“The liberality of the divine munificence is so great that we are able through Jesus Christ to make satisfaction to God the Father, not only by punishments voluntarily undertaken by ourselves to atone for sin, or imposed at the discretion of the priest according to the measure of our offense, but also (which is a signal proof of love) by temporal afflictions imposed by God and borne patiently by us.”1
Indeed, the solemn Magisterium of the Church affirms that God not only can send temporal punishments but actually does so. We will delve deeper into this later, but let us start from the beginning…
I recently wrote an article addressing the question: Does God punish or not? In it, I analyzed the error that has been creeping into the Catholic community—the belief that God never punishes. In that article, I noted that even prominent figures in Spanish-speaking Catholic media, such as Frank Morera, a Catholic apologist, and Alejandro Bermúdez, former director of ACI Prensa and host of various EWTN programs, had fallen into this error, contradicting what the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium of the Church has taught throughout the centuries. Today, thanks to some readers of ApologeticaCatolica.org, I discovered that Alejandro Bermúdez has published a podcast responding to some of my arguments, prompting me to offer a response to his points.
Before proceeding, I must clarify once again that this is not a personal attack on Alejandro Bermúdez or Frank Morera. I respect both of them for their honorable ministry within the Church. I have frequently shared their videos, talks, and conferences on my blogs and ApologeticaCatolica.org. However, precisely because I value their work, I find it necessary to correct them when their teachings deviate from the truth, potentially leading to confusion among those who look to them for guidance. Given their positions in prestigious and influential Catholic media, any errors they make can mislead a significant number of Catholics.
According to the Popes… Does God Only Punish in the Old Testament?
I begin with this question because, in my article, I cited Popes St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to demonstrate that even modern pontiffs, like their predecessors throughout history, have taught that God can punish as a merciful means of correcting the sinner or expiating the offense against God, thereby restoring the moral order disrupted by sin. In response to these citations, Alejandro said:
“Correct, but in this text, completely taken out of context, Pope Benedict XVI was referring to the God of the Old Testament, where God reveals Himself as a punishing God. It’s evident that in the Old Testament, God punishes—examples abound, even with God’s close friend: Moses. For losing his patience at Meribah and striking the rock twice in anger to bring forth water, God punished him by not allowing him to enter the Promised Land. Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt, the Great Flood—these are all instances of God’s punishment.”2
Well, we see that on the one hand, Alejandro acknowledges from the outset that God did punish during the Old Testament, but then he claims that the God of the New Testament is different and no longer does so. The problem is that within these comments, there are several errors (some more serious than others) that need to be analyzed, which I will address as we proceed. I will start with the citation from Pope Benedict XVI, which Alejandro claims I have taken out of context. I will quote the text in a broader context to dispel any doubts, allowing the reader to judge for themselves whether this is true.
The Pope Benedict XVI says (emphasis mine):
“What the Gospel passage reports challenges our way of thinking and acting. It does not only speak of Christ’s ‘hour’, of the mystery of the Cross at that moment, but also of the presence of the Cross in all epochs. It challenges in a special way the people who have received the Gospel proclamation. If we look at history, we are often obliged to register the coldness and rebellion of inconsistent Christians. As a result of this, although God never failed to keep his promise of salvation, he often had to resort to punishment.
In this context it comes naturally to think of the first proclamation of the Gospel from which sprang Christian communities that initially flourished but then disappeared and today are remembered only in history books. Might not the same thing happen in our time?”3
Let’s pause for a moment on the phrases I have highlighted. The Pope begins by speaking about the coldness and rebellion of inconsistent Christians throughout history. Notice that when he speaks of Christians, he is not referring to people who lived during the Old Testament. Therefore, what follows cannot exclude the New Testament. He states: “As a result of this, although God never failed to keep His promise of salvation, He often had to resort to punishment.”
I emphasize the phrase “as a result of this” because it clearly indicates that it is precisely due to the inconsistency of Christians that God has frequently had to resort to punishment. In other words, God has had to resort to punishment because of inconsistent Christians. Now, I ask: Were there Christians in the Old Testament? Or is the Pope speaking about all of human history in general? In fact, if we read further back, the context confirms this, as he says: “It does not only speak of Christ’s ‘hour’, of the mystery of the Cross at that moment, but also of the presence of the Cross in all epochs. It challenges in a special way the people who have received the Gospel proclamation.” It is clear that the people who received the Gospel were not those from the Old Testament. To drive the point home, he concludes: “Might not the same thing happen in our time?”
It is Alejandro who has not carefully verified the context of this citation from Pope Benedict XVI, which cannot be understood as referring exclusively to divine punishments in the Old Testament. Let’s be clear: this point is beyond dispute.
