Among the many ironies punctuating Catholic history, one of the more curious is the spectacle of theologians, dedicated to expounding doctrine on the God who “is love” (1 John 4:8), insisting that infants who die unbaptized will never see God. But, in a letter published in the print edition of the May 2010 First Things, that’s what the Rev. Brian W. Harrison does, by way of criticizing a remark Joseph Bottum made in “The Public Square” in the February 2010 issue. For the sake of Catholics and non-Catholics who might be confused about the topic of limbo, Fr. Harrison’s argument merits a reply.
Bottum wrote that Pope Benedict XVI “explained why limbo is unnecessary . . . for Catholics to believe in.” That’s because, in 2005, the pope endorsed the report of the International Theological Commission on the topic, which concluded:
What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.
According to a member of the commission, Sister Sara Butler, S.T.D., the main purpose of the study was to explain and defend the following statement in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. (§1261, 1997 English edition)
Fr. Harrison disapproves of such fast-and-loose playing. He writes:
. . . it seems questionable whether even the Catechism of the Catholic Church has the authority officially to change Catholic teaching on those rare occasions when it enunciates some doctrinal novelty. For a catechism is intended to be a pastoral, educationally oriented compendium of already existing and settled doctrine. Its authority depends on that of previous teachings of the ordinary and extraordinary magisterium.
Harrison point outs, correctly, that there is no previous magisterial statement to the same effect as CCC §1261. He notes that the only previous “universal” Catholic catechism, that of the Council of Trent, “affirmed categorically” that “no means for attaining salvation remains for infant children other than baptism.” In support of the Tridentine teaching, Harrison cites one older magisterial statement (a letter of Pope Innocent I in 417), and three subsequent statements of magisterial import. The weightiest is from the Provincial Council of Cologne (1860), not because it was a local council, but because its acts were confirmed by the Holy See and contain the statement “faith teaches [fides docet]” that infants who die without baptism, “since they are not capable of this desire [for baptism], are excluded from the heavenly kingdom.” Fr. Harrison concludes:
While the natural happiness of limbo was and is only a hypothesis, that is the case only because the Church never condemned St. Augustine’s alternative hypothesis (revived by some Catholic theologians as recently as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries) that unbaptized infants suffer, albeit very mildly, in hell. Both permissible hypotheses excluded them eternally from heaven. The Church traditionally taught that exclusion as doctrine, not mere opinion.
So the Catechism, the International Theological Commission, and the pope himself are wrong. They have treated as an optional—nay, dispensable—opinion what is, in fact, doctrine. Or have they?
In an access of charity, Fr. Harrison exonerates the pope:
Is Benedict XVI aware of the above documents from Catholic tradition ruling out that “hope” which the new Catechism permits? If he has trusted and depended on theological advice like that given him by the International Theological Commission, probably not. For, astonishingly, not of the five statements mentioned. . . . is referred to in the ITC’s thirty-eight-page study.
So the pope escapes a charge of—what? heresy?—only by having been ignorant and naive. Perhaps somebody besides Fr. Harrison is relieved.
Of course, back in 1985, when he was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Joseph Ratzinger rejected limbo without any apparent pang of conscience. In The Ratzinger Report, he is quoted as saying:
Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally—and 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. . . . One should not hesitate to give up the idea of limbo if need be, and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed “limbo” also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer; but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be.
That does not sound like a man who forgets to do his homework.
Now, technically, Fr. Harrison and Cardinal Ratzinger are agreed on one point: limbo was and remains just a hypothesis. The difference is that, according to Fr. Harrison, the only doctrinally permissible alternative for infants who die unbaptized is a mild form of hell, whereas for Cardinal Ratzinger, heaven is also a possibility. For if parents can “spare” children limbo by desire and prayer, what would they be sparing them for? Cardinal Ratzinger’s view became common among Catholics after Vatican II, and it was at least acceptable among theologians even during Vatican II. The reasons for that needn’t detain us; the immediate issue is whether the reversal of thought on this subject is a reversal of doctrine, and for that reason erroneous.
The “common doctrine”—to use a technical classification—certainly was that infants who died unbaptized can never see God. Call that doctrine “NSG” for short. But, among Catholics, the question about such doctrines is always whether they have been infallibly taught. Fr. Harrison is careful not to say that NSG has been so taught. He knows it was never formally defined as a dogma by the “extraordinary magisterium” of councils or popes; all such dogmas, on a Catholic account, are infallibly defined. So, if there’s a case that NSG was infallibly taught, the argument must be that it was infallibly taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the bishops. And, to make such an argument, the criteria for affirming that form of infallibility must be clearly enunciated. Fr. Harrison doesn’t do that—even though such criteria exist.
