43. The Particular Judgment
The eternal fate of each person is determined immediately after death. This is a truth of faith, and has been repeatedly taught by the Magisterium of the Church.1
7. Existence of the Particular Judgment
The New Testament speaks of the judgment mainly from the perspective of a final meeting with Christ in his second coming. But we also find in many places of the Sacred Scripture references to the retribution immediately after each one’s death as a consequence of one’s faith and deeds. Thus, we find the parable of the rich man and the poor Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:22ff), and the promise made by Christ to the good thief from the cross (cf. Lk 23:43) that he will immediately be with him in paradise. Other texts of the New Testament describe the last destiny of the soul (cf. Mt 16:26; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil 1:23; Heb 9:27; 12:23), which may be different for one or the other.
Thus, we know with the certainty of faith that each man, after dying, receives—in his immortal soul—his eternal retribution in a particular judgment. He immediately refers his life to Christ, going either through a period of purification,2 or directly to his definitive state in heaven,3 or to eternal condemnation.4
This passage to the definitive state would not be possible without a previous judgment, where each person’s fate is clearly and summarily decided before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body. The epistle to the Hebrews says that it is appointed for men to die once and after that, the judgment comes (cf. Heb 9:27). The existence of the particular judgment is a truth of faith, because it is directly related to the explicit affirmations of the Magisterium of the Church about immediate retribution after death for good or bad deeds. Theologians, or at least a great majority of them, hold it as an implicitly defined truth of divine faith.
Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council says:
We make it our aim, then, to please the Lord in all things (cf. 2 Cor 5:9) and we put on the armor of God that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil and resist in the evil day (cf. Eph 6:11–13). Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed (cf. Heb 9:27), we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed (cf. Mt 25:31–46) and not, like the wicked and slothful servants (cf. Mt 25:26), be ordered to depart into the eternal fire (cf. Mt 25:41), into the outer darkness where “men will weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 22:13; 25:30).5
Being considered worthy to enter the wedding feast, or being counted among the elect—as well as being ordered out to eternal fire and exterior darkness—implies a reckoning or rating: a judgment. This sentence has to be passed before the definitive Kingdom of God, which will come only after the final judgment. The same document suggests this immediately afterwards:
Before we reign with Christ in glory we must all appear “before the judgment of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” (2 Cor 5:10), and at the end of the world “they will come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (Jn 5:29; cf. Mt 25:46).6
This document also describes the relation between the celestial Church and the pilgrim Church until the second coming of our Lord: “Some of his disciples are pilgrims on earth. Others have died and are being purified, while still others are in glory.”7 These three situations coexist now: those living now in this mortal life, the deceased who still undergo a process of purification, and those who already enjoy heavenly glory. The last two current states necessarily imply having already appeared before Christ’s tribunal. Those who are still on earth have not yet crossed the threshold of death, while those condemned are not mentioned because they are outside the communion of the Church.
This truth is also found in the teachings of the apostolic Fathers like St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna. The writings of later Fathers are more concerned with the controversy brought up by the Millenarians and the Gnostics, which is beyond the scope of our subject matter. But from the fourth century on, the Fathers clearly attest to the existence of the particular judgment.8
The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that the particular judgment takes place when each of us departs this life, for then, one is instantly placed before the judgment seat of God, where all that one has ever done, spoken, or thought during life shall be subjected to the most strict scrutiny.9
St. Thomas explains many times the fittingness and existence of the particular judgment. He says that each man is both an individual person and a member of the human race. Thus, he has to submit to a double judgment: a private and particular judgment as an individual, and a general and universal one as a member of the human race.10 Besides, since man cannot earn merit after death, there is no reason for him to be judged and rewarded only at the end of the world. And since he is immediately requited, there must be a particular judgment.11 Moreover, the soul, if not immediately judged, would be uncertain of its fate until the day of the final judgment. That delay would be a reward for the damned and a punishment for the blessed.12 Regarding the universal judgment, St. Thomas affirms that “there is still another judgment of God in which every one will receive after death the deserved requital … since it is not likely that such separation [between the blessed and the damned] would happen without a divine judgment or that this judgment would not be within the sovereignty of Christ.”13
8. The Nature of the Particular Judgment
Basically, the particular judgment consists in the communication of the divine sentence to the separated soul. Due to its spiritual nature, the soul understands it through a most simple and instantaneous act of the intellect.
