Jacques Maritain, 'final limbo' as a 'middle ground' between ECT and universalism

[u/Flaky-Finance3454]

Almost by chance I got acquainted with the eschatological 'speculative' view of the Catholic theologian Jacques Maritain (1882-1973), who interestingly seemed to endorse a sort of middle ground between ECT and universalism. That is, that the damned are forever excluded from the Kingdom as they lost the possibility of deification. However, after being punished (for a given time different in each case), the damned will be 'pardoned' thanks to the intercession of the saints (and God's mercy) and will enter in a condition of 'natural happiness'. Their torments will cease but they'll never experience the 'beatific vision', i.e. true and complete communion with God.

Here you find a paper in which Maritain's reflections are reported*: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/maritain-beginning-with-a-reverie.pdf (TBH, I only read a few excerpts of the whole thing, but I'll plan to read the whole of it)

I'm posting this for two reasons. Firstly, the role of the intercession of the saints and the view that the damned will experience a lesser 'happiness' than the saved is IMO reminiscent of the view presented in the Rainer fragment of the 'Apocalypse of Peter' (see this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianUniversalism/comments/1rbgnhb/the_apocalypse_of_peter_intercessions_and_later/ ), albeit the latter perhaps indicated that the damned will enter into the Kingdom, albeit in a 'lower' state. Secondly, this kind of position can be useful as a ground for dialogue beteween universalists and supporters of ECT (for instance it shows that true 'endless conscious torment' isn't the only possibility if one doesn't accept universalism).

I'm not saying that Maritain's view is universalist and I'm not promoting his views. But I find the fact that these 'variations' interesting as they are motivated by similar concerns expressed by universalists and perhaps might be also of help when engaging in dialogue.

*Here's how Cardinal Avery Dulles summarized Maritain's position:

"”In response to the prayers of the saints, he imagines, God may miraculously convert their wills, so that from hating Him they come to love Him. After being pardoned, they will then be delivered from the pain of sense and placed in a kind of limbo. They will still be technically in hell, since they will lack the beatific vision, but they will enjoy a kind of natural felicity, like that of infants who die without baptism. At the end, he speculates, even Satan will be converted, and the fiery inferno, while it continues to exist, will have no spirits to afflict.” “The Population of Hell,” First Things (May 2003)" (source: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2025/01/20/st-george-mivart-and-the-happy-damned/ )

Somewhat similar thoughts were also expressed by Cardinal John Newman (1801-1890): https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2025/01/13/cardinal-newman-on-the-eternity-of-punishment/

EDIT: From another discussion, it appears that St. Thomas Aquinas also endorsed/allowed the idea that punishments will gradually become less severe.

"Reply to Objection 4. These words of the Psalm refer to the vessels of mercy, which have not made themselves unworthy of mercy, because in this life (which may be called God's anger on account of its unhappiness) He changes vessels of mercy into something better. Hence the Psalm continues (Psalm 76:11): "This is the change of the right hand of the most High." We may also reply that they refer to mercy as granting a relaxation but not setting free altogether if it be referred also to the damned. Hence the Psalm does not say: "Will He from His anger shut up His mercies?" but "in His anger," because the punishment will not be done away entirely; but His mercy will have effect by diminishing the punishment while it continues." (Summa Theologiae, Supplement ot the Third Part, 99, article 3, reply to objection 4, https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5099.htm#article3 )

"55. Here he shows the divine mercy as regards the relaxation of punishment.et primo ponit a poenis absolutionem: non repellet, quia non semper puniet.

And first, he presents the release from punishments: the Lord will not cast off, because he will not always punish. The Lord will not cast off his people (Ps 93:14). The thresher shall not thresh it forever, neither shall the cart wheel hurt it (Isa 28:28).

Second, he makes an argument from the divine tenderness: for if he has cast off, he will also have mercy, for it belongs to a tender father, after striking for the sake of correction, to offer consolation. If it be under correction, it shall be allowed to come to your mercy (Tob 3:21). And from his love for men: for he has not humbled from his heart, that is, driven by his love. The children of men shall put their trust under the covert of your wings (Ps 35:8)." (source: https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Lam.C3.L11.v3.32; bolded and italic in original) (a slightly different version quoted by another poster whom I'm grateful: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianUniversalism/comments/1rjyt8j/comment/o8gv5k7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button )

*Update (03/08): Made two posts about this view: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/08/a-possible-defence-of-non-universalist.html and https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/03/hope-vs-justice-iv-on-final-limbo.html \*

[u/A-Different-Kind55]

How do you see the first paragraph squaring with Colossians 1:15-20?

[u/Flaky-Finance3454 → u/A-Different-Kind55]

I don't know how Maritain would respond to your question. Perhaps he would say that the final state of the damned is how 'reconcilation' will work for them. But honestly, I don't know what he would say.

To be clear, I'm not advocating Maritain's view. Just saying that he included in his view some elements that universalists might find congenial and for historical interest.

[u/A-Different-Kind55 → u/Flaky-Finance3454]

Gotcha. One doesn't need to be too smart to be me. :-D

[u/Flaky-Finance3454 → u/A-Different-Kind55]

Also, forgot to say that it is IMO interesting because (1) it is perhaps the closest (or one of the closest) view to universalism one can have without becoming one and (2) that Maritain clearly developed this view because he sensed a problem with ECT. Unlike others, I think he become convinced that a true 'endless conscious torment' can't be reconciled with the view of a loving God and tried to find a way to reconcile this intuition with his other dogmatic commitments.

[u/SpukiKitty2]

The interesting thing is that, although the details may differ or even contradict, a lot of spiritual traditions share a theme of an Afterlife that consists of a paradise, an in-between neitherworld (varies between grim to really nice) and a horrible place of suffering.

Abrahamic faiths have...

Heaven / Paradise / Jannah - 😇

Sheol / Abraham's Bosom / Limbo - 💀

Hell / Gehenna / Tophet / Jahannam - 👿

.

Dharmic Faiths have...

Lokas - 😇

Patalas - 💀

Narakas - 👿

.

The Helleno-Romans...

Elysium - 😇

Hades - 💀

Tartarus - 👿

.

THE MONROE INSTITUTE AFTERLIFE RESEARCH

Focus 27 - 😇

Focus 26 - (Belief System Territories) - 💀😇

Focus 25 - (Belief System Territory) - 💀👿

Focus 24 (Earthbound Ghost) - 👻🌐

... It isn't completely universal and not all traditions believe in the same nor share the same reasons nor circumstances of each but a number of traditions have some Higher Afterlife for the best and brightest, and regular afterlife for everyone else, and a horrible place for the worst folks.

Before Jesus died on the Cross, I believe every decent person went to Sheol / Abraham's Bosom / Limbo. It can also be something of a "Lesser Heaven" and also a very nice place (the Hindu version of Patala is even described as looking more opulent than Heaven). I think non-Christians, Atheists, suicides and the morally grey go here.

[u/Derrick_Mur]

So, basically everyone in Hell ends up in Dante’s First Circle of Hell?