Pope Denies Existence Of "Hell" - Why The Big Fuss?

As reported in the weekend WSJ ('Shifting Lines: Pope's Uncertainty Principle'  p. A9, Mar. 31- April 1) Pope Francis evidently denied the existence of a cornerstone of Roman Catholic "boogeyman" doctrine in a recent interview. We read:

"For Pope Francis the unconventional has become routine. Still, the news Thursday morning was startling. Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari, a friend and frequent interviewer of the pope, reported that the pontiff had denied the existence of hell.  Sinners who die without  achieving eternal salvation 'are not punished' the pope said, according to an article by Mr. Scalfari in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica"

The Pope added for clarity:

"There is no hell. There is the disappearance of sinful souls."

Of course, as the author (Francis X. Rocca) points out, the Vatican's fossils quickly went into panic PR mode, trying to spin the account away from core doctrinal denial.. After all, what good would it do if nearly a billion Catholics weren't kept quaking in their boots by the threat of hell?  So, the Vatican did the only thing they could, short of denying the pope denied hell - they insisted Scalfari's article was a "reconstruction" - as opposed to a transcript of his conversation with Francis.

In truth, one wonders why the big kerfuffle erupted given simple, consistent but rigorous exercise of logic would disclose hell is a confection, a fiction.  The pope's denial of hell in this context is merely a manifestation of his invoking critical thinking and logic as opposed to blind adherence to an archaic doctrine..  The  basic logical contradiction inherent in the hell concept can be encapsulated by the diagram shown below:

This presumes a "punishment partition" in infinite Being leading to the Hell-Infinite -God paradox. The claimed "infinitude" (or omnipresence), e.g.  of an infinite deity is contradictory to the acceptance of a Hell.  This is provided one grants that "infinite"literally  means everywhere or pervading all of Being.

In such a case there is literally no place left where - whatever it is- doesn't exist. Hence, if applied to "God" it means all inclusive of reality. Including ALL transcendent reality, assuming such exists.

The diagram shown illustrates the point. The whole vast field defined as "Omega" (Greek symbol) is taken to be one unitary Being or "God". It is taken to be literally infinite, meaning occupying all Being, all there is. (I am assuming Catholics, like most Christians, take "infinite" literally not as "occupying most regions" but not all.  If the latter, then the Being is not infinite but finite - and hence a finite deity.

If one appends a Hell, as say a "punishment partition",  then this infinite Being is now delimited. In other words, it ceases to be infinite (or omnipresent)  since its Being is foreclosed where Hell exists, unless one would argue that Hell is part of God. Most Catholics I know don't wish to "go there".

Thus, if Hell is asserted to exist and is claimed to be "eternal" then God cannot be infinite. If God is maintained to be infinite - meaning all inclusive of Being- the only conclusions possible are that either a) Hell doesn't exist, or b) Hell must be a part of God's Being!

By this exercise in logic, Pope Francis would be perfectly justified in denying the existence of Hell because it is logically contradictory to the concept of God as infinite unitary Being. Up to now, I've not seen or heard any religionist able to refute this logic, even by resort to the most twisted semantic somersaults.

But what about the pope's claim that the sinners just "disappear" - as in wink out of existence? This really isn't that much of  stretch and most atheists already believe this applies to everyone, not just them.  Think of it like a general anesthesia from which you never wake up.

Under general anesthesia - as I've been, three times in the past two years- there is no consciousness of any temporal passage. You are knocked out one second, then after the operation or procedure, you come back to consciousness. It is as if no time has elapsed - even hours - between going under and re-surfacing in the hospital recovery room.

If  you died while under general anesthesia - say if the operation went  badly wrong - would you notice it? I doubt it. It would simply be a case that you never transition back to consciousness.  It would be as if you never "woke up". This is the form of extinction the pope is referencing for "sinners",  but again which most atheists take to be the final end to shuffling this mortal coil anyway. (Atheists do not subscribe, at least most of them, to the 'natural afterlife' idea which requires accepting a subjective time whereby a  final "dream state" can transform into an eternal state of afterlife, independent of consciousness.)

WSJ author Rocca cites Brit correspondent Christopher Lamb who sees the pope's anti-doctrinal stance as consistent with 'a move away from the institutional and doctrinal and toward a greater focus on personal conscience" which is good.   In addition, under Francis the Vatican's doctrinal office has more or less backed off on issuing judgments including on controversial questions of sexual and medical ethics.  This also comports with Francis' efforts to liberalize moral teachings, including on divorce, and artificial contraception.

My take is that Francis sees this liberalization as essential especially after the Church lost vast moral capital in the wake of the priest sexual abuse crisis.  Thus, for the Vatican's doctrinal obsessives to double down on their moral dicta - say to do with any number of behaviors, especially sexual - would simply drive more reflective Catholics away..

Francis then, at least has the  sense to acknowledge he's playing on a losing wicket, and to make the most of it instead of pretending the opposite.