In Lumen Gentium §25, the Second Vatican Council asserted: “Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.” We know of at least one doctrine that Cardinal Ratzinger himself, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said meets that criterion: the doctrine that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women.” He argued that the doctrine has been infallibly set forth, according to the criterion stated by Vatican II, because it is “founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church.” Can that be said of NSG? Not really—which is probably why Fr. Harrison doesn’t say it. So, we may safely infer that the pope believes NSG may be dropped because God never preserved it from error to begin with.
It’s fair to ask: What’s the problem? The problem cannot be that the Church is in the process of abandoning a doctrine that hardly anybody ever liked anyway. The problem, for the Fr. Harrisons of the world, is simply that the Church is abandoning a doctrine. Catholics who call themselves “traditional” Catholics generally have a problem with Vatican II for doing precisely that on such issues as religious liberty and ecumenism. Their preferred stance for the Church is Semper idem, to use the slogan of one of their heroes, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani. And now, faced with the pope’s attitude about limbo, some of them have another such grievance. That the content of the particular doctrine being abandoned is irrelevant to them is a sure sign of how seriously the grievance should be taken.
May 3rd, 2010 | 2:31 pm
Some random thoughts from a layperson:
I suppose doctrinal curmudgeons such as Fr. Harrison may serve as a check of sorts against potential acts of doctrinal sloppiness by the magisterium (sp.?) in those instances where pastoral considerations may outweigh sound theology. (Yes, that is an awkward, run-on sentence replete with qualifiers – may my high school English teacher forgive me.)
But, I cannot help but think of the expression “more Catholic than the Pope.”
I seem to recall that Dante places limbo at what could be considered Hell’s antechamber. Apart from the separation from God, he doesn’t make it sound too bad.
Is it wrong, I wonder, to associate limbo with cheerful Caribbean music, colorful mixed drinks and people trying to walk bent backward under increasingly lower bamboo poles? Is this a doctrinally sound vision?
May 3rd, 2010 | 3:35 pm
The theologians who proposed limbo, of whom Aquinas is the first major representative, held that it would be a place of maximal “natural” happiness. If an island paradise is your vision of that, I suppose there’s nothing wrong with it. I just don’t think there ever has been or will be a place of maximal natural happiness, because there never has been or will be a state of “pure nature.” All persons will, in the end, be either fully united with or fully alienated from God.
May 3rd, 2010 | 3:40 pm
Really, limbo being scuttled is hardly less eyebrow-raising than the line in his enyclical on hope, where the Pope suggests we can hope almost everyone will be saved. Such ideas are so fundamentally contrary to earlier *emphases* they can’t help but not be troubling. Really, if centuries of teaching on such topics was so flawed, how on earth can we begin to be dogmatic on women priests, gay marriage? That is the minor issue that hounds all such questions. How do we know what we know, and how honest is it to change it while not bending elsewhere?
May 3rd, 2010 | 3:45 pm
Suggesting that “we can hope almost everyone will be saved” is not the same as suggesting that we may reasonably expect that. It suggests only that such a hope is consistent with orthodoxy. Logically, there’s nothing untoward about that. It seems to me, rather, that refusing to “hope” for that, as distinct from expecting or predicting it, is a failure of love.
May 3rd, 2010 | 5:40 pm
The Seventh Session of the Council of Trent, On Baptism:
“CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.”
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.htm
The Ecumenical Council of Florence, Session 6, July 6, 1439:
“But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm
Now the relevant passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism. (§1261, 1997 English edition)”
Question 1: Is baptism necessary for salvation?
Question 2: Do unbaptized infants die in original sin?
May 3rd, 2010 | 5:51 pm
I agree with Michael Liccione and I think God does as well: “First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity. This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim 2:1-4). If God desires everyone to be saved, then it behooves me to hope for it.
May 3rd, 2010 | 7:04 pm
I am pleased, Michael, that you are commenting on Fr Harrison’s letter to the editor on limbo. When I read that letter when my issue of FT arrived, I remember being struck by this statement:
“As early as 417 Pope St. Innocent I rejected as ‘utterly foolish’ (perfatuum) the idea that unbaptized infants may be saved, and their exclusion from heaven remained the firm doctrine of the ordinary magisterium in both East and West until at least the pontificate of Pius XII, who confirmed the catechism of Trent’s teaching in a 1951 allocution.”
