Could Limbo Be 'Abolished'?

[popestpiusx]

It seems that a report I read recently in Spanish on the Internet (and commented upon), about a forthcoming Vatican statement on Limbo, was inaccurate. The report said Pope Benedict XVI had already approved a new document 'opening' Heaven to all those who die unbaptized before attaining the use of reason. It now appears that the theologians appointed to look into this matter by the late John Paul II, while certainly favoring the 'abolition' of the limbus puerorum, have not quite finished their work. However, the question is still highly relevant, particularly because Pope Benedict, prior to his election to the See of Peter, had already gone on record as expressing his personal disbelief in Limbo. (The Internet report I read was probably a garbled version of this private — although publicly expressed — opinion of the then Cardinal Ratzinger.) But precisely because the Holy Father is on record as being predisposed to eliminate this point of Catholic tradition — or at the very least, to reduce its credibility among Catholics practically to vanishing point — it would seem that if the only theological input he receives on this issue is one-sidedly in favor of this "final solution" for the "Limbo problem", there is a very real possibility that such a magisterial document may in fact be issued before too long.

Hence, I feel it important to stand by, and indeed, reinforce, the position I expressed earlier, to the effect that this potential new 'development' of doctrine is a matter of serious concern. I argued, first: that it would clearly be impossible for the Pope to make an infallible (ex cathedra) definition contradicting the Church's bimillennial tradition that (at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from a rare 'baptism of blood' — being slain, like the Holy Innocents, out of hatred of Christ) such infants are eternally excluded from the beatific vision; and secondly, that in view of this impossibility of our reaching any certainty of their eternal salvation, any (non-infallible) magisterial document raising further hopes to that effect would be inopportune and irresponsible. For such a document would inevitably accentuate the already-existing tendency for Catholic parents to be lax and negligent about having their children baptized promptly after birth, and would therefore run the risk of being partially, but gravely, responsible for barring Heaven to countless souls, in the event that Limbo does turn out to exist after all. I am firmly persuaded that nothing more should be said about this matter than what is already said in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. While the Catechism says cautiously that Catholics are "allowed" (not obliged) to "hope" that there is a way of salvation for infants who die unbaptized (#1261), it also emphasizes that "the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude" (#1257, my emphasis).

In what follows I shall present a survey of recent and ancient magisterial teaching on this difficult question.

After Pope John Paul II's retraction, in the final and definitive version of Evangelium Vitae #99 (cf. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 87 [1995] p. 515) of the initial version's statement that aborted babies "now live in the Lord" (i.e., are in Heaven), it appears that the only papal statement expressly mentioning the destiny of aborted infants is that of Pope Sixtus V, whose Constitution Effrænatam of 29 October 1588 not only abstains from raising any hopes that they may attain the beatific vision, but positively affirms that they do not attain it!

The main purpose of this document was to reinforce civil and canonical sanctions against those who carry out abortions and sterilizations in the papal states: it goes so far as to prescribe the death penalty for both these offences. The Pope begins by affirming the need for sterner measures to be taken against "the barbarity ... of those who do not shrink from the most cruel slaughter of fetuses still coming to maturity in the shelter of their mothers' wombs" ("... eorum immanitatem ... qui immaturos foetus intra materna viscera adhuc latentes crudelissime necare non verentur" — my English translation.) Pope Sixtus then continues, by way of explanation (my translation and emphasis):

For who would not detest a crime as execrable as this — a crime whose consequence is that not just bodies, but — still worse! — even souls, are, as it were, cast away? The soul of the unborn infant bears the imprint of God's image! It is a soul for whose redemption Christ our Lord shed His precious blood, a soul capable of eternal blessedness and destined for the company of angels! Who, therefore, would not condemn and punish with the utmost severity the desecration committed by one who has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God? Such a one has done all he or she could possibly have done to prevent this soul from reaching the place prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of this His own creature.