Regarding my next citation from Pope John Paul II, Alejandro similarly argues that it refers to the Book of Tobit from the Old Testament and therefore should be dismissed as evidence that the God of the New Testament punishes. He overlooks the fact that John Paul II uses the same book to show that just as God punishes, He is also compassionate. However, to prevent our good friend from falling back on this argument, let us cite Pope John Paul II in another of his audiences, where there is no way to claim he refers only to the Old Testament. I refer to his General Audience on Wednesday, September 29, 1999, where he writes:
“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).”4
Notice, dear reader, that Pope John Paul II speaks of God, who does not exclude punishment, as the one who loves us with paternal love. He highlights a dual purpose: to restore the violated order for the good of man himself and to apply God’s merciful justice5.
According to the Bible, Does God Punish Only in the Old Testament?
Another error Alejandro makes in his podcast is asserting that only the God of the Old Testament punishes, and that there is no text in the entire New Testament showing God inflicting any punishment other than eternal condemnation after judgment. Alejandro explicitly states:
“In the New Testament, which includes the 27 books—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, Revelation—none of them speak of punishment outside the final penalty.”
However, in my initial article, I demonstrated that this is not true. I assume Alejandro did not reach that part because he only commented on the first paragraph of an article spanning several pages. I recalled that St. Paul admonishes those who received the Eucharist unworthily, stating that they were punished with illnesses and even death:
“For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. Therefore, there are many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.” (1 Corinthians 11:29-30, Douay-Rheims)
I also cited the clear case of Herod, who, after allowing blasphemy, was struck by an angel of God, leading to his illness and death:
“And upon a day appointed, Herod being arrayed in kingly apparel, sat in the judgment seat, and made an oration to them. And the people made acclamation, saying: It is the voice of a god, and not of a man. And forthwith an angel of the Lord struck him, because he had not given the honour to God: and being eaten up by worms, he gave up the ghost.” (Acts 12:21-23, Douay-Rheims)
Additionally, I mentioned the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira for lying to the Holy Spirit:
“But a certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold a piece of land… And Ananias hearing these words, fell down, and gave up the ghost. And there came great fear upon all that heard it.” (Acts 5:1-10, Douay-Rheims)
As can be observed, none of these instances necessarily imply eternal condemnation as a result of judgment, as Alejandro suggests. Rather, they refer to temporal punishments. At any given moment, and if it aligns with His will, God can punish, as seen in the Old Testament, the New Testament, and even in private revelations where the Virgin warns us that the world can be punished for our sins.
On Private Revelations
It is important to remember that in the vast majority of Church-approved private revelations, both the Virgin Mary and Jesus Himself warn of the possibility of sending punishments to the world if it does not repent. Alejandro claims that these warnings are given in a “devotional” context. But what does this imply? Is he suggesting that the Virgin Mary “devoutly lies” to move us toward conversion? If the Virgin Mary knowingly stated something false—namely, that there is no possibility of God sending temporal punishments, yet she claimed He would for any reason—this would constitute lying. We know that the end does not justify the means. Therefore, one of two conclusions must follow: either all these private revelations are false, including those approved by the Church, or they are true, and indeed, God can punish the world for its sins.
Alejandro also asserts that private revelations do not constitute part of the Church’s doctrine, which is true. However, when the Church approves a private revelation, it certifies that there is nothing in it contrary to the faith. If the assertion that “God punishes” were contrary to Catholic doctrine, the Church would not approve such revelations. Despite this, Alejandro insists that those who claim God punishes do not understand the Church’s teaching. But could it not be the case that Alejandro himself is mistaken on this point?
To address this, I will now examine the citations Alejandro makes from the encyclicals of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Citations by Alejandro Bermúdez of Benedict XVI and St. John Paul II
To support his point of view, Alejandro Bermúdez cites Dives in misericordia and the apostolic exhortation Reconciliatio et paenitentia by John Paul II, as well as Spe Salvi by Benedict XVI. Regarding this, he writes:
“… as Pope John Paul II says in Dives in misericordia, that is, in Rich in Mercy, the passages where God punishes or even tests are not comprehensible in light of the New Testament. That’s what he says, they are not comprehensible.”
However, this is not true, and that is not what Pope John Paul II states, as the reader can verify in the freely available document on the official Vatican website. The problem with analyzing Alejandro’s arguments is that, unlike my textual citations of the Popes, he paraphrases and attributes words to them that are not there, making it impossible to find what he claims in those documents. I invite readers to examine the document and see the following:
Nowhere does the Pope assert whether God punishes or not; in fact, the word “punishment” does not appear a single time in the entire text. If Alejandro’s interpretation of the encyclical is personal, it proves nothing. The correct approach is to cite the text verbatim and then argue, referring to the context if necessary.
