Debate on Divine Punishment: How to properly engage in apologetics

In his next podcast, Alejandro focuses not on the subject at hand but on analyzing the method I’ve used in my discussions. In response, I will dedicate this section to explaining the apologetic method I have consistently employed.

Quotations vs. Theological Reasoning

It’s no coincidence that Alejandro starts here, as one of the strengths of my argument is that I can support it with hundreds of texts from Scripture, the early Church, the saints and Church Fathers, the Magisterium, the Popes, theological manuals, spiritual writings, and even approved private revelations. Meanwhile, Alejandro has not found a single magisterial text affirming his position—that God does not punish. Unable to find such a text, he undermines the credibility of this method, using fallacies that might go unnoticed by less experienced readers. Let’s delve into this:

The Importance of Citing Scripture and the Magisterium

Citing the Bible and the Magisterium is not an incorrect method. This can be verified by examining how the saints and Church Fathers debated throughout Christian history. Some quoted Scripture so extensively that, if the Bible were lost, it could be reconstructed from their writings alone. It is also crucial to cite the Magisterium, the authentic interpreter of Revelation. Sadly, many Catholics lack the biblical knowledge to argue this way and feel overwhelmed when confronted by a Protestant well-versed in Scripture. This can lead to a natural aversion to such arguments.

The issue with Protestants isn’t their use of Scripture but their rejection of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, which holds the ultimate authority in interpreting Revelation. While this leads Protestants to misuse biblical quotes, the misuse does not disqualify proper use. Confusing the two is an error known as the fallacy of false analogy, where a conclusion is drawn from a superficial similarity, ignoring significant differences.

When debating with a Protestant friend who cites Scripture, I don’t dismiss his quotes outright. Instead, I use the same Bible, accepted as the Word of God, to demonstrate how the text should be interpreted within its context and in harmony with the fullness of Revelation.

The Role of Theological Reasoning

Here, Alejandro makes a valid point—it’s important to reason theologically. However, we must avoid the dialectic of opposites, where one chooses between extremes, rejecting one for the other. It’s not a case of either-or but both-and. It’s not about merely quoting without reasoning, nor reasoning without proper citation when necessary.

If you review my contributions carefully, you’ll see that I haven’t simply cited texts without reflecting and reasoning upon them. I’m ready to continue doing so as we progress through these chapters. Let me illustrate with a recent example: In my first intervention, I cited Benedict XVI, who explicitly stated that due to the inconsistency of Christians in the world, God has often resorted to punishment. Alejandro responded by arguing that the context was about the God of the Old Testament, whom he perceived as a “punishing” God. I then demonstrated that his theological reasoning was flawed because the Pope was referring to “Christians” and “peoples who had received the Gospel.” So, who applied theological reasoning to the Pope’s texts in that instance?

Misquoting: A Wrong Approach

Respectfully and fraternally, the method Alejandro uses, paraphrasing and attributing direct quotes to the Popes that they never said, is incorrect.

For instance, in his second podcast, Alejandro stated:

“As Pope John Paul II says in Dives in Misericordia, the passages where God punishes or tests are incomprehensible in the light of the New Testament.”

Most listeners, unfamiliar with the lengthy document, wouldn’t notice that the Pope never actually says this. Instead, it’s Alejandro’s personal interpretation. I pointed out that not only is this absent from the text, but the word “punishment” doesn’t even appear once in the entire document. This isn’t to deny that the idea might be implied, but proper methodology requires first quoting accurately, then interpreting and reasoning. Alejandro, however, cites only after reasoning, offering paraphrased and distorted quotations.

A similar incident occurred on Alejandro’s Facebook page, where he posted an Angelus by Pope John Paul II, allegedly saying God does not punish. Since this document was shorter, many readers were motivated to check and expressed confusion upon finding no such statement. They began asking Alejandro to clarify where exactly the Pope made this claim:

Julio: “In what part of the message does it say that? I can’t find it anywhere.”

Claudia: “Julio, I feel the same astonishment as you. Where does it say such a thing? They’re making the Holy Father say things he never said. It’s terrible.”

Raúl: “Alejandro, forgive me, but where does it say that God does not punish?”