Thus, three times in the one paragraph, in different ways, the Pope affirms that aborted babies are excluded from the beatific vision. It is obvious he is taking for granted the broader thesis that those infants in general who die unbaptized suffer the same deprivation. It would also be gratuitous, in view of the force of the Pope's language and his use of the word "eternal", as well as the whole of the previous tradition of the Church, to postulate that perhaps Sixtus V only meant to affirm here that the "exclusion" of such infants from Heaven is at least temporary, i.e., that he wasn't rejecting here the possibility that Limbo is really only a kind of Purgatory for infants. The original text of the above paragraph is as follows: "Quis enim non detestetur, tam execrandum facinus, per quod nedum corporum, sed quod gravius est, etiam animarum certa iactura sequitur? Quis non gravissimis suppliciis damnet illius impietatem, qui animam Dei imagine insignitam, pro qua redimenda Christus Dominus noster preciosum Sanguinem fudit, aeternae capacem Beatitudinis, et ad consortium Angelorum destinatam, a beata Dei visione exclusit, reparationem coelestium sedium quantum in ipso fuit, impedivit, Deo servitium suae creaturae ademit?" (ibid.). The Latin text of this Constitution can be found in P. Gasparri (ed.), Codex Iuris Canonici Fontes, vol. I, p. 308.

These expressions certainly do not constitute an ex cathedra definition, and indeed, the Constitution itself is primarily a legislative act — an exercise of the Pope's governing authority rather than his teaching authority. Nevertheless, in view of the clarity and force of the Pontiff's teaching, in this preamble to the legislative norms which form the main body of the document, it would seem that the doctrinal proposition in question — namely, that the souls of infants who die without baptism are eternally excluded from the beatific vision — should be seen as belonging at least to the authentic teaching of the magisterium.

This conclusion is reinforced when we consider other magisterial teachings on unbaptized infants. As early as 385, Pope St. Siricius, writing to Bishop Himerius, showed that he felt gravely bound in conscience, for the sake of his own salvation, to warn the latter to insist on the baptism of infants as well as adults in his diocese, " ... lest Our own soul be in danger if, as a result being denied the saving font, ... each one of them, on leaving the world, loses both [eternal] life and the kingdom" ("... ne ad nostrarum perniciem tendat animarum, si negato ... fonte salutari exiens unusquisque de saeculo et regnum perdat et vitam" (DS 184, my translation, not found in earlier editions of Denzinger).

Would not any subsequent pope be wise — in the interests of his own salvation! — to follow St. Siricius' vigilant example in this, if there is any doubt whatsoever that unbaptized infants reach Heaven?

The teaching of the Ecumenical Council of Florence (the Bull Cantate Domino of February 4, 1442) is more emphatic. It says (my emphasis):

Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, since no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the devil and adopted among the sons of God, [the sacrosanct Roman Church] advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, ... but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently (...). (Denzinger 712 = DS 1349.)

The Latin original of the words emphasized above is: "... cum ipsis non possit alio remedio subveniri, nisi per sacramentum baptismi, per quod eripiuntur a diaboli dominatu et in Dei filios adoptantur". (I have followed Roy Deferrari's English Denzinger version here except for the first word, cum, which is translated there as "when" instead of "since". "When" is misleading here, because if, as it seems to insinuate, there can be circumstances where some "remedy" other than baptism exists and can be "brought to" infants in original sin, then the document would surely have to tell us what this other mysterious "remedy" is. But neither this nor any other magisterial document in history has ever suggested what other "remedy" could be applied by Christians to such infants.)

Also highly pertinent is the Council of Trent's teaching on justification — infallible at least by virtue of the universal and ordinary magisterium. First, the Council defines "justification" so as deliberately to include the remission of original sin in children (as well as mortal sin in adults): justification is said to be "the transition from that state in which man is born as a son of the first Adam to the state of grace and "adoption as children" of God [Rom. 8: 15]" (translatio ab eo statu, in quo homo nascitur filius primi Adae, in statum gratiae et "adoptionis filiorum" [Rom. 8, 15] Dei). Then, the Fathers of Trent go on immediately to assert categorically that this justification "cannot take place without the washing of regeneration [baptism] or the desire for it" (sine lavacro regenerationis aut eius voto fieri non potest — D 796 = DS 1524, my translation and emphasis). How, then, could unbaptized infants, incapable of any desire for baptism, be justified? Are we to suppose that God miraculously 'fast-forwards' the mental development of these infants (and gravely retarded persons) in the instant before death, following this up with a special illumination so as to render them capable of an at least implicit desire for baptism? But miracles cannot be gratuitously postulated, so we could never be sure, in the absence of any revealed truth in Scripture or Tradition, that this is in fact what God does. And even supposing He does, this miracle would still not guarantee the salvation of such infants. For on reaching the use of reason, they would also attain the use of free will, and hence be capable, under the burden of original sin, of rejecting, as well as accepting, the actual grace offered for their justification. Indeed, even on the still more gratuitous hypothesis that God renders these infants capable of such a choice after death, the same would apply. So, no matter where we look for 'wiggle room', the Council of Trent prevents us from attaining any certainty that infants dying without baptism can be saved.

