On Pope Benedict XVI (aka “Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger”) and universalism, Bishop Robert Barron has written a fine article. I will include a link below with a relevant quotation preceding the link. (Emphases mine.)
“Martin cites some “remarks” of Pope Benedict XVI that have contributed, in his judgment, to confusion on the point in question. He is referring to observations in sections 45-47 of the Pope’s 2007 encyclical “Spe Salvi,” which can be summarized as follows: There are a relative handful of truly wicked people in whom the love of God and neighbor has been totally extinguished through sin, and there are a relative handful of people whose lives are utterly pure, completely given over to the demands of love. Those latter few will proceed, upon death, directly to heaven, and those former few will, upon death, enter the state that the Church calls Hell. But the Pope concludes that “the great majority of people” who, though sinners, still retain a fundamental ordering to God, can and will be brought to heaven after the necessary purification of Purgatory.”
catholicnewsagency.com/colum … aved-2383/
(accessed 02/20/2017)
Therefore, Pope Benedict XVI was not a hopeful universalist, but rather a hopeful almost-universalist. (The Anglican Bishop N. T. “Tom” Wright has taken a similar stance in the past.)
A word on my own beliefs:
It is my understanding that Roman Catholicism has in fact never authoritatively condemned the convinced universalist position. (That is, I am inclined to agree with Geoffrey’s comments on this thread.) It was popular among several Roman Catholic theologians (von Balthasar, Rahner, de Lubac, Pope John Paul II, etc.) to hope for the salvation of all without asserting it. I suspect that this is because they feared creating divisions within the church. As St. Paul said, “if what I eat causes my brother or sister to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause them to fall.” (1 Corinthians 8:13)
I think that the ecumenical aspect of universalism – the fact that most people simply do not and cannot embrace it – is often ignored. We’re so obsessed with knowledge (which puffs up) that we forget how to love and build up.
I would also like to add that part of the problem with the universalism debates in the Catholic Church (and elsewhere) is the lack of consensus on and understanding of the nature of “free will.” For example, what Aquinas meant by free will was considerably different from what C. S. Lewis meant by free will. It is typical today for theologians today (like Jerry Walls or Roger Olson) to use free will as a defense for eternal hell. The problem with that is that only the “libertarian” concept of free will can really assert this. In my opinion, using libertarian free will as a justification for eternal hell is not intellectually satisfying. (Considering that I share this position with a theologian as imminent as David Bentley Hart, I feel that I am in rather excellent company for maintaining it.)
What is the most likely outcome of a universe loved and sustained by a god revealed perfectly by the man Christ Jesus? Is it not, in the beautiful words of Christoph Blumhardt, “Behold, everything is God’s!” and “Jesus can judge but not condemn”?