What struck me was his confidence that the exclusion of unbaptized infants from Heaven was (is?) the firm conviction of Eastern Christianity. What is the evidence for this claim? Certainly contemporary Orthodox theologians do not believe this to be the case. Have they been seduced by the modern spirit, too?
May 3rd, 2010 | 10:04 pm
Aegis:
As to your first question, the answer depends on what is to be counted as baptism. For those in a position to recognize the truth of the Christian faith and undergo ordinary water baptism, ordinary water baptism is necessary for salvation. But the Church has always recognized that some who are not in a position to be baptized in the ordinary fashion can still undergo a kind of baptism, e.g., the “baptism by blood” of the Holy Innocents and others who were martyred for the truth, and the “baptism of desire” on the part of catechumens who, through no fault of their own, died before baptism. Those cases are a kind of participation in baptism that God, who is not bound by the forms of the sacraments, permits in his mercy. Thus the question arises whether it is possible for still other classes of people who die without ordinary baptism to be incorporated into Christ by a kind of baptism.
Vatican II implies that the answer is yes (cf. Lumen Gentium §15-16). There is no logical conflict between Vatican II and the earlier councils you cite. Assuming that those who die “in original sin alone” go ad infernum, it does not follow that such a destination is permanent. If it were, then Jesus could not have liberated the “just” of the Old Testament by his “descent into hell,” as the early Church confessed. Hence, it need not be thought permanent for infants–who, unlike the OT just, died before becoming able to commit actual sins.
May 3rd, 2010 | 10:05 pm
Thank you, Fr. Kimel. I think some people could benefit from your blog discussion of limbo: http://pontifications.wordpress.com/limbo/. I know I did.
May 4th, 2010 | 8:59 am
The question of limbo aside, is the author suggesting that VII was a doctrinal council? That VII actually change doctrine?
I have understood that then Cardinal Ratzinger and now as Pope Benedict XVII, had rejected that idea. The teachings on salvation outside the church and ecumenism and religious liberty have not changed, not unless you take a selective reading of the council docuements that is.
May 4th, 2010 | 9:48 am
Mr. Liccione,
I regret not being more specific about my first question. Certainly, if the passage from the Catechism (paragraph 1261) is referring only to children who have not received baptism by water, then I have no objection, so long as the necessity of baptism of some kind is being upheld. Granted, it is not explicit about what kinds of baptism it is referring to when it talks about children who have not received the sacrament, but I am willing to give the Catechism the benefit of a doubt.
To reformulate my question: is baptism, in any of its forms, necessary for salvation?
As for your answer to my second question, I must admit being puzzled.
Paragraph 1035 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”
And again in paragraph 1057: “Hell’s principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”
Now, I readily grant that paragraph 1056 speaks only to those who die in mortal sin. But paragraph 1057 speaks only about what the principal punishment of hell is, namely eternal separation from God.
Considering the Council of Florence’s teaching that those who die in original sin alone go to hell, and given the Catechism’s teaching that hell consists principally in eternal separation from God, I must conclude that infants who die without baptism of any kind (whether it be of water, or blood, or desire), are eternally separated from God.
May 4th, 2010 | 9:50 am
Ann,
The word ‘change’ here is ambiguous. It could mean ‘develop’ prior teaching, or it could mean ‘reverse’ prior teaching. The word ‘teaching’ could also refer to doctrines or to pastoral policies.
Vatican II did not reverse prior doctrines. It developed the doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus in such a way as to allow for “imperfect,” even unwitting “communion” with the Church, which herself came to be seen as the “sacrament”–i.e. the sign and instrument–of unity and salvation for humanity. That had an effect on pastoral policy toward other churches: the presumption that non-Catholic Christians are culpable for not being Catholic was dropped. Hence the relatively new program of ecumenism.
May 4th, 2010 | 10:30 am
The Mormons have taught since their beginning that the Atonement of Christ covers little children who die without baptism:
“Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.” (Book of Mormon | Moroni 8:8)
Therefore, for Mormons there is no argument on this subject, as it is quite plain and easy to understand.
Pope Benedict XVI is correct in this.
May 4th, 2010 | 11:20 am
Aegis:
If your reasoning were correct, then CCC §1261 would be contradicting not merely a common doctrine but a defined dogma of the Church. Given that both the present and the previous pope have approved CCC §1261, I think it far more likely that your reasoning is incorrect.