And it is important to emphasize that reaching Limbo does not mean reaching salvation. In another previous e-mail I mistakenly conceded to a correspondent his view that the word limbus, literally meaning "fringe", "hem", "margin", or "border", was adopted by the Church in order to indicate that Limbo (for unbaptized infants) was at the "border" of Heaven. In fact, as I soon discovered with a little more research, what was meant is that Limbo is at the "border" of Hell! This is evident both from the teaching of two ecumenical councils (Lyons II: D 464 = DS 858; Florence: D 693 = DS 1306); and Pope John XXII's 1321 Epistle to the Armenians (D 493a = DS 926). All these authorities teach that the souls of those who die in original sin only (who could only be infants and the mentally retarded who never reach the use of reason) "go down without delay into Hell" (mox in infernum descend[unt]), where, however, they suffer "different punishments" (poenis disparibus) from those who die in actual mortal sin. In other words, if Hell is defined broadly as eternal exclusion from the beatific vision, Limbo is actually the outer "fringe" or "border" of Hell itself. The seeming implication of these councils and popes is that the only "punishment" of those who die with souls stained by nothing worse than original sin is eternal exclusion from the beatific vision, which is compatible, however, with a natural (as distinct from supernatural) happiness. The "pain of sense" — or at least, a pain severe enough to warrant being described as "the torment of hellfire" — is reserved only for those who die in mortal sin. This is the teaching of Pope Innocent III in an epistle of the year 1201 (see D 410 = DS 780).

That Limbo is not to be understood as a place or state on the "border" of Heaven — or even an "intermediate" place or state in between Heaven and Hell — was confirmed yet again by Pope Pius VI in 1794, in condemning an opinion of the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia. To understand this condemnation, one first needs to realise that well over a thousand years previously, the regional (non-ecumenical) Council of Carthage (418) had condemned with 'anathema' the Pelagian opinion that in John 14: 12 ("In my Father's house are many mansions"), Our Lord is to be understand as teaching that "in the heavenly realms there will be some kind of intermediate condition, or some other place, where the little ones who have departed from this life without baptism will live happily" ("... in regno caelorum erit aliquis medius aut ullus alicubi locus, ubi beati vivant parvuli, qui sine baptismo ex hac vita migrarunt") (DS 224 = D102: 4. This canon is not found in earlier editions of Denzinger, including Roy Deferrari's English version.)

Now, the Pistoia Jansenists — too liberal on some issues and too severely rigorist on other issues, including this one — had denounced the commonly accepted Catholic thesis of Limbo as being nothing more than a "Pelagian fable". They claimed such a place or state would be none other than that which the Council of Carthage had so emphatically taught does not exist. But these Jansenists, in thus rejecting Limbo, were not doing so as liberals claiming that unbaptized babies go to Heaven, but as rigorists following the gloomy Augustinian view that they go to Hell in the full sense, that is, suffering the 'pain of sense' (albeit only very mildly) as well as the 'pain of loss' (exclusion from the beatific vision). Now, Pope Pius VI rejected this Jansenist view of Limbo as a mere "Pelagian fable" branding it as "false, rash, and injurious to Catholic schools". But while thus upholding Limbo, he made it very clear that he was also upholding the Council of Carthage's rejection of any intermediate human destiny between Heaven and Hell. This he did, logically, by following the teaching of the Councils of Lyons II and Florence, that is, including Limbo as being itself a part (the extreme 'outer' part) of Hell. In his own words, Pope Pius condemned

... the [Jansenist] doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable that place of the lower regions ["locum illum infernorum"] (which the faithful generally designate as the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishments of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk. (Deferrari translation, my emphasis.)

It needs to be noted, furthermore, that Pius VI's teaching here does not go so far as to condemn or reject as un-Catholic the Jansenists' view that unbaptized babies in the after-life do in fact suffer (albeit very mildly) the 'pain of sense'. After all, St. Augustine and various other Latin Fathers had held that precisely that, and Pope Pius was not about to condemn all these great and wise saints as unorthodox. What he is rejecting is not their own severe view of the fate of unbaptized infants, only their denunciation of the accepted alternate view — Limbo — as being Pelagian and therefore unorthodox. In effect, this Pontiff was implying that Church allows either hypothesis regarding what actually happens after death to unbaptized infants; but he taught that any Catholic who opts for the severe, Augustinian hypothesis is not entitled to employ, amongst his arguments for that opinion, the false and unjust calumny that Limbo is just a 'Pelagian fable' already condemned by the Council of Carthage.

