The Christian tradition has always taught that men receive “a sentence” at the moment of death, because their path in life ends and then their eternity begins.
Their very conscience, in the presence of the Lord Jesus, will be the one that argues against the good or evil they have done on earth. And the Lord Jesus, permanent judge of all, will sanction his destiny in that supreme hour when life ends and eternity begins.
And that is why it is anthropomorphically thought that, after death, the “particular judgment” takes place, that is, the “divine ruling” that decides the eternal fate of the deceased, who at that moment sees what his life has been and he becomes aware of his already extra-temporal and extra-spatial situation.
1. Sense of that judgment
It is evident that any way of speaking that reproduces designs and operating models typical of this world lacks real meaning in terms of time and space. The languages and relationships, uses and options, typical of this life lose their meaning.
That is why we can only speak analogically of a trial in the “same place” of death, of a “sentence” at the same “moment” of death, of a response of the deceased in the style of the one he would have on earth.
The idea of particular judgment has never been defined as an explicitly dogmatic doctrine by the Catholic Church. It is rather a consequence of the dogma that the souls of the deceased receive reward or punishment according to the merits or demerits achieved on earth.
The ordinary teaching of the Church is the “immediacy”, the “perfection”, the irreversibility” of the prize of heaven, the punishment of hell or the catharsis of purgatory.
The ecumenical councils of Lyons and Florence declared that the souls of the just who are free from all pain and guilt are immediately received in heaven; and that the souls of those who have died in mortal sin, or simply in original sin, “do not go to heaven.” (Denz. 464 and 693).
But they did not discuss questions of form, time or model of the sentence, which corresponds more to reason and common sense than to any divine communication. In this field, like other similar ones, theologians and pastors of souls are free to speak.
Benedict XII declared, in the dogmatic Constitution “Benedictus Deus” of January 29, 1336, that the souls of the just enter heaven immediately after death (or after their purification, if they have something pending). His teachings insist that, before the resurrection of the body and the universal judgment, the Christian receives the final sanction from him. If he is savior, he is rewarded with the immediate vision of God. If it is condemnatory, the soul in mortal sin goes to hell at death. (Denz. 530.)
Some medieval authors, such as Pope John XXII, thought that until the universal judgment, that is to say at the end of time, the total vision of God was not reached, but rather it was a time or state of waiting with the joy of the company of the humanity of Christ. And also some early writers, such as Papias, Saint Justin, Saint Irenaeus, Tertullian, spoke of a kingdom of a thousand years before the last times of the Last Judgment, basing themselves on biblical texts such as Apoc. 20. 1 and in some allusions of the prophets alluding to the kingdom of the Messiah. (Dan. 2.21; 3.54; 5.26 and 7.22)
But these opinions are meaningless and baseless in the tradition of the Church and in the very extra-temporal and extra-physical nature of the events after death. The final bliss begins by transcending the temporality of this life, since for God there is no time
2. Teaching of Scripture
What matters to understand the reality of the Particular Judgment is to explore the Scripture on this doctrine. Certainly it is slightly hinted at in various texts, but in a more indirect than explicit way, unlike what happens in relation to the Universal Judgment and the end of time.
It is precisely the reason why various anthropomorphic opinions have proliferated throughout history.
However, there is evidence to associate the idea of this judgment with divine supremacy over creatures, made explicit in some way immediately after death.
In the Old Testament the idea of prompt and effective divine justice is insinuated. “The righteous, though he die prematurely, will then receive rest with joy.” (Wis. 4.7); and “The righteous soon reach the crown of glory.” (Wis. 5.16). The prize at the moment of death is insisted on: “He who fears the Lord will have a good end and the day of his death will be blessed.” (Eccli 1. 13).
In the New Testament various facts or references to the immediate decision to die are alluded to. In the parable of Lazarus and the rich man, both are judged and sent to reward or punishment when they die. (Luke 16. 22)
Jesus says to the repentant thief who is dying at the side of the cross: “Today you will be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23. 43). St. Peter says of Judas in his first speech that he went “to the place that belonged to him.” (Acts 1. 25).
St. Paul hopes that, by dying, one reaches beatitude in union with Christ: “I want to die to be with Christ” (Phil. 1. 23); and he talks about how, “in the Lord is where his true abode is.” (2 Corinthians 5, 8). On other occasions he alludes to the fact that, at death, the state of faith ceases and the state of contemplation begins. (2 Cor. 5. 7; 1 Cor. 13. 12).
3. Church teaching
The teaching of the Church, supported by these biblical hints, became more precise with the passage of time. At first, the ideas of the writers and the Fathers about the fate of the deceased at death were not very clear.
However, the teaching was always explicit that each one would receive the reward or the punishment, according to the good or bad actions done in life. Some of the oldest writers, such as St. Justin, St. Irenaeus and Hilary, or St. Ambrose, spoke of a certain state of waiting between death and resurrection, a form of numbness or indeterminate paralysis. It was due more than to the denial of the immediacy of reward or punishment, to the greater prominence of the Universal Judgment, where Christ had to show himself in all his splendor and triumph.
Tertullian affirmed that the martyrs should not wait for that final exaltation, but that their blood merits earned them immediate entry into the Kingdom of heaven or “paradise.” (De anima 55; De carnis resurr. 43). Saint Cyprian taught that all the just enter the Kingdom of Heaven and place themselves next to Christ to rejoice with Him. (De mortalitate 26)
Saint Augustine expressed doubts about whether the souls of the just, before the resurrection, would enjoy, like the angels, the full bliss that consists in the contemplation of God or would have to wait for something, affirming the mysterious nature of this question. (Retr. 1 14. 2).
It was practically the scholastic theology that “reasoned” about the existence of the judgment and consolidated the opinions. However, this “minor question” in Theology did not deserve too many official teachings in the Church and the diversity of opinions, both in the East and in the West, continues to this day.
Even today, many theologians of the Eastern Orthodox Church remain stuck in the ambiguity of the doctrine, as regards the fate of the deceased, and defend the existence of a certain intermediate state between death and resurrection, an unequal state for the just and sinners. , but that is not the definitive and eternal.
However, there were also ancient Fathers, and later writers, who were more explicit in defending a type of immediate judgment and a definitive reward or punishment at the end of earthly life. This is how St. John Chrysostom expressed himself (In Mat. Hom. 14. 4), St. Jerome (In Joel 2. 11), St. Augustine himself in other writings. (De anima et eius origine II 4. 8)
Since the modern age, this point has been settled in favor of the particular judgment, as a preamble and precedent of the Universal. And the philosophical idea of the timelessness of eternal life was developed, so that the question escaped properly from the theological field.
The Roman Catechism (18. 3) expressly taught the truth of the particular judgment. And most of the later catechisms kept it.
4. Catechesis on the Judgment
Although it is a minor “question” in Theology, it is a subject that lends itself to serious reflection for children and adults in reference to moral responsibility for their own actions.
It is convenient to clearly teach that God, Provident and always present, knows all the good and bad works that are done. It is the conscience itself that, before God, will realize what has been done and will feel accepted or rejected by God, due to his works.
On this subject, it is convenient to overcome fantasy, affectivity and easy myths that may come from legends, superstitions and spurious beliefs. It is the serene reason that should set the tone in what refers to the serene action of God in reference to the reward and punishment for the facts.
Three catechetical slogans could serve as guidelines.
– Overcome space-time categories, when the boy reaches a certain maturity and notice what the absence of place and time outside of life and earth means.
The small child cannot access this metaphysical vision, but from the age of 12 or 13 a more subtle vision of extraterrestrial realities can be reached. The theme of the particular judgment must be identified with the other eschatological realities: the universal judgment, heaven, hell.
– It is important to highlight the Christocentric dimension of this teaching. But in this vision referring to Jesus, Universal Judge, the anthropological dimension must be framed. It is the conscience itself that registers, evokes and judges its own actions and intentions.
– It is convenient to use this conscience as a call to responsibility, even in the secret of intimacy. The certainty that the trial will not be a list of accusations and sanctions made by the judge, but rather a clarification of what had often remained in the dark and forgotten, serves as support.
– It is interesting not to separate the eschatological realities from each other. The particular judgment is not understood apart from the other truths. That is why it is necessary to go frequently to the evangelical references and draw the consequences for one’s own life.
Pedro Chico González, Dictionary of Catechesis and Religious Pedagogy, Editorial Bruño, Lima, Peru 2006
Source: Dictionary of Catechesis and Religious Pedagogy