. It’s by no means a trivial matter. If we examine the logic he employs here (which he doesn’t apply in other topics, where he reasons quite well), we’ll find it closely resembles that used by many heterodox thinkers who harm the Church by denying countless truths of the faith. Let’s explore some examples:

If God Doesn’t Punish, the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross Would Have Been Unnecessary

We have seen that, beyond mercy, another divine attribute is justice. If divine justice did not demand that the transgressor of God’s law receive punishment for sin, the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary would not have been necessary. Our Lord “was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities. The punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds, we are healed” (Isaiah 53:5), precisely because, although He is merciful, He is also just, and humanity’s sin required satisfaction. This idea can be difficult to grasp in modernist thought: if God is pure mercy, why would He desire the sacrifice of His own Son as payment for our sins? Could He not have forgiven solely based on His mercy?

Thus, Alejandro’s reasoning is also used by Jesuit González Faus but with a different objective—to deny that God the Father wanted to save us through the sacrifice of His Son on the Cross, an error countered by the editor of Infocatólica here. We also opposed Father Juan Masiá on Infocatólica when he argued that “only our small-mindedness, the Jewish tradition of atonement, and the misguided mythical interpretations—even those made in good faith—could attribute such a crime to God [the sacrifice of Christ on the cross]. Now we can see it. We must proclaim it to the faithful, repenting for past ignorant nonsense.” Likewise, we countered Jairo del Agua, who held that “the pain of the cross was never desired or planned by the Father; it was (and is) human perversity that invented injustice and torture, which the Father had to endure (and still does) without eliminating our murderous freedom.” Many more examples could be cited, but let’s stop here to avoid overwhelming readers.

Of course, I do not mean to suggest that Alejandro would reach the same conclusions as these heterodox thinkers; I am sure he would join me in opposing them (doctrinally, of course). The problem, however, is that his reasoning aligns with theirs on a fundamental level: that since God’s nature is merciful, He cannot desire punishment in any way, nor could He have desired His own Son to be punished for our sins. According to Alejandro’s perspective, the arguments of these heterodox thinkers become irrefutable. If God doesn’t punish, and therefore doesn’t will the punishment of sinners, much less would He demand or desire the punishment of His own Son on our behalf. You can see how denying divine punishment and its vindicative nature inevitably leads to far graver errors, regardless of intention. Indeed, if God does not punish, He does not save either.

If God Doesn’t Punish, the Sacrament of Penance Would Be Unnecessary

The sacrament of penance is where all sins committed after baptism are forgiven through priestly absolution for the sinner who sincerely confesses, repents, and intends to make amends. The term “penance” specifically designates the aspect of the sacrament where “penance” or “punishment” is imposed to expiate the fault. But if God does not require this satisfaction, why does the priest impose penance? Denying that God punishes also denies an essential principle of the Catholic faith, which distinguishes us from Protestants: we understand that our sins incur a temporal penalty that remains even after absolution. Ludwig Ott explains:

“The virtue of penance, insistently recommended in the Old and New Testaments (cf. Ezekiel 18:30ff; 33:11; Jeremiah 18:11; 25:5f; Joel 2:12; Sirach 2:22; 17:21ff; Matthew 3:2; 4:17; Acts 2:38) and a necessary condition for the forgiveness of sins in all times (Dz 894), is the moral virtue that inclines the will to inwardly turn away from sin and give satisfaction to God. This virtue consists in the sorrow of the soul for sin, which offends God, coupled with a resolve to amend: sorrow for ‘peccato commisso, in quantum est offensa Dei, cum emendationis propósito’ (S.th. III 85, 3). External exercises of the virtue of penance include the confession of sins, all types of penance, e.g., prayers, fasting, almsgiving, mortifications, and the patient endurance of divine punishment.”4

Later in the same theological manual, it is explained that the Church condemned as heretical Luther’s doctrine that penance was only life amendment (Dz 747, 923). This is the understanding of many who see penance as merely receiving absolution without reparation. When they confess and are given a penance, they fulfill it but do not understand why or its purpose. Understand this: in fulfilling penance, we undergo punishment as expiation for the temporal penalty of our sins.