It should be clear from the above survey of relevant Catholic magisterial statements that those who now talk about Limbo as only ever having been a mere "hypothesis", rather than a doctrine, are giving a very misleading impression of the state of the question. They are implying by this that the pre-Vatican II Church traditionally held, or at least implicitly admitted, that an alternate 'hypothesis' for unbaptized infants was their attainment of eternal salvation — Heaven. Nothing could be further from the truth. Limbo for unbaptized infants was indeed a theological "hypothesis"; but the only approved alternate hypothesis was not Heaven, but very mild hellfire as well as exclusion from the beatific vision! In short, while Limbo as distinct from very mild hellfire was a 'hypothetical' destiny for unbaptized infants, their eternal exclusion from Heaven (with or without any 'pain of sense') — at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from the 'baptism of blood' of infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christ — this was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis. No, it was never dogmatically defined. But the only question is whether the doctrine was infallible by virtue of the universal and ordinary magisterium, or merely "authentic".

Recommended reading: Fr. Le Blanc's articles, "Childrens' Limbo: Theory or Doctrine?", American Ecclesiastical Review, September 1947, and "Salut des enfants morts sans baptéme", Ami du Clergé, January 15, 1948, pp. 33-43. (At that time, the liberal theologians criticized by Fr. Le Blanc were beginning for the first time in Church history to raise the possibility of Heaven for all unbaptized infants — a totally novel hypothesis which was soon censured by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII as unsound and "without foundation".)


***
Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S. is Associate Professor of Theology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico

[Era Might]

Posted in the other thread, figured I'd transfer it:

[quote]but the only approved alternate hypothesis was not Heaven, but very mild hellfire as well as exclusion from the beatific vision! In short, while Limbo as distinct from very mild hellfire was a 'hypothetical' destiny for unbaptized infants, their eternal exclusion from Heaven (with or without any 'pain of sense') — at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from the 'baptism of blood' of infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christ — this was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis. No, it was never dogmatically defined. But the only question is whether the doctrine was infallible by virtue of the universal and ordinary magisterium, or merely "authentic". [/quote]

Pope Pius IX writes in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore:

[quote]Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency [b]do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments[/b]. [/quote]

Babies are "not guilty of deliberate sin", whether they are baptised or unbaptised. Limbo is an eternal punishment. Hence, babies cannot go to limbo, first, because they have no personal guilt, and second, because it doesn't exist. I'll take Ratzinger over Harrison any day (not to say Harrison is not entitled to his opinion vis a vis Limbo, but I trust Ratzinger to know whether or not Limbo was ever Catholic doctrine or not).

[popestpiusx]

Already answered this in the other thread.

[Era Might]

Your post and my response from the other thread:

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 9 2005, 11:19 PM']You define limbo differently than the Church always has.  What distinguishes Limbo from Hell proper is precisely the lack of  punishment.  It is a place of perfect natural happiness.  Ergo, your 'deduction' does not hold.

In theological discussion it is argument (or the facts of the case) that win rather than names.  It is not Ratzinger vs. Harrison.  It is, rather, novelty vs. constant teaching (with a small 't') of the Church.
[right][snapback]819278[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Limbo is a punishment. The traditional distinction was between the punishment of pain (poena sensus) and the punishment of loss (poena damni). The concept of Limbo is a universal punishment for original sin (akin to death).

And names do matter. Joseph Ratzinger is one of the greatest theologians in Catholic history, and also happened to ascend the throne of St. Peter. Brian Harrison is a Priest who chooses to cast his lot with publications like Seattle Catholic. So far as Harrison is advancing an opinion about the existence of Limbo, as a theory, that's fine. I would treat his opinion as validly as I would Ratzinger's. When it comes to the classification of Church doctrine, however, it is quite another matter. Ratzinger was Prefect of the CDF when he expressed the reality that Limbo was never more than a theory, and he is now Pope. His understanding of Catholic doctrine has more weight than Harrison's. There's no reason to believe Ratzinger now believes in Limbo, and you can't be more Catholic than the Pope. Nobody has to believe in Limbo.

Maybe we can keep the discussion in this thread, just to make it easier.