Specifically, you’re assuming that the phrase ad infernum, which is used by the Council of Florence, must always be taken to refer to exactly the same state, whether we’re talking about those who die in mortal sin or those who die in original sin alone. But my counterexample of the limbus patrum shows that such an assumption is unwarranted. The early Church confessed that Jesus “descended ad infernum” to liberate the souls of the “just” under the Old Covenant, who were there. That is known as the doctrine of the limbus patrum. Given as much, infernum in the Apostles’ Creed means “underworld,” not a state of eternal separation from God. All those eternally separated from God are there, but it does not follow that all who are there are eternally separated from God. Indeed, there is no reason why the souls of infants who have died unbaptized could not be liberated by the desire and prayers of the Church—especially of the Virgin herself. God could accept that as a vicarious form of baptism. And that is fully compatible with Florence’s dogma.
May 4th, 2010 | 2:19 pm
Such nonsense. Let me get this straight: The God who grants life to a person abandons that person to hell because of no baptism. This is what can only be described as “mechanicalistic sacramentalism” in which nothing depends on God and everything depends on human acts. Sort of an infantile pelangianism, eh?
May 4th, 2010 | 2:21 pm
It may be a real problem to note that most of the people who have ever lived have not been baptized. The salvation program seems kinda weak in light of sacramental absolutism.
May 4th, 2010 | 2:22 pm
John, Baptism is necessary for salvation, but it is not absolutely necessary for salvation.
May 4th, 2010 | 2:55 pm
It seems to me that you are far too hard on Fr. Harrison, Michael. It seems to me the key point is this. The Church cannot teach what it has not “received”. (Even Our Lord said that he could he could not teach what HE had not received from the Father — John 14:10.) The Church cannot teach *as a fact* that some unbaptized babies are saved, for the simple reason that this has not been revealed. That is why the magisterial documents are careful to say that we may *hope* they are saved, we may *pray* that they are saved, we may entrust them to God’s mercy. But they do not outright say that we know anything definite about their fate.
Given that, we only have — and only can have — hypotheses. The idea that all unbaptized babies are saved is no less a hypothesis than limbo is. It seems to me that there are three possibilities, logically speaking: (a) babies who die unbaptized enjoy the beatific vision (i.e. are saved), (b) they do not enjoy the beatific vision, but do not suffer at all (i.e. limbo), and (c) they do not have the beatific vision and suffer to some extent (possibly very mildly, as it is claimed St. Augustine taught).
It is puzzling to me that in 1985 then-cardinal Ratzinger would suggest “abandoning” the idea of limbo. What did he mean by “abandoning”? Abandoning it as an authoritative doctrine? — It never was one. Abandoning it as even a possibility? That would be saying that it was *not* a possibility — i.e. that it is definitely false. If one could say that (and I don’t see how, epistemologically speaking, one could), then surely one would also have to say that the harsher possibility (c) was definitely false. That would leave (a) as the only remaining possibility. In other words, the Church would, in effect, be asserting *as definitely true* that unbaptized babies are saved — and it cannot go that far.
I think what animates Fr. Harrison is not some desire to see unbaptized infants deprived of anything. I think it is rather a desire that the magisterium not go beyond what can be inferred from the sources of revelation. I am disturbed by the idea that a Catholic theologian cannot question on a theoretical level whether some opinion of the Pope *as theologian* is well-grounded in the sources of revelation without being regarded as uppity, hubristic, or even perhaps disloyal. The dismissive paraphrase of Harrison, “So the Catechism, the International Theological Commission, and the pope himself are wrong [!?]“, is an unfortunate way to argue. Hypothetically, they might be wrong, especially since we are not talking here at all about authoritative (let alone infallible) doctrinal pronouncements; and the less well-grounded in prior magisterial statements some proposition is, the less unlikely it is that it might be wrong.
Part of the give and take by which doctrine develops is the analysis of past magisterial pronouncements by theologians. That is presumably why there is an International Theological Commission in the first place. Harrison has every right, I would think, to participate in that give and take. I am quite sure that if the magisterium were to make an authoritative decision on these questions, Fr. Harrison would submit to it. In the meantime, he is making some arguments that it is important to hear.