The particular judgment cannot be conceived of as a litigation about one’s good or evil acts, or about the standing of the separated soul with regard to its faults and responsibilities.
It is also wrong to picture the particular judgment as some kind of self-trial: an intellectual operation by which the soul itself acknowledges its faults, and accepts the corresponding sanctions. We should not forget that pride resides in the soul, making it difficult for the separated soul to accept its own faults.
The particular judgment is rather an act by which God makes the soul see with all clarity. God communicates this act to the soul, which cannot dispute it. By this act, the soul gets to understand in some way its state of either union with God or hideous sin, the mysterium iniquitatis. It is a light that comes from God and will lead either to the soul’s union with God—immediately or through purgatory—or to its definitive damnation.
The passage of 2 Corinthians 5:10 clearly shows that the sentence will come from outside and will be received by the person. Therefore, it will be a verdict issued by God, not the result of a court litigation, and even less of a self-trial.
St. Thomas asserts that “judiciary power is common to the entire Trinity; still by special appropriation such power is attributed to the Son.”14 He adds that “judgments of this kind were exercised by Christ before his Incarnation, inasmuch as he is the Word of God; and the soul united with him personally became a partaker of his power by the Incarnation.”15 This enables us to understand when Sacred Scripture says that the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son (cf. Jn 15:22, 27), a power which Christ has inasmuch as he is the Son of Man. Thus, the sentence is immediately and directly communicated to the soul by divine power, but this does not necessarily imply the vision of God.
9. Immediate Execution of the Sentence
Pope Benedict XII’s constitution Benedictus Deus repeatedly affirms and defines that the punishments of the damned, the reward of the blessed, and the time of purgation of those who die without mortal sin but with light faults take place “soon [mox] after death.”16
The Second Council of Lyons (1274) had earlier defined that the souls of the just immediately enter heaven.17 The then Pope John XXII, before being elected, had been involved in a controversy about the beatific vision. Later on, as pope, he did not take part in it anymore. In 1336, Benedict XII definitively resolved the question with Benedictus Deus. There, the new pope clarified once and for all that the execution of the sentence is immediate.
St. Thomas gives several arguments in support of the Catholic faith. Since the separated soul can receive both punishment and reward, there is no reason to defer either of them.18 Moreover, merit and punishment redound to the body only through the soul, since only voluntary actions gain merit. Thus, there is no need to wait for the resurrection of the body before executing the sentence. It even seems more fitting that the souls be rewarded or punished before the bodies.19 The reunion of the body and the soul in the resurrection does not add anything to essential bliss—which consists in the beatific vision—since the beatific vision corresponds to the soul. The same can be said of essential punishment. Hence, the body is not necessary in either case, except for accidental integrity. Thus, unless the soul goes to purgatory first, reward or punishment are received right after death.20
Footnotes:
1. Cf. DS 839, 856–858, 1000; CCC, 1021–1022.
2. Cf. DS 857–858, 1304–1306, 1820.
3. Cf. DS 990, 1000–1001.
4. Cf. DS 1002; CCC, 1022.
5. LG, 48.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., 49.
8. Cf. St. Hilary of Poitiers, In Ps. 2. 49 (Migne, PL 9. 290); St. Efraim of Syria, Sermo In Eos, Qui In Christo Dormierunt, 3. 266ff; St. John Chrysostom, In Matth. Hom. 14.4, (PG 57. 222); St. Jerome, In Joel, 2.1 (PL 25. 965); St. Augustine, De Anima et Eius Origine, 2.4.8 (PL 44. 498ff).
9. Cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1.8.3.
10. Cf. ST, Suppl. q. 88, a. 1 ad 1; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 4.96.
11. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 4.91.
12. Cf. ST, III, q. 59, a. 5; Suppl. q. 69, a. 2.
13. St. Thomas Aquinas, Compendium Theologiae, 242.
14. ST, III, q. 59, a. 1 ad 1.
15. Ibid., III, q. 59, a. 4 ad 3.
16. DS 1000–1002.
17. Cf. DS 856.
18. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 4.91.