[Aloysius]

both punishment of loss and punishment of pain can be applied either as [i]active punishment[/i], i.e. God punishes by causing the pain through the fires of His wrath or God punishes by causing the loss by taking away something from the damned soul; or as [i]passive punishment[/i], i.e. God punishes by allowing pain to happen to the soul or God punishes by allowing loss to naturally flow from a state of loss.

here's the hierarchy of punishments as I see them:
[b]Active Punishment[/b]
punishment of pain
punishment of loss

[b]Passive Punishemnt[/b]
punishment of pain as a punishment
punishment of loss as a punishment
punishment of pain as a consequence
punishment of loss as a consequence

the only one that limbo is said to have is [u]passive punishment of loss as a consequence[/u], loss of heaven as a result of their fallen nature

some forms of passive punishment cannot be defined as a punishment at all, the last two on my list mainly, at least not in the sense pius ix understood and intended 'punishment' in that quote-- the passive punishment of loss experienced in limbo is one such non-punishment "passive punishment"; it is not a punishment so much as it is a consequence, for it is not a punishment imposed by God it is a natural consequence flowing from a fallen state. "punishment" implies a punisher... and in this "passive punishment" the "punisher" isn't really a punisher, it is the state of fallen nature. it is not a punishment of fallen nature, it is a consequence of fallen nature

Limbo certainly exists, limbo means edge, there is an edge to hell where the least punishment occurs. someone arguing against the existence of limbo as traditionally defined must necessarily understand that they are arguing that the edge of hell, the very minimum eternal punishment that occurs, includes active punishment (because the traditional sense of limbo is a vision of the edge of hell that consists solely of passive punishment). we know that in the age before Christ the edge of hell only consisted of passive punishment.

[blovedwolfofgod]

i thought that when christ went to hell, these were the souls he freed. the souls of the rightoues could not see God, but they did not recieve hell. they were even classified as alive because God was ofted reffered to as teh God of Abraham and Jacob and he isnt a "God of the dead, but of the living."

[Aloysius]

yes, that was the Limbo of the Fathers, the edge of sheol the abode of the dead, the bosom of abraham. they did not receive any active punishment because they were not culpable for any actual sins, they had only original sin and a fallen state that kept them out of heaven. Christ came and preached to these souls, and if they chose to accept their messiah that had finally come they would go to heaven, otherwise they'd descend into a lower level of hell where there would be active punishment for their actual sin of rejecting the Messiah.

the question is do people in a similar situation nowadays go to the same type of state on the edge of hell. it's a similar situation in that, even though Christ has come, they were not given the oppurtunity to be baptized out of their original sin in life but apart from that they have not been deemed culpable for any actual sin and thus are not deserving of any active punishment from God.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 10 2005, 06:39 PM']yes, that was the Limbo of the Fathers, the edge of sheol the abode of the dead, the bosom of abraham.  they did not receive any active punishment because they were not culpable for any actual sins, they had only original sin and a fallen state that kept them out of heaven.  Christ came and preached to these souls, and if they chose to accept their messiah that had finally come they would go to heaven, otherwise they'd descend into a lower level of hell where there would be active punishment for their actual sin of rejecting the Messiah.

the question is do people in a similar situation nowadays go to the same type of state on the edge of hell.  it's a similar situation in that, even though Christ has come, they were not given the oppurtunity to be baptized out of their original sin in life but apart from that they have not been deemed culpable for any actual sin and thus are not deserving of any active punishment from God.
[right][snapback]819934[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I was just reading a book about the necessity of Baptism that supported your position Al on limbo. It said that limbo is where souls may enjoy the natural perfection, but are deprived of the supernatural beatific vision.

Edited December 11, 2005 by Paphnutius

[Aloysius]

of course ever since I had the discussion where Apotheoun was involved, I've been hesitant to use the words "natural hapiness" or "natural perfection"... but anyway that's pretty cool, what's the book?

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Dec 9 2005, 10:28 PM']Your post and my response from the other thread:
Limbo is a punishment. The traditional distinction was between the punishment of pain (poena sensus) and the punishment of loss (poena damni). The concept of Limbo is a universal punishment for original sin (akin to death).