May 4th, 2010 | 3:07 pm
Fr William Most: “It is truly sad to see persons fighting with all their might to insist that it is at least likely that God, who is Infinite Goodness, sends unbaptized babies into eternal fire, to suffer forever, when they are completely innocent of any personal fault.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/AUG2.TXT
May 4th, 2010 | 4:04 pm
Please give due attention to the words of Stephen Barr. This is not about Baptism absolutism or the definitive nature of the Limbo teaching. Rather, this is about the element of Mystery in Christian doctrine. The destiny of unbaptized infants has not been revealed and thus we can not be certain. We do know that baptism can assure it.
The characterization of Fr. Harrison’s argument as “that God, who is Infinite Goodness, sends unbaptized babies into eternal fire, to suffer forever” is not a fair minded reading. (of course Fr. Mott is not speaking directly to Fr. Harrison’s argument) The teaching in question holds though they may not be able to attain the beatific vision they DO NOT suffer the pains of hell. It was Augustine of Hippo that argues that they suffered it but only mildly – now that would be rooted pelagian belief dear Steve. However, this is not about the pelagian heresy.
In fact Fr. Mott quotes St. Thomas: “”The infants are separated from God perpetually in regard to the loss of glory, which they do
not know, but not in regard to participation in natural goods, which they do know. . . . That which they have through nature. . they possess without pain.” So there is no hell for unbaptized infants.”
This quote appears consistent with the traditional doctrine that children in limbo suffer no pain.
May 4th, 2010 | 4:08 pm
Barr’s point is excellent.
Also, Kimel here seems to provide a counterpoint to the above ‘Don’t-worry-be-happyism’. Interesting standoff.
http://pontifications.wordpress.com/2008/02/16/counting-the-saved/
May 4th, 2010 | 4:21 pm
I would like to clarify my comment on the pelagian heresy and Augustine. It should have read that Augustine’s position “was rooted in opposition to pelagian belief.”
May 4th, 2010 | 4:21 pm
Prof. Barr:
I do not question Fr. Harrison’s orthodoxy for holding–if indeed he holds–that infants who have died without undergoing ordinary water baptism can never see God. Assuming I have understood his position correctly, I find it distasteful, but not heterodox. Nor do I hold that we can know the opposite of what he holds. What I most emphatically reject is his questioning of the CCC’s and the Pope’s orthodoxy for holding that one may reasonably hope that such infants can see God. Either position is compatible with Catholic orthodoxy.
In one respect, this situation is similar to that brought about by Fr. Feeney and his followers. Their view that one must explicitly become Catholic before death in order to be saved is not heretical, even though the ordinary magisterium has come to reject it. What’s unacceptable is the Feeneyite claim that the view that the ordinary magisterium embraced at Vatican II is, itself, heterodox.
This sort of thing is my chief complaint about trads. Sedevacantism aside, they’re not beyond the pale for believing what they do. Where they go wrong is in believing that all who disagree with them on certain matters are heterodox. The present matter is one of them. I can only view with suspicion those Catholics who believe, without a trace of irony, that they are more Catholic than the pope.
Best,
Mike
May 4th, 2010 | 4:23 pm
Mr. Liccione,
If I am following you correctly, you are saying that the Council of Florence is not necessarily referring to eternal separation from God when it says that those who die in original sin alone are sent to hell. Your basis for this claim is the prior existence of the limbo of the fathers and Christ’s liberation of those held therein.
If that is so, then the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to be in need of revision, for paragraphs 1056 and 1057 read:
” 1056 Following the example of Christ, the Church warns the faithful of the “sad and lamentable reality of eternal death” (GCD 69), also called “hell.”
“1057 Hell’s principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.”
So, whereas prior to Christ’s coming, hell was not permanent for some, after His liberation of the limbo of the fathers, it becomes permanent for all sent there. So, when the Council of Florence says that those who die in original sin alone are sent to hell, by adhering to current teachings of the Church on hell, we must conclude that children who have not received baptism of any kind are sent to an eternal state and not a temporary one.
Furthermore, I would like to point out the contents of paragraph 1051: “Every man receives his eternal recompense in his immortal soul from the moment of his death in a particular judgment by Christ, the judge of the living and the dead.”
Notice that it says “eternal recompense” and not “temporary recompense.” Indeed, even for those sent to purgatory, they are on their way to heaven. Yet there is only one of two options, ultimately: heaven or hell. Following the Council of Florence’s teaching, those who die in original sin are sent to hell. According to the Catechism, then, hell is permanent, and so, children who die without baptism of any kind are sent to a permanent state of separation from God.