19. Cf. Ibid.
20. Cf. ST, I-II, q. 4, a. 5; Suppl. q. 69, a. 2.
7. Existence of the Particular Judgment
The New Testament speaks of the judgment mainly from the perspective of a final meeting with Christ in his second coming. But we also find in many places of the Sacred Scripture references to the retribution immediately after each one’s death as a consequence of one’s faith and deeds. Thus, we find the parable of the rich man and the poor Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:22ff), and the promise made by Christ to the good thief from the cross (cf. Lk 23:43) that he will immediately be with him in paradise. Other texts of the New Testament describe the last destiny of the soul (cf. Mt 16:26; 2 Cor 5:8; Phil 1:23; Heb 9:27; 12:23), which may be different for one or the other.
Thus, we know with the certainty of faith that each man, after dying, receives—in his immortal soul—his eternal retribution in a particular judgment. He immediately refers his life to Christ, going either through a period of purification,2 or directly to his definitive state in heaven,3 or to eternal condemnation.4
This passage to the definitive state would not be possible without a previous judgment, where each person’s fate is clearly and summarily decided before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body. The epistle to the Hebrews says that it is appointed for men to die once and after that, the judgment comes (cf. Heb 9:27). The existence of the particular judgment is a truth of faith, because it is directly related to the explicit affirmations of the Magisterium of the Church about immediate retribution after death for good or bad deeds. Theologians, or at least a great majority of them, hold it as an implicitly defined truth of divine faith.
Lumen Gentium of the Second Vatican Council says:
We make it our aim, then, to please the Lord in all things (cf. 2 Cor 5:9) and we put on the armor of God that we may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil and resist in the evil day (cf. Eph 6:11–13). Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed (cf. Heb 9:27), we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed (cf. Mt 25:31–46) and not, like the wicked and slothful servants (cf. Mt 25:26), be ordered to depart into the eternal fire (cf. Mt 25:41), into the outer darkness where “men will weep and gnash their teeth” (Mt 22:13; 25:30).5
Being considered worthy to enter the wedding feast, or being counted among the elect—as well as being ordered out to eternal fire and exterior darkness—implies a reckoning or rating: a judgment. This sentence has to be passed before the definitive Kingdom of God, which will come only after the final judgment. The same document suggests this immediately afterwards:
Before we reign with Christ in glory we must all appear “before the judgment of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” (2 Cor 5:10), and at the end of the world “they will come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (Jn 5:29; cf. Mt 25:46).6
This document also describes the relation between the celestial Church and the pilgrim Church until the second coming of our Lord: “Some of his disciples are pilgrims on earth. Others have died and are being purified, while still others are in glory.”7 These three situations coexist now: those living now in this mortal life, the deceased who still undergo a process of purification, and those who already enjoy heavenly glory. The last two current states necessarily imply having already appeared before Christ’s tribunal. Those who are still on earth have not yet crossed the threshold of death, while those condemned are not mentioned because they are outside the communion of the Church.
This truth is also found in the teachings of the apostolic Fathers like St. Clement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, and St. Polycarp of Smyrna. The writings of later Fathers are more concerned with the controversy brought up by the Millenarians and the Gnostics, which is beyond the scope of our subject matter. But from the fourth century on, the Fathers clearly attest to the existence of the particular judgment.8
The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that the particular judgment takes place when each of us departs this life, for then, one is instantly placed before the judgment seat of God, where all that one has ever done, spoken, or thought during life shall be subjected to the most strict scrutiny.9
St. Thomas explains many times the fittingness and existence of the particular judgment. He says that each man is both an individual person and a member of the human race. Thus, he has to submit to a double judgment: a private and particular judgment as an individual, and a general and universal one as a member of the human race.10 Besides, since man cannot earn merit after death, there is no reason for him to be judged and rewarded only at the end of the world. And since he is immediately requited, there must be a particular judgment.11 Moreover, the soul, if not immediately judged, would be uncertain of its fate until the day of the final judgment. That delay would be a reward for the damned and a punishment for the blessed.12 Regarding the universal judgment, St. Thomas affirms that “there is still another judgment of God in which every one will receive after death the deserved requital … since it is not likely that such separation [between the blessed and the damned] would happen without a divine judgment or that this judgment would not be within the sovereignty of Christ.”13
8. The Nature of the Particular Judgment
Basically, the particular judgment consists in the communication of the divine sentence to the separated soul. Due to its spiritual nature, the soul understands it through a most simple and instantaneous act of the intellect.