And names do matter. Joseph Ratzinger is one of the greatest theologians in Catholic history, and also happened to ascend the throne of St. Peter. Brian Harrison is a Priest who chooses to cast his lot with publications like Seattle Catholic. So far as Harrison is advancing an opinion about the existence of Limbo, as a theory, that's fine. I would treat his opinion as validly as I would Ratzinger's. When it comes to the classification of Church doctrine, however, it is quite another matter. Ratzinger was Prefect of the CDF when he expressed the reality that Limbo was never more than a theory, and he is now Pope. His understanding of Catholic doctrine has more weight than Harrison's. There's no reason to believe Ratzinger now believes in Limbo, and you can't be more Catholic than the Pope. Nobody has to believe in Limbo.

Maybe we can keep the discussion in this thread, just to make it easier.
[right][snapback]819294[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The problem, Mr. Might, is that you fail to undertand the distinctions between the different senses of the term 'punishment'. This has been hashed out too many times here before. See previous threads.

[cappie]

VATICAN LETTER Dec-2-2005 (840 words) Backgrounder. xxxi

Closing the doors of limbo: Theologians say it was hypothesis

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- An international group of Vatican-appointed theologians is about to recommend that the Catholic Church close the doors of limbo forever.

Many Catholics grew up thinking limbo -- the place where babies who have died without baptism spend eternity in a state of "natural happiness" but not in the presence of God -- was part of Catholic tradition.

Instead, it was a hypothesis -- a theory held out as a possible way to balance the Christian belief in the necessity of baptism with belief in God's mercy.

Like hypotheses in any branch of science, a theological hypothesis can be proven wrong or be set aside when it is clear it does not help explain Catholic faith.

Meeting Nov. 28-Dec. 2 at the Vatican, the International Theological Commission, a group of theologians led by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger until his election as Pope Benedict XVI, completed its work on a statement regarding "the fate of babies who have died without baptism."

A press release said the commission's statement would focus on the question "in the context of God's universal saving plan, the uniqueness of the mediation of Christ and the sacramentality of the church in the order of salvation."

U.S. Archbishop William J. Levada, president of the theological commission in his role as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told Pope Benedict Dec. 1 that he hoped the statement would be published soon.

Archbishop Levada said the question is important because "the number of babies not baptized has increased considerably" and the church knows that salvation "is only reachable in Christ through the Holy Spirit."

But the church, "as mother and teacher," also must reflect on how God saves all those created in his image and likeness, particularly when the individual is especially weak "or not yet in possession of the use of reason and freedom," the archbishop said.

Redemptorist Father Tony Kelly, an Australian member of the commission, told Catholic News Service "the limbo hypothesis was the common teaching of the church until the 1950s. In the past 50 years, it was just quietly dropped.

"We all smiled a bit when we were presented with this question, but then we saw how many important questions it opened," including questions about the power of God's love, the existence of original sin and the need for baptism, he said.

"Pastorally and catechetically, the matter had been solved" with an affirmation that somehow God in his great love and mercy would ensure unbaptized babies enjoyed eternal life with him in heaven, "but we had to backtrack and do the theology," Father Kelly said.

A conviction that babies who died without baptism go to heaven was not something promoted only by people who want to believe that God saves everyone no matter what they do.

Pope John Paul II believed it. And so does Pope Benedict.

In the 1985 book-length interview, "The Ratzinger Report," the future Pope Benedict said, "Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally -- and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as prefect of the congregation -- I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis.

"It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism," he said.

In "God and the World," published in 2000, he said limbo had been used "to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible" to ensure that they had the "sanctifying grace" needed to wash away the effects of original sin.

While limbo was allowed to disappear from the scene, the future pope said, Pope John Paul's teaching in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and the encyclical "The Gospel of Life" took "a decisive turn."

Without theological fanfare, Pope John Paul "expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament," the then-cardinal said.

Father Kelly said turning away from the idea of limbo was part of "the development of the theological virtue of hope" and reflected "a different sense of God, focusing on his infinite love."

The Redemptorist said people should not think the changed focus is a lightweight embrace of warm, fuzzy feelings.

"The suffering, death and resurrection of Christ must call the shots," he said. "If Christ had not risen from the dead, we never would have thought of original sin," because no one would have needed to explain why absolutely every human needed Christ's salvation.

The fact that God loves his creatures so much that he sent his Son to die in order to save them means that there exists an "original grace" just as there exists "original sin," Father Kelly said.

The existence of original grace "does not justify resignation," or thinking that everyone will be saved automatically, he said, "but it does justify hope beyond hope" that those who die without having had the opportunity to be baptized will be saved.