Also, if it is true that unbaptized infants are only in hell temporarily, then I would like to request some evidence from scripture and from the magisterium in support of that position.
May 4th, 2010 | 4:53 pm
Michael,
You seem to hold Fr. Harrison in suspicion because he is a so-called “trady.” Could it be possible that Fr. Harrison was questioning the commission and its lack attention to the references he made in his letter? Far from being more Catholic than the Pope, or even questioning the Pope, it may be that Fr. Harrison is questioning those responsible for the research and others quick to selectively take from that document a teaching with supposed Papal support.
May 4th, 2010 | 8:29 pm
Aegis:
So, whereas prior to Christ’s coming, hell was not permanent for some, after His liberation of the limbo of the fathers, it becomes permanent for all sent there.
That conclusion does not follow from the premises you give. All that follows is that hell is permanent for those who deserve to be there. To conclude that unbaptized infants deserve to be there requires the additional premise that original sin is personal guilt. That was Augustine’s view, and that of the local Council of Carthage in 419. But the CCC explicitly repudiates it. See §405.
May 4th, 2010 | 8:30 pm
Mr Maedoc:
I’m inclined to agree that it was negligent of the ITC to omit the references Fr. Harrison gives. I think they should have taken the tack I have: admit that NSG was common doctrine, then argue that it was never infallibly taught. But perhaps they had reasons for their procedure of which I am unaware.
May 4th, 2010 | 9:37 pm
Mr. Liccione,
To make sure I am not misunderstanding the Catechism, I think it is necessary to present once again some of what the Catechism says about hell.
1056 Following the example of Christ, the Church warns the faithful of the “sad and lamentable reality of eternal death” (GCD 69), also called “hell.”
1057 Hell’s principal punishment consists of eternal separation from God in whom alone man can have the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.
So, if I may present the questions that come to my mind from looking at these passages:
1) Does the Catechism say that “eternal death” is also called “hell”?
2) Cannot “hell” then be called “eternal death”?
3) Does not the Catechism say that the principal punishment of hell is eternal separation from God?
4) Does not the Council of Florence say that those who die in original sin alone are sent to hell?
Now, as I said above, I am not an especially wise man, and I may be overlooking the subtleties of your position. Indeed, I may even be asking the wrong questions.
May 4th, 2010 | 10:54 pm
Aegis:
I put to you the question: if hell was temporary for some people who had committed actual sins in their lives—as the early Church confessed—why could it not be temporary for the far greater number of people who have died without ever had the opportunity to commit an actual sin?
The statements you keep quoting do not suffice, logically, to show that it could not. In my previous several comments, I’ve already explained why. The Pope agrees with me—or perhaps I should say, I agree with the Pope. And so I close with another question: Why is that so difficult to accept?
May 5th, 2010 | 12:51 am
Mr. Liccione,
I will try to answer your questions.
As far as the limbo of the fathers is concerned, we have evidence from the scriptures that is then harmonized with the general doctrine on the Fall and Redemption to support the doctrine of the limbo of the fathers. Specifically, I am referring to Matthew 8:11, Luke 16:22, Ephesians 4:9, and 1 Peter 3:18-20. Now, does any evidence exist in the New Testament for the position that hell is anything but permanent for those sent there after Christ’s death? As far as I know, no such scriptural evidence exists. Rather, the permanence of hell is frequently asserted. We have no evidence for the position that God, after Christ’s death, sends some people to hell for a temporary period, and then brings them out later. In view of God’s judgment on the ultimate fate of human beings, we only have passages where Christ divides the righteous from the unrighteous and then sends them to their eternal rewards. Of course, as I have already admitted, I am not an especially wise man. To that I add that I am not a scholar of the scriptures, and that I may be mistaken on this issue of scriptural support for your position.
In short, when Christ says that He is going to issue a definitive judgment on where a given soul will go, whether to heaven or to hell, I take Him at His word.
Also, I reiterate again, that when the Catechism says that hell is “eternal death” and that it consists of “eternal separation from God,” I find myself incapable of then asserting that it is temporary death and temporary separation in some cases. The Catechism does not make any qualifications about what hell is; it does not say that it is temporary in some cases. Rather, it says explicitly that hell is eternal. Paragraphs 1056 and 1057 do not address the question of who goes to hell; they restrict themselves to speaking on what hell is. Indeed, the Council of Florence has already stated who goes to hell: those who die in actual mortal sin and those who die in original sin alone. The conclusion is rather clear: those who die in original sin alone go to hell, and hell consists of eternal death and eternal separation from God.