He does the same with the other cited documents. In Reconciliatio et paenitentia, the word “punishment” also does not appear once, and in Spe Salvi, it appears only twice6 and not to explicitly or implicitly deny that God can punish. Alejandro likely misinterprets these texts because they speak of God’s mercy, which, in his erroneous understanding, excludes punishment, whereas mercy includes it, as Pope John Paul II previously affirmed.
Alejandro later cited another document by Pope John Paul II, aiming to show that the Pope said God does not punish. This refers to the Angelus of Sunday, February 13, 2000. I encourage readers to review it and confirm that the word “punishment” does not appear there even once, nor does it deny anywhere that God can punish, unlike the documents we have shown here, which cite the Popes affirming that God does indeed punish.
Punishing God in the OT vs. Loving God in the NT?
Perhaps the gravest error in Alejandro’s argument is the erroneous distinction he makes between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. It is true that in the Old Testament, God had not fully revealed Himself, but everything He did reveal was authentic and without error, including His role as a punisher to achieve conversion or as an instrument of His vindictive justice. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall one of the most illuminating examples, where the announcement of God’s punishment led to the conversion of an entire people, as recounted in the Book of Jonah. Due to a poor understanding of some Old Testament figures, certain Gnostic heretics of antiquity, like Marcion, believed that the God described in the Old Testament was different from the one in the New Testament. His error led him to reject the entirety of the Old Testament.
Regarding the topic of punishment, it was already clear in the Old Testament that God punishes man out of love and to correct him, as the psalmist states: “Thou with rebukes dost correct man for sin: and thou makest his soul to waste away like a spider” (Psalm 39:12, Douay-Rheims). This text demonstrates that Alejandro’s attempt to exclude punishment from having a medicinal character is false. The patristic texts I cited from the early Christians, where they reiterate that God punishes because He loves us, were written long after the Old Testament, but they maintain the same idea.
Why Do the Wicked Prosper and the Righteous Suffer?
In an attempt to demonstrate that God does not punish, Alejandro points out the fact that some sinners do not receive punishment in this life. He says:
“If God punished, why do people who commit so much evil and harm exist?
Why are there so many corrupt individuals whom God does not touch, and they die peacefully in their beds? Why? Does God then punish only the good? Those who can be corrected? If this is the case, God does not punish; He corrects.”
Let’s begin by clarifying this:
We are not claiming that God always imposes temporal punishment on sinners during their lifetime. It may happen, if it is His will, as in the case of Herod or Ananias and Sapphira, or He may reserve punishment for the afterlife. However, this does not negate the possibility or desire of God to punish.
Regarding this, a well-known manual of dogmatic theology7 explains:
God does not fully sanction evil in this world. This is because His Justice and Mercy are combined in a perfect, mysterious way. God not only makes promises but also issues warnings, demonstrating that He is both the avenger of crime and the rewarder of virtue. However, He is not obliged to fulfill His threats, as He can forgive whenever He wills. He punishes when necessary, acting with perfect justice, and shows mercy not out of obligation but because it does no harm.
When we say God’s justice demands punishment for sin, it implies that this punishment may occur in this life or the next, through temporal or eternal penalties. Humans cannot judge when God should forgive or punish.
God’s justice does not require immediate earthly punishment for sin or immediate reward for virtue. Instead, this life is a period of freedom and trial:
a) Immediate rewards or punishments would strip the righteous of perseverance, reduce human virtue to mere self-interest, and eliminate the chance for sinners to repent.
b) Human judgment is flawed; what may seem virtuous or sinful can be misjudged due to hidden intentions or mitigating circumstances. God would be unjust if He conformed to human notions of justice.
c) Innocent suffering often results from widespread evil, while the prosperity of sinners stems from natural talents or circumstances. Constant miracles to correct this would be unwise for Providence.
d) The trials of the righteous and the prosperity of sinners do not constitute injustice. Instead, the righteous earn eternal rewards through patience, and sinners are given time for repentance to avoid eternal punishment.