[TheoGrad07]

Couldn't some babies receive baptism of desire by virtue of their parents' intention to baptize them? I know this would help only a small percentage of unbaptized babies, but it's just a thought.

Anyway -- I believe Limbo is simply a theological hypothesis. It hasn't been infallibly defined by the extraordinary papal magisterium, nor do I understand it to have been defined by the extraordinary episcopal magisterium -- and there is certainly enough disagreement on the topic for it to have been taught infallibly by the ordinary universal episcopal magisterium. As a hypothesis, it can be discarded.

I'm not sure I agree with the idea that Limbo is the extreme limit of Hell ... proof both ways, anyone???

[qfnol31]

[quote]Limbo is a punishment. The traditional distinction was between the punishment of pain (poena sensus) and the punishment of loss (poena damni). The concept of Limbo is a universal punishment for original sin (akin to death).[/quote]

You sound like my girlfriend. That means you're too well read in Dante. : And too much Augustine and Anselm mixed in there. You need more Aquinas for balance...he seems to be lacking way too much. :

All ribbing aside, the Church commonly held it as a state of happiness and it is mostly the Augustinian Tradition that held otherwise. These are various quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia on it, but I suggest you read it all here:

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm[/url]

[quote name='Pre-Augustinian']Thus, according to Gregory, for children dying without baptism, and excluded for want of the "seal" from the "honor" or gratuitous favor of seeing God face to face, an intermediate or neutral state is admissible, which, unlike that of the personally wicked, is free from positive punishment.[/quote]

[quote name='Augustine']In his earlier writings St. Augustine himself agrees with the common tradition. Thus in De libero arbitrio III, written several years before the Pelagian controversy, discussing the fate of unbaptized infants after death, he writes: "It is superfluous to inquire about the merits of one who has not any merits. For one need not hesitate to hold that life may be neutral as between good conduct and sin, and that as between reward and punishment there may be a neutral sentence of the judge." But even before the outbreak of the Pelagian controversy St. Augustine had already abandoned the lenient traditional view, and in the course of the controversy he himself condemned, and persuaded the Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of "an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness" (Denzinger 102). This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state (De peccat. meritis I, xxi; Contra Jul. V, 44; etc.). But this Augustinian teaching was an innovation in its day, and the history of subsequent Catholic speculation on this subject is taken up chiefly with the reaction which has ended in a return to the pre-Augustinian tradition.[/quote]

[quote name='Post Augustinian']Pope Innocent's teaching is to the effect that those dying with only original sin on their souls will suffer "no other pain, whether from material fire or from the worm of conscience, except the pain of being deprived forever of the vision of God" (Corp. Juris, Decret. l. III, tit. xlii, c. iii -- Majores).  It should be noted, however, that this poena damni incurred for original sin implied, with Abelard and most of the early Scholastics, a certain degree of spiritual torment, and that St. Thomas was the first great teacher who broke away completely from the Augustinian tradition on this subject, and relying on the principle, derived through the Pseudo-Dionysius from the Greek Fathers, that human nature as such with all its powers and rights was unaffected by the Fall (quod naturalia manent integra), maintained, at least virtually, what the great majority of later Catholic theologians have expressly taught, that the limbus infantium is a place or state of perfect natural happiness
[...]
No reason can be given -- so argued the Angelic Doctor -- for exempting unbaptized children from the material torments of Hell (poena sensus) that does not hold good, even a fortiori, for exempting them also from internal spiritual suffering (poena damni in the subjective sense), since the latter in reality is the more grievous penalty, and is more opposed to the mitissima poena which St. Augustine was willing to admit (De Malo, V, art. iii). Hence he expressly denies that they suffer from any "interior affliction", in other words that they experience any pain of loss (nihil omnino dolebunt de carentia visionis divinae -- "In Sent.", II, 33, q. ii, a.2). At first ("In Sent.", loc. cit.), St. Thomas held this absence of subjective suffering to be compatible with a consciousness of objective loss or privation, the resignation of such souls to the ways of God's providence being so perfect that a knowledge of what they had lost through no fault of their own does not interfere with the full enjoyment of the natural goods they possess
[...]
The teaching of St. Thomas was received in the schools, almost without opposition, down to the Reformation period. The very few theologians who, with Gregory of Rimini, stood out for the severe Augustinian view, were commonly designated by the opprobrious name of tortores infantium. Some writers, like Savonarola (De triumbpho crucis, III, 9) and Catharinus (De statu parvulorum sine bapt. decedentium), added certain details to the current teaching -- for example that the souls of unbaptized children will be united to glorious bodies at the Resurrection, and that the renovated earth of which St. Peter speaks (2 Peter 3:13) will be their happy dwelling place for eternity. At the Reformation, Protestants generally, but more especially the Calvinists, in reviving Augustinian teaching, added to its original harshness, and the Jansenists followed on the same lines. This reacted in two ways on Catholic opinion, first by compelling attention to the true historical situation, which the Scholastics had understood very imperfectly, and second by stimulating an all-round opposition to Augustinian severity regarding the effects of original sin; and the immediate result was to set up two Catholic parties, one of whom either rejected St. Thomas to follow the authority of St. Augustine or vainly try to reconcile the two, while the other remained faithful to the Greek Fathers and St. Thomas. The latter party, after a fairly prolonged struggle, has certainly the balance of success on its side.[/quote]