If God Doesn’t Punish, Then He is Not Provident Either

Another error in Alejandro’s argument is that, to try to prove that God does not punish, he claims that if He did, then good people would not suffer, and bad people would not prosper. With good intentions, he ends up using the same argument frequently employed by atheism to deny God’s existence: “If God is good, why does He not intervene to reward the righteous and punish sinners whenever they sin?” Atheists use this to try to demonstrate that God does not exist, or if He does, He is not a good God. Alejandro uses it to argue that God does not punish, simply because He doesn’t seem to visibly intervene in events, either rewarding or punishing in this life. However, by doing so, he objectively denies divine providence and reduces God to a mere spectator, only waiting until the afterlife to give each person what they deserve.

Indeed, it must be stated that this is a subtle way of denying divine providence or profoundly misunderstanding it, even if unintentionally. Catholic faith affirms that the God in whom we Catholics believe is not a mere spectator but the Creator of the spiritual and material universe, the absolute Lord of all things, which He governs with His providence. He is not in any way a clockmaker who sets the mechanism in motion and forgets it but a God who actively governs and intervenes in human history.

If we lose sight of this, the consequences are dire. If God does not intervene to rescue the righteous who cry out to Him or to punish the wrongdoer for his sins, then why do we pray? Why do the martyrs before the divine Throne plead for justice for their spilled blood? (Revelation 6:10) How can we exclaim with the Psalmist: “You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day, nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness, nor the plague that destroys at midday. A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you. You will only observe with your eyes and see the punishment of the wicked” (Psalm 91:5-8)? How can we believe in a God who “has brought down rulers from their thrones and has lifted up the humble; He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty” (Luke 1:51-53)?

Now, you may ask, how can we respond to Alejandro’s objection? From an external and human perspective, it may indeed appear that God behaves this way, abandoning the righteous to all sorts of calamities while the wicked prosper. Although I provided a satisfactory response to this objection in my second intervention on this topic, I take this opportunity to expand on it a bit.

First, it is essential to understand that divine justice does not require that every crime be punished in this world, nor that every virtue receive its reward here. On the contrary, in the order of providence, this life is a state of freedom and trial, where merit precedes reward and crime comes before punishment; anything else would be absurd and incompatible with human nature.

a) If God were to reward virtue immediately in this life, it would strip the righteous of the merit of perseverance and the value of trusting in Him; it would eliminate the merit of heroic virtue and patience; it would reduce man to a slave or mercenary. If He were to punish sin as soon as it was committed, it would deny sinners the time and means to repent. This way of acting would be too harsh for a being as weak and changeable as man.

b) Many actions that humans regard as meritorious are, in reality, deserving of punishment because they were performed with dishonest motives. Many sins that seem punishable are forgivable because they were committed under extenuating circumstances unknown to us. God would thus be compelled to reward false virtues and punish excusable sins, conforming to human ideas of justice.

c) The suffering of the innocent is often the effect of a general evil in which they are involved, and the prosperity of sinners is often the result of their natural talents and the circumstances in which they find themselves. God would have to perform miracles constantly to protect the first from general misfortune and to deprive the second of the fruits of their talents. Such a plan of Providence would not be wise.

d) The temporary trials of the righteous and the fleeting prosperity of sinners are neither an injustice nor a disorder that demands rectification. On the contrary, it is in the order of things for the former to earn eternal rewards through patience and for the latter to have the time to avoid eternal punishment through repentance5.

Therefore, the fact that God does not always punish in this life, reserving punishment for some in the life to come, is no reason to think that He does not do so at all. Similarly, we should not believe we will receive no rewards in this life, though they await us in the next6.

Thus, what is a blessing to some—not being punished in this life despite wrongdoing—is, for Christians, rather a misfortune; conversely, being punished here is a blessing compared to being punished in the life to come. As Thomas à Kempis states in The Imitation of Christ, the most widely read Christian spiritual work in history after the Bible:

“I give you thanks, Lord, for You did not spare me from sorrows but afflicted me with bitter scourges, sending me pains and distress, both inward and outward. There is none to comfort me under heaven but You, Lord, my God, heavenly Physician of souls, who wounds and heals, who puts in great torment and then delivers. May Your correction be upon me, and let Your chastisement teach me.