Dealing With Memory Loss After General Anesthesia

At first the instances of being unable to name specific items were just plain annoying. For example, two days after the recent cryo procedure:  "Janice would you hand me the bottle of those pain killers, the ones that start with T, small blue pills".

The bottle to which I directed Janice's attention was labelled Tylenol but I couldn't think of the word. Other instances then occurred over the next week to  ten days and I began to start to panic. Until I Googled "memory loss after general anesthesia".

Then I learned (via researchers at the University of Toronto's Faculty of Medicine)  anesthetics can cause long-term memory loss, a discovery that can have serious implications for post-operative patients.   At first Janice was skeptical but then I posted a link to the University of Toronto research, and that 1 of 3 people that are put under using anesthesia seem to have these problems.

Again, as I posted on 2 weeks ago, I had the focal cryotherapy procedure which required about two and a half hours under general anesthesia. See:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/06/fighting-prostate-cancer-at-90-c-my.html

This has actually been the third time I've had general anesthesia in a little more than a year. Let's also be clear here that going "under" say for a surgery is not the same as going to sleep. For one thing, there are no dreams. It is as if you're in a kind of timeless limbo then come to, with no evidence at all of what happened in the passing hours because you aren't conscious of temporal passage. In fact, what you are in is a "pharmacologically induced coma".

Until now, scientists haven't understood why about a third of patients who undergo anesthesia during surgery experience some kind of cognitive impairment -- such as memory loss -- by hospital discharge.  This is distinct, by the way, from the usual grogginess and mental fuzziness which is to be expected. (Why, for example, right after the 3D biopsy I asked the RNs to convey the catheter change and care instructions to Janice, because I wasn't able to process anything. Their words came out as nonsense because I'd only come out of it 30 minutes earlier. Call it immediate "anesthesia brain")

But no, the cognitive impairment is distinct and occurs after the immediate "drunken" kid of state subsides.  As I said, it reveals itself in memory loss, especially in use of words you had command of previously. But now you are reduced to saying "Please pass that whatchamacallit."  (Maybe a casserole dish with mac and cheese.)

Some may wonder how, if that's the case, I still manage to write blog posts in which the language appears not to "drop out" or appear with irrelevant words, etc. But, in fact, I've had to work much harder since my latest procedure - frequently googling the only words I can think of  - then looking for more fitting synonyms (or expressions)  to take their place. Also, the task of concentration to stay on point or in focus is more challenging. Apart from this, making lists to start the day becomes essential.

No fewer than one-tenth of patients still suffer cognitive impairments three months after having general anesthesia. Why?  It turns out that the chemicals used (e.g. fentanyl)  activate memory-loss receptors in the brain, ensuring that patients don't remember traumatic events during surgery.  I recall before my 3D biopsy the anesthesiologist asking if I was sure I didn't want versed to ensure I had no "bad memories". I said I was positively certain as I'd had a bad round with versed before,  during a 1996 colonoscopy.

Professor Beverley Orser and her team at U. of Toronto found that the activity of memory loss receptors remains high long after the drugs have left the patient's system, sometimes for days on end.
Animal studies showed this chain reaction has long-term effects on the performance of memory-related tasks.

According to Prof. Orser:

"Patients -- and even many doctors -- think anesthetics don't have long-term consequences. Our research shows that our fundamental assumption about how these drugs work is wrong,"

In the study -- led by Ph.D. candidate Agnes Zurek -- the team gave healthy male mice a low dose of anesthetic for just 20 minutes and found that receptor activity was increased for a week afterwards. These results suggest the same effect can impact a patient's learning and memory during a time when they're receiving critical information about their care.  As I said earlier, this assuredly applied to me with the Foley catheter instructions after the 3D biopsy and why I had to have them re-directed to Janice.

Prof. Orser again:

"There's a lot going on after surgery, which can alter our ability to think clearly. Loss of sleep, new environments and medications can all impact a patient's mental function. Anesthetics likely compound these issues,"

Which I found to be spot on correct. I mean,  they already have you loaded up on sedatives (via an IV) even before they put the mask on for general anesthesia. Then, after you surface, you have to be given pain killers (like hydrocodone) for the post-surgical pain. The mix isn't designed to help with attention or mental acuity.  (In the days following I told Janice I felt my IQ had dropped about 15 points.)

Dr. Orser recommends physicians and family members carefully monitor patients after surgery for any signs of memory loss, adding:  "Patients should write everything down or have a second pair of ears with them after surgery. For high-risk groups, physicians need to inform patients about these possible side effects and help manage the impact on recovery and overall health,"

It turns out the likelihood of a patient experiencing cognitive impairment depends on their age, health, type of surgery and the anesthetic, with chances increasing for more intricate procedures. The incidence is highest in the elderly or those undergoing major surgery such as cardiopulmonary bypass.

Once more, Prof. Orser:

"Anesthetics don't put you to sleep -- they induce a pharmacological coma. We shouldn't take these drugs lightly,"

Orser and her team are currently looking at drugs that can stop the receptors and restore memory loss. While they are still in the early stages of research, they say some of the drugs show very promising results in animal studies.  The cited study here was published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation