The hope for universal redemption and Catholic theology

 The hope for universal redemption and Catholic theology

In a somewhat surprising move, Hans urs Von Balthasar, in order to show that his 'hopeful' position (i.e. that we can hope that all shall be saved without presuming to know that this is the case) wasn't new among Roman Catholics, quotes this long text from St. Edith Stein that is worth to read in full: 

“We attempted to understand what part freedom plays in the work of redemption. For this it is not adequate if one focuses on freedom alone. One must investigate as well what grace can do and whether even for it there is an absolute limit. This we have already seen: grace must come to man. By its own power, it can, at best, come up to his door but never force its way inside. And further: it can come to him without his seeking it, without his desiring it. The question is whether it can complete its work without his cooperation. It seemed to us that this question had to be answered negatively. That is a weighty thing to say. For it obviously implies that God’s freedom, which we call omnipotence, meets with a limit in human freedom. Grace is the Spirit of God, who descends to the soul of man. It can find no abode there if it is not freely taken in. That is a hard truth. It implies—besides the aforementioned limit to divine omnipotence—the possibility, in principle, of excluding oneself from redemption and the kingdom of grace. It does not imply a limit to divine mercy. For even if we cannot close our minds to the fact that temporal death comes for countless men without their ever having looked eternity in the eye and without salvation’s ever having become a problem for them; that, furthermore, many men occupy themselves with salvation for a lifetime without responding to grace—we still do not know whether the decisive hour might not come for all of these somewhere in the next world, and faith can tell us that this is the case.

All-merciful love can thus descend to everyone. We believe that it does so. And now, can we assume that there are souls that remain perpetually closed to such love? As a possibility in principle, this cannot be rejected. In reality, it can become infinitely improbable—precisely through what preparatory grace is capable of effecting in the soul. It can do no more than knock at the door, and there are souls that already open themselves to it upon hearing this unobtrusive call. Others allow it to go unheeded. Then it can steal its way into souls and begin to spread itself out there more and more. The greater the area becomes that grace thus occupies in an illegitimate way, the more improbable it becomes that the soul will remain closed to it. For now the soul already sees the world in the light of grace. It perceives the holy whenever it encounters this and feels itself attracted by it. Likewise, it notices the unholy and is repulsed by it; and everything else pales before these qualities. To this corresponds a tendency within itself to behave according to its own reason and no longer to that of nature or the evil one. If it follows this inner prompting, then it subjects itself implicitly to the rule of grace. It is possible that it will not do this. Then it has need of an activity of its own that is directed against the influence of grace. And this engaging of freedom implies a tension that increases proportionately the more that preparatory grace has spread itself through the soul. This defensive activity is based—like all free acts—on a foundation that differs in nature from itself, such as natural impulses that are still effective in the soul alongside of grace.

The more that grace wins ground from the things that had filled the soul before it, the more it repels the effects of the acts directed against it. And to this process of displacement there are, in principle, no limits. If all the impulses opposed to the spirit of light have been expelled from the soul, then any free decision against this has become infinitely improbable. Then faith in the unboundedness of divine love and grace also justifies hope for the universality of redemption, although, through the possibility of resistance to grace that remains open in principle, the possibility of eternal damnation also persists. Seen in this way, what were described earlier as limits to divine omnipotence are also canceled out again. They exist only as long as we oppose divine and human freedom to each other and fail to consider the sphere that forms the basis of human freedom. Human freedom can be neither broken nor neutralized by divine freedom, but it may well be, so to speak, outwitted. The descent of grace to the human soul is a free act of divine love. And there are no limits to how far it may extend. Which particular means it chooses for effecting itself, why it strives to win one soul and lets another strive to win it, whether and how and when it is also active in places where our eyes perceive no effects—those are all questions that escape rational penetration. For us, there is only knowledge of the possibilities in principle and, on the basis of those possibilities in principle, an understanding of the facts that are accessible to us.” (Edith Stein, Welt und Person: Beitrag zum christlichen Wahrheitsstreben, ed. by L. Gelber and Romaeus Leuven, O.C.D. (Freiburg, 1962), pp. 158ff. I owe the reference to this passage to Georg Bätzing. Quoted by Hans urs von Balthasar, ‘Dare we Hope that all men to be saved? With a short discourse on hell’, pp. 139-40; A short discourse on hell, chapter 7)

I say 'surprising' because here Edith Stein seems to go beyond what Balthasar himself intended: she writes that the rejection of grace can become 'infinitely improbable' even if 'in principle' possible (on the other hand, it appears that Balthasar was closer to this view espoused by Bishop Barron: https://www.wordonfire.org/hope/ . For Balthasar's view see this: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/06/quotes-from-hans-von-balthasars-dare-we.html ). Also, I read (but can't find the source) that later in life she became less convinced of this 'hope'.  

Notably, also, Stein seems to allow the possibility of repentance after death, something that is denied by the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church even to this day (see paragraphs 1021-1022 of the current Catechism: https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/search/1021-1022). At the same time, it appears that the Cathechism itself accepts the idea that opportunities of salutary repentance can happen even in situations that are inaccessible to us (but, arguably, before the actual moment of death):

"We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/catechism/#!/search/2283) 

We might, however, ask when how and when these opportunities happen. Interestingly, we know by experience that something like Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) happen and thanks to the advancements in medicine we now know that they are somewhat common. Irrespective of how one wants to interpret them, they show that there is conscious experience even when we in the past assumed that there wasn't. So, the very fact that they happen provide evidence that conscious experience is still possible in stages of the dying process we assumed that they were unconscious and, therefore, it might be the case that 'salutary repentance' can happen (cf. see also this blog post by the Catholic theologian Larry Chapp: https://gaudiumetspes22.com/blog/david-bentley-harts-universalism-part-two-some-reflections-on-that-all-shall-be-saved).  

So, even if Edith Stein was wrong in thinking that there might be opportunities in the 'next world', her arguments are still relevant for Catholics, in my opinion. After all, their official doctrine espoused in the Catechism is clear that God's salvific will is universal (source: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/08/catholic-catechism-on-1-tim-24-2-pet-39.html). Notably even St. Thomas Aquinas said that if God truly wants the salvation of a human being, this will happen in his 'De Veritate':

"Although the non-existence of an effect of the divine will could not exist together with the divine will, yet the ability for the effect to fall short does exist together with the divine will; for these things are not incompatible: “God wills this man to be saved,” and “this man can be damned”; but these are incompatible: “God wants this man to be saved,” and “this man is damned.”" (source: https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~QDeVer.Q23.A5.Rep3 ; I found the reference to this quote in this post of Jordan Daniel Wood: https://jordandanielwood.substack.com/p/the-future-of-hell)

So, it appears that if one agrees with this quote by Aquinas about the efficacy of God's salvific will and that its scope is universal, universal salvation follows in a way that might be described as in the long quote of Edith Stein. So, a Catholic that doesn't accept universal salvation but also accepts the official teaching of the Cathechism about the universal scope of God's salvific will is forced to disagree with what Aquinas said above. 

Interestingly, according to Balthasar possible hints of this more hopeful position were to be found in the writings and attestations of female saints and mystics of the Catholic tradition (see e.g. https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/06/quotes-of-mechtilde-of-hackeborn-and.html and https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/06/hans-urs-von-balthasar-on-therese-of.html).