Beloved Father, here I am in Your hands; I bow beneath the rod of Your correction. Strike my back and my neck so that I may straighten my twisted inclinations to Your will. Make me a devout and humble disciple, as is Your custom, so that I may always be in Your will.

I give myself wholly to You, with all my affairs, so that You may correct them. It is better to be corrected here than in the next life. You know all things, and nothing in human conscience is hidden from You. Before it happens, You know what is to come, and there is no need for anyone to teach You or inform You of things on earth.

You know what is necessary for my advancement and how tribulation benefits me to cleanse the rust of my vices. Do with me according to Your will and desire, and do not cast away my sinful life, which is known to none more intimately than to You alone.”

But let there be no doubt that God can also punish in this life and that He does so. The Pope Francis made this quite clear when he was a cardinal (and I venture to assume his opinion has not changed since):

“Here we find means that do not justify the end, and the other text I recommend you read entirely; it is the prophet Amos, who says, ‘For this, for this, and for this, I will punish you,’ says God through the prophet, laying out all the wicked ways you have taken advantage of your brother, or what must not be done. Thus, the Bible shows us that one cannot use a bad means for a good end. God punishes those who use evil means for good ends; God punishes deceit, God punishes fraud, God punishes exploitation. I think, for example, of clandestine workshops today, in this city. I don’t mean the city is full of them, but there are many clandestine workshops, and the prophet Amos is very clear on this: you are exploiting your brother. God punishes anyone who enriches himself or consolidates his position or achieves any goal through an evil means. This is biblical tradition; therefore, the end does not justify the means.”

And it’s not only recent Popes who have said this. I have quoted John Paul II and Benedict XVI to show that the Church’s current teaching has not changed, but they are not the only ones. A partial collection of statements as evidence of this is included in the appendix of this book.

Footnotes

  1. Monsignor Miguel Antonio Barriola holds a doctorate in theology from the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome. On September 20, 2001, Pope John Paul II appointed him as a member of the Pontifical Biblical Commission for a five-year term. He was subsequently reappointed by Pope Benedict XVI for an additional five years. In March 2010, Benedict XVI named him “Prelate of Honor of His Holiness.” Regarding the debate, he stated:

    “I am in complete agreement with J.M. Arráiz, appreciating the clarity and lucidity of his responses, his skill in exposing fallacies, and the charity he exercises to prevent readers from being misled by a stance that may appear sympathetic and merciful but errs in being overly lenient and one-sided.

    Furthermore, I am quite surprised by A. Bermúdez’s obstinacy in this matter, as I have read numerous contributions from him, as well as his presentations on EWTN, where he has shown much greater consistency.”

  2. José María Iraburu is a priest and holds a doctorate in theology since 1972. He is the author of over 30 books on Catholic theology and spirituality. Regarding the debate, he stated:

    “José Miguel, as you have rightly demonstrated by citing Scripture, the Fathers, and the apostolic Magisterium, ‘God punishes,’ etc. Certainly, there are expressions like this (and many others) that require explanation to avoid being misunderstood. But the remedy is not to say the opposite, to contradict it: ‘God does not punish.’

    Remember the serious warnings (very traditional) given by Pius XII in Humani Generis (1950, nn. 9-12), stating that it is ‘supreme imprudence to abandon, reject, or strip of their value so many and such important notions and expressions’ etc. (n. 11).”

  3. An appendix includes a translated article by theologian Paulo Ricardo de Azevedo Junior as a supplement.
  4. Translated from Manual de Teología Dogmática by Ludwig Ott, Herder, Barcelona 1966, pp. 610-611.
  5. This explanation is taken from Volume V of Diccionario Enciclopédico de Teología by Abbé Bergier, in the edition published in Madrid in 1832, pp. 545-546. Abbé Bergier was a doctor of theology and a canon of Paris.
  6. A very thorough sermon by Father Louis Bourdaloue published in Volume I of his Dominicas. It is available for free in Spanish in its digitized version on Google Books.
Scroll to Top