As for your second question, it is rather evident that I do not think you have proven your case, otherwise I would have conceded that you are correct and that I am incorrect. I am not acting out of stubbornness, but out of genuine intellectual conviction. Now I happily grant that it may indeed be the case that my lack of intelligence, my lack of wisdom, and my glut of ignorance are preventing me from seeing the truth on this matter. And far be it from me to suppose that I have superior insight on this matter than his holiness Pope Benedict XVI. Lacking such insight I can only stumble along with the abilities God has given me. If the Pope has affirmed that hell is temporary for some of those sent there following Christ’s liberation of the limbo of the fathers, I am sure you can produce for me evidence to that effect.
Having tried to answer your questions, I politely request that you answer the ones I presented in my earlier post.
May 5th, 2010 | 12:57 am
I want to address the existence of not only limbo, but of purgatory as well.
Rather than examining biblical passages / encyclicals / theological writings, etc, in order to determine what becomes of souls after death, it might be wise to take a larger view of the situation, ie, first principles.
Begin with the notion that God is fair and just. From this, it follows that..
1. All souls have an equal opportunity to achieve Heaven.
2. All souls need to earn their entry into Heaven by proving their worthiness.
These 2 postulates seem very fair and reasonable.
The existence of limbo violates postulate #1. Those destined for limbo are denied the opportunity to achieve Heaven.
The existence of purgatory violates postulate #2. The punishment of purgatory doesn’t prove one’s worthiness for Heaven.
Then what is the fate of those who die (regardless of age or having been baptized)? By postulate #2, they continue to prove
their worthiness. But if they’ve died, how do they do this? By reincarnating in the earth as many times as is necessary to prove
their worthiness. Or, if reincarnation turns out to be untue, there must be other planes of existence beyond the earth where
one can prove one’s worthiness for Heaven. With this scenario, limbo and purgatory are unnecessary.
The belief that you only get ‘one-shot-at-life’ leads to messy theological dilemmas, eg, limbo.
I hope that the Catholic Church abandons the idea that our eternal fate is determined at death.
When they abandon that idea, theological constructs such as limbo and purgatory can be discarded.
May 5th, 2010 | 11:43 am
So the ITC says: “Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.”
OK: so, what if we didn’t baptize them because we didn’t want them to be baptized? Will God save them regardless? If so, what’s the point of saying God will probably save these infants on the condition that we blah, blah, blah, when He’s going to save them whatever?
I confess I find the ITC’s statements in this area as incoherent as Cardinal R’s “Report” statement.
Re. the latter: what, when the rubber hits the road, does it mean to say that the limbo theory must be ditched, but the “concern behind it must not be”? [ "It's a really spiffing thing to go through the ritual of baptism, but not in the end necessary", perhaps?]
Or: that baptism must never be a “side issue of the faith” but it’s apparently not necessary to get a soul into heaven? Surely, if it’s not necessary to get a soul into heaven, then it is very much a “side issue” – at least for the many unsaved souls, in whose interest it is to adopt at the first instance the necessary means to attaining heaven?
I mean no offence to Pope Benedict: may he continue to gloriously reign. I simply and humbly submit inquiries to these statements of his long before he was elected Supreme Pontiff.
May 6th, 2010 | 5:09 am
Mr Liccione said, “Suggesting that `we can hope almost everyone will be saved’ is not the same as suggesting that we may reasonably expect that.”
How far the word “hope” has fallen. Today, as Mr Liccione has rightly pointed out, the English word “hope” means no more than wishful thinking. However, the Latin word “sperare” used in the CCC paragraph in question means rather more than that. It can mean joyful expectation of a promise fulfilled. More negatively, the Latin word can also carry connotations of self-delusion or self-flattery.
I do not see how the phrase “permittunt sperare” in the CCC can mean anything other than permission to expect salvation. Nor do I see how such an expectation is consonant with earlier dogma.
May 6th, 2010 | 12:54 pm
Mike,
Great post. Thanks for the work you do.
When I read other intramural discussions in the Church—for example disputes between Scotists and Thomists on the unity of substantial form—both sides may disagree heatedly, but no one ever makes the illogical jump from, “the other side disagrees with my position” to “the other side thinks that my position cannot be held by an obedient Catholic.” And yet, whenever I read Mike’s discussions on limbo, people will jump inexplicably from his opposition to limbo to his supposedly saying that no one can be a good Catholic and believe it. Why is that? In my many years of reading Mike’s work he has never called the doctrine of limbo heterodox, even if he disputes its existence.
