"Lest the import of what I have argued be misunderstood, I want to make it clear that, for all I have argued, there may be some other reasons of a philosophical nature for concluding that naïve universalism is false or otherwise defective. Much more importantly, however, nothing I’ve said rules out the view that the plain sense of Holy Scripture and the teaching of the Church precludes naive universalism. In short, nothing I’ve said is even remotely relevant to the view that I hold, namely that God has pretty much informed us that universalism, in both its naïve and sophisticated forms, is false."

--- IN DEFENSE OF NAÏVE UNIVERSALISM, Daniel Howard-Snyder


I think this is the first paper I've read which concludes: "I don't believe in what I've spent the last few pages arguing".