Blind Mercy is something like a mercy divorced from justice.
One version of it is the downplaying of the very real possibility that one can reject God and go to hell. To downplay this possibility does no service whatsoever to man.
Well, let’s just examine what our life is worth, the why of our life, if all go to heaven anyway. It means that your actions are not really acutalizations of your self. Your free actions are just ‘frames’ of juxtaposition of you-and-this-choice and you-and-the-next-choice. Just frames. As in a classical movie. Picture frames. No relation one to another except succession. So it is just the succession of various juxtapositions. You don’t really engage anything when you act. It is all an ‘act’ in the most superficial sense of acting. You cannot really commit yourself. You cannot really give yourself, relate, choose a friend, etc.
You just kind of go through the motions. And then, at the end of the day, you go to heaven.
Is this how the ‘experts’ like Balthasar propose their theories? Of course not. However, is this the kind of ‘rubber hits the road’ of the theology of universalism? Yes it is.
I recall an undergrad remarking: If we all go to heaven just for having faith, and no sin can damn us, why don’t we commit suicide now, and jump into the vision? After all, life has its burdens.
Her question was right on the money. Rather than producing love of life, true and proportionate love of life — of life as the preparation for the final consummation of heaven — the idea of Blind Mercy produces spite for this world. What a terrible God would drag us through all these years of pain, mixed with joys, and only then give us true happiness. Why not right now? That is the question anyone hearing the drivel of practically universal salvation should raise.