The particular judgment cannot be conceived of as a litigation about one’s good or evil acts, or about the standing of the separated soul with regard to its faults and responsibilities.
It is also wrong to picture the particular judgment as some kind of self-trial: an intellectual operation by which the soul itself acknowledges its faults, and accepts the corresponding sanctions. We should not forget that pride resides in the soul, making it difficult for the separated soul to accept its own faults.
The particular judgment is rather an act by which God makes the soul see with all clarity. God communicates this act to the soul, which cannot dispute it. By this act, the soul gets to understand in some way its state of either union with God or hideous sin, the mysterium iniquitatis. It is a light that comes from God and will lead either to the soul’s union with God—immediately or through purgatory—or to its definitive damnation.
The passage of 2 Corinthians 5:10 clearly shows that the sentence will come from outside and will be received by the person. Therefore, it will be a verdict issued by God, not the result of a court litigation, and even less of a self-trial.
St. Thomas asserts that “judiciary power is common to the entire Trinity; still by special appropriation such power is attributed to the Son.”14 He adds that “judgments of this kind were exercised by Christ before his Incarnation, inasmuch as he is the Word of God; and the soul united with him personally became a partaker of his power by the Incarnation.”15 This enables us to understand when Sacred Scripture says that the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son (cf. Jn 15:22, 27), a power which Christ has inasmuch as he is the Son of Man. Thus, the sentence is immediately and directly communicated to the soul by divine power, but this does not necessarily imply the vision of God.
9. Immediate Execution of the Sentence
Pope Benedict XII’s constitution Benedictus Deus repeatedly affirms and defines that the punishments of the damned, the reward of the blessed, and the time of purgation of those who die without mortal sin but with light faults take place “soon [mox] after death.”16
The Second Council of Lyons (1274) had earlier defined that the souls of the just immediately enter heaven.17 The then Pope John XXII, before being elected, had been involved in a controversy about the beatific vision. Later on, as pope, he did not take part in it anymore. In 1336, Benedict XII definitively resolved the question with Benedictus Deus. There, the new pope clarified once and for all that the execution of the sentence is immediate.
St. Thomas gives several arguments in support of the Catholic faith. Since the separated soul can receive both punishment and reward, there is no reason to defer either of them.18 Moreover, merit and punishment redound to the body only through the soul, since only voluntary actions gain merit. Thus, there is no need to wait for the resurrection of the body before executing the sentence. It even seems more fitting that the souls be rewarded or punished before the bodies.19 The reunion of the body and the soul in the resurrection does not add anything to essential bliss—which consists in the beatific vision—since the beatific vision corresponds to the soul. The same can be said of essential punishment. Hence, the body is not necessary in either case, except for accidental integrity. Thus, unless the soul goes to purgatory first, reward or punishment are received right after death.20
Footnotes:
1. Cf. DS 839, 856–858, 1000; CCC, 1021–1022.
2. Cf. DS 857–858, 1304–1306, 1820.
3. Cf. DS 990, 1000–1001.
4. Cf. DS 1002; CCC, 1022.
5. LG, 48.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., 49.
8. Cf. St. Hilary of Poitiers, In Ps. 2. 49 (Migne, PL 9. 290); St. Efraim of Syria, Sermo In Eos, Qui In Christo Dormierunt, 3. 266ff; St. John Chrysostom, In Matth. Hom. 14.4, (PG 57. 222); St. Jerome, In Joel, 2.1 (PL 25. 965); St. Augustine, De Anima et Eius Origine, 2.4.8 (PL 44. 498ff).
9. Cf. Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1.8.3.
10. Cf. ST, Suppl. q. 88, a. 1 ad 1; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 4.96.
11. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 4.91.
12. Cf. ST, III, q. 59, a. 5; Suppl. q. 69, a. 2.
13. St. Thomas Aquinas, Compendium Theologiae, 242.
14. ST, III, q. 59, a. 1 ad 1.
15. Ibid., III, q. 59, a. 4 ad 3.
16. DS 1000–1002.
17. Cf. DS 856.
18. Cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles, 4.91.
19. Cf. Ibid.
20. Cf. ST, I-II, q. 4, a. 5; Suppl. q. 69, a. 2.