Sulding: “…And in this Angelus, I don’t see any reference to punishment.”

Alejandro responded to one of them: “If you don’t see it, then you have no reason to doubt. Stick with Arráiz’s position. If you don’t see it, you won’t understand.”

I ask: Is this what is called applying “theological reasoning”? And if you check the history of Alejandro’s responses on Twitter to similar objections, you’ll see that he has responded in essentially the same way. This is why I reiterate to Alejandro: I am more than willing to go text by text, document by document, and analyze the context of each one. But what I cannot accept as a valid argument is the baseless assertion that the Pope said something in a document without demonstrating it through the same theological reasoning that Alejandro himself acknowledges as essential. When I cite the Popes directly, affirming what he denies, he dismisses it, claiming the problem is that I quote without applying theological reasoning.

What Theological Reasoning Is Not

This brings us to another crucial point. While theological reasoning is important, not all theological reasoning is correct. Alejandro’s reasoning falls into the error of the dialectic of opposites, viewing divine mercy and justice as mutually exclusive. This leads him to cite texts like Dives in Misericordia or the Catechism of the Catholic Church, emphasizing God’s love, and implying that since God is pure mercy by nature, He does not punish. However, as has been explained numerous times, God’s mercy does not exclude His justice, nor vice versa. As Pope Benedict XVI stated in Light of the World, this is part of a particular confusion of thought that has lost sight of the fact that punishment can be an act of love.

Why It Is Also Important to Clarify the Meaning of “Punishment”

Alejandro has also criticized me for referencing the Royal Spanish Academy’s dictionary to clarify the meaning of the word “punishment,” seeing it as a way to corner him and limit his flexibility. The reason I did this is simple: as human beings, we do not communicate through arcane languages or pure thought, but through human language, and it is necessary to clarify the meaning of words. If I say “God punishes” or he says “God does not punish,” the first step is to define what each of us means by it.

The problem is that Alejandro has yet to explain his understanding. He has only broadly stated that punishment entails commutative justice, assuming that this prevents God from punishing. This is a false premise, as punishment, while the imposition of a penalty on someone who has committed a fault, does not necessarily entail commutative justice.

Commutative justice, which governs the proper order between individuals, cannot be strictly applied to God because there can be no equality between Creator and creature. Due to the creature’s absolute dependence on the Creator, it cannot compel God to respond with a corresponding act. In God’s case, punishment is not about applying commutative justice but distributive justice, wherein He, as a just judge, rewards good (remunerative justice) and punishes evil (vindictive justice).

Let’s consider a New Testament example to better understand temporal punishment as an act of corrective and vindictive justice. When the angel Gabriel appeared to Zechariah to announce that his elderly wife would conceive John the Baptist, Zechariah doubted and asked, “Whereby shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years” (Luke 1:18, Douay-Rheims). Gabriel responded, “I am Gabriel, who stand before God, and am sent to speak to thee, and to bring thee these good tidings. And behold, thou shalt be dumb, and shalt not be able to speak until the day wherein these things shall come to pass, because thou hast not believed my words, which shall be fulfilled in their time” (Luke 1:19-20, Douay-Rheims).

Let’s analyze this event using theological reasoning, as Alejandro insists. Zechariah committed a fault (doubting God’s messenger), and God imposed a temporal penalty through the angel (he became mute for a time). This Gospel passage illustrates how temporal punishment may not necessarily be the natural consequence of an action (unlike the ontological penalty of a drunkard suffering cirrhosis due to excessive drinking). It also demonstrates that punishment can have both corrective and vindictive aspects. Notice that this is indeed punishment because a penalty is imposed for a fault. Is it also correction? Yes, no one denies that temporal punishment has a medicinal character, but we reject the notion that all correction is punishment. The Bible clearly states, “But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world” (1 Corinthians 11:32, Douay-Rheims), and “For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth” (Hebrews 12:6, Douay-Rheims).

Therefore, the solution is not to change the meaning of “punishment” to insist that God does not punish. Alejandro argues that such texts merely show “some relationship” between God and punishment, nothing more. I invite readers to review all the provided texts and specifically examine the nature of the relationship between God and punishment, as we prepare to delve deeper into this topic in the next chapter.

Scroll to Top