When all was said and done the popular belief [i]within[/i] the Church is that it was not the first level of Hell or whatever you wish to call it. (Dante's most poetic!).


Now, as for Purgatory itself, the Church has never taken a stance. This is demonstrated quite simply in the fact that there was nothing to agree upon. Quite easily Limbo could be disregarded, though I personally like the idea. And if you read later on, there are some really interesting things that go along with Limbo such as, "for example that the souls of unbaptized children will be united to glorious bodies at the Resurrection, and that the renovated earth of which St. Peter speaks (2 Peter 3:13) will be their happy dwelling place for eternity."

However, this discussion itself shows that there is no concensus on what Limbo is, much less that it exists.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 10 2005, 07:39 PM']yes, that was the Limbo of the Fathers, the edge of sheol the abode of the dead, the bosom of abraham.  they did not receive any active punishment because they were not culpable for any actual sins, they had only original sin and a fallen state that kept them out of heaven.  Christ came and preached to these souls, and if they chose to accept their messiah that had finally come they would go to heaven, otherwise they'd descend into a lower level of hell where there would be active punishment for their actual sin of rejecting the Messiah.

the question is do people in a similar situation nowadays go to the same type of state on the edge of hell.  it's a similar situation in that, even though Christ has come, they were not given the oppurtunity to be baptized out of their original sin in life but apart from that they have not been deemed culpable for any actual sin and thus are not deserving of any active punishment from God.
[right][snapback]819934[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think by definition (since this is Thomas' idea) it cann't be Hell.

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Dec 10 2005, 07:43 PM']I was just reading a book about the necessity of Baptism that supported your position Al on limbo. It said that limbo is where souls may enjoy the natural perfection, but are deprived of the supernatural beatific vision.
[right][snapback]819938[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

See above comment.

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 10 2005, 07:47 PM']of course ever since I had the discussion where Apotheoun was involved, I've been hesitant to use the words "natural hapiness" or "natural perfection"... but anyway that's pretty cool, what's the book?
[right][snapback]819945[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I think it's a Thomistic term.

[TheoGrad07]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 21 2005, 11:57 PM']You sound like my girlfriend.  That means you're too well read in Dante.  :  And too much Augustine and Anselm mixed in there.  You need more Aquinas for balance...he seems to be lacking way too much.  :

All ribbing aside, the Church commonly held it as a state of happiness and it is mostly the Augustinian Tradition that held otherwise.  These are various quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia on it, but I suggest you read it all here:

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm[/url]
When all was said and done the popular belief [i]within[/i] the Church is that it was not the first level of Hell or whatever you wish to call it.  (Dante's most poetic!).
Now, as for Purgatory itself, the Church has never taken a stance.  This is demonstrated quite simply in the fact that there was nothing to agree upon.  Quite easily Limbo could be disregarded, though I personally like the idea.  And if you read later on, there are some really interesting things that go along with Limbo such as, "for example that the souls of unbaptized children will be united to glorious bodies at the Resurrection, and that the renovated earth of which St. Peter speaks (2 Peter 3:13) will be their happy dwelling place for eternity."

However, this discussion itself shows that there is no concensus on what Limbo is, much less that it exists.   
[right][snapback]833429[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Thanks Q Go Thomas! :

From Q's selection, it is clear that, as he said, there is no concensus within the Church about what Limbo is or whether it exists. Thus we are welcome to speculate ... though I cast my vote in with Thomas -- and I like the idea that the children will get glorified bodies and possess the "new earth" for all eternity!