To this age-old question, the saints and Church Fathers have responded not by denying that God punishes but by affirming that in His wisdom, God chooses to punish some in this life and others not, for various reasons. On this subject, St. John Chrysostom explains:
“God punishes certain sinners by destroying their malice and decreeing a lighter penalty for them. He separates them from others and corrects those living in sin through the condemnation of some. Additionally, He does not punish others here, so that if they repent, they might avoid present punishments and eternal penalty. However, if they persist in their malice, they will suffer greater torment.”8
St. Basil similarly explains:
“It is characteristic of divine mercy not to impose punishments in silence but first to proclaim threats to provoke repentance, as He did with the Ninevites and now with the barren fig tree, saying ‘Cut it down,’ stimulating the caretaker to nurture it and urging the barren soul to bear due fruits.”9
Secondly, we do not claim that all misfortunes should be understood as divine punishment. In every sin, there is guilt that earns the sinner two kinds of penalties: an ontological penalty (the direct consequence of the action) and a juridical penalty (the deserved sanction from divine justice). Those who see divine punishment only as a consequence of actions (such as contracting a venereal disease from fornication or cirrhosis from excessive drinking) mistakenly believe that sins only result in an ontological penalty, excluding the juridical penalty.
Christians, by sinning, incur many guilts, attract numerous ontological penalties, and become debtors to various juridical penalties or punishments, imposed by God, the confessor, others, or even by oneself. Our sins also affect others, and while in this life, we all suffer from the consequences of original sin. Thus, unless there is a special revelation, it is impossible to discern whether a particular misfortune is a punishment (juridical penalty) or a natural consequence of our actions (ontological penalty), those of others, or mere accidents.
However, the fact that we cannot know—except through special revelation—whether a particular misfortune is a punishment or not, or that from our limited perspective it seems a sinner has not been punished, does not imply that God will not punish if His will determines so, as evidenced by Scripture, not only in the Old Testament but also in the New.
Conclusions from Part One
Let us now return to the teachings of the Dogmatic Council of Trent: “The liberality of the divine munificence is so great that we are able through Jesus Christ to make satisfaction to God the Father, not only by punishments voluntarily undertaken by ourselves to atone for sin, or imposed at the discretion of the priest according to the measure of our offense, but also (which is a signal proof of love) by temporal afflictions imposed by God and borne patiently by us.”10
If God does not punish, how can a Dogmatic Council assert that He can and does? Denying that God punishes is not a trivial matter, as it contradicts the teachings found in both ordinary and extraordinary magisterial texts, such as those of an Ecumenical and Dogmatic Council. This has been part of the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers, as has been frequently cited throughout these discussions.
In this case, Alejandro’s argument suggests that Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, in their encyclicals, deny that God punishes. However, the claimed denial is absent from these encyclicals, while explicit and contextual quotes from these Popes have been presented here, affirming what the ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium has consistently reiterated.
- Council of Trent, Session XIV, Chapter IX: On Satisfactory Works
Available at: https://www.capdox.capuchin.org.au/reform-resources-16th-century/sources/the-canons-and-decrees-of-the-council-of-trent/
- The series of videos (in Spanish) where Alejandro Bermúdez develops his argument that God never punishes can be found on YouTube at the following links:
Cabe insistir Dios No castiga (God Does Not Punish)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIJDqcmR_hgCómo no se hace apologética I (How Not to Do Apologetics I)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz9rd1WflUgCómo no se hace apologética II (How Not to Do Apologetics II)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j5aetSmINUPor qué Dios no castiga I (Why God Does Not Punish I)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yF1oObYB54Cabe insistir Dios No castiga (It’s Worth Emphasizing: God Does Not Punish)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIJDqcmR_hgPor qué Dios no castiga II (Why God Does Not Punish II)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhNubpro_7wPor qué Dios no castiga III (Why God Does Not Punish III)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kfP9S4DUR8 - Homily of His Holiness Benedict XVI, Opening of the 12th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, October 5, 2008.
Available at https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/homilies/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20081005_opening-synod.html - General Audience of His Holiness John Paul II, September 29, 1999.
Available at https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_29091999.html - You can also refer to the following catechesis of His Holiness John Paul II: God Punishes and Saves, 25 July 2001
Available at https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/audiences/2001/documents/hf_jp-ii_aud_20010725.html - When I reviewed this document, I referred to the Spanish version, which is the language in which this book was originally written.
- Abate Bergier, Diccionario de Teología, Vol. III, Imprenta de D. Primitivo Fuentes, Madrid, 1846
Available in Google Books at: https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=OC7yMtvAibMC&dq=bergier%20%22justicia%20divina%22&hl=es&pg=PA2#v=onepage&q&f=false - Chrysostom, Homily 5 on Lazarus
- St. Basil, Homily 8 on Penitence
- Council of Trent, Session XIV, Chapter IX: On Satisfactory Works
Available at: https://www.capdox.capuchin.org.au/reform-resources-16th-century/sources/the-canons-and-decrees-of-the-council-of-trent/