A year ago a priest-friend told me a story of a young couple who were a day away from baptizing their child when the child suddenly fell ill and died. The couple ran in panic to this priest and asked him to baptize the child. He told them that he couldn’t, but offered to take the child before the baptismal font and pray. The distraught father wiped his tears and blessed the child three times on the forehead with them. The child was never formally baptized, but was nevertheless baptized with the tears of his grieving father.
Now any priest or seminarian who has tried to comfort families in such occasions knows why the doctrine of limbo is so silly. Grieving parents want to have hope that their son or daughter is in heaven, and telling them that limbo exists without fail sucks right out of them the hope of their child’s salvation. And that’s the crux of the problem: whereas I, as lover of the Church’s teaching have found a way to understand each doctrine taught by the Church as good news, I cannot in any way say that about limbo despite my best efforts. For those of us who oppose it, limbo appears out of place among a myriad of doctrines about God’s justice, mercy, and love.
Professor Barr’s series of questions is helpful, I think, in that it allows opponents of limbo to clarify exactly why we oppose the doctrine. I think Pope Benedict wishes to abandon the doctrine of limbo not because it is logically impossible or authoritative doctrine, but because it is spiritually insensible. Those who do not understand why only need to sit with a mother who has recently miscarried. Just don’t mention the doctrine of limbo—you will mortify her and make her needlessly doubt God’s mercy. How can we comfort them with talk of God’s mercy and the consolation that Jesus asked the children to come to him, and then preach limbo? We abandon the doctrine not for the reasons Professor Barr mentions, but because it does not cohere with what we read in the Gospels. I guess you could say that it’s logically possible absolutely speaking, but not logically possible in light of the Gospel.
I do not understand how hoping for any person’s salvation contradicts our ignorance of people’s final resting place, whether they be children or adults. Last time I checked St. Paul said it was a virtue for me to hope for my salvation while still acknowledging that I don’t know my ultimate destination, and that hell is a real possibility. I see no contradiction between the two. Why can’t we also hope for a formally un-baptized child’s salvation, even while acknowledging that their ultimate destinations have not been revealed to us? That hope does not seem unjustified, considering the Church’s unbroken Tradition that at least some have obtained heaven without formal baptism.
May 6th, 2010 | 1:04 pm
Nick Paul,
To admit that some people are saved by implicit faith and non-ordinary baptism is not to say that this implicit faith is held by most or even all of the non-baptized. The Church only insists a) that because some people without formal baptism are saved (e.g. the patriarchs of the faith), we know that there is such a thing as implicit faith and b) that only God is in the position to determine whether a particular individual has implicit faith. Consequently, a person who refuses to have his child baptized on the assumption that it is either not important or not necessary is assuming a judgment that belongs to God alone. In our world of limited knowledge conditions, it therefore remains urgent to baptize our children in a timely fashion. In no way is this urgency diminished by the admission that some may be saved without formal baptism.
Aegis, I’m having a very difficult time understanding how your criticisms have anything to do with what Mike has written. I’m going to take a stab at what I think is the problem. You seem to be implying from Mike’s words that because he uses “ad infernum” to refer to both hell and the limbo of the Fathers, and that the limbo of the Fathers was a temporary state, that therefore hell is a temporary state. But this reading isn’t correct. Michael didn’t arbitrarily choose to refer to the limbo of the Fathers *and* hell as “ad infernum”, but merely uses the Latin phrase used for a very long time. It therefore does not follow from his words that because some are released from “ad infernum” that hell is not a permanent place.
Rob F.
I place hope in no man, even though I hope for all men’s salvation. I hope because I know that God can transform even the most wicked man because every man is redeemable in principle, and because I’ve witnessed the power of God’s grace on great sinners. Why is such hope unjustified?
May 6th, 2010 | 1:55 pm
Mr. Hamilton,
I certainly hope I have not given the impression that I understood Mr. Liccione to be saying that hell is not a permanent place. I apologize if I have been unclear. Rather, my position is that hell is a permanent state for all sent there following Christ’s resurrection. After all, the Catechism says that “eternal death” is also called “hell.” As far as I can tell, death is a state and not a place, and so eternal death would be an eternal state. Furthermore, the Catechism says that the principal punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, which is significant insofar as the punishment is described as eternal. Of course, the Catechism is not ignorant of the limbo of the fathers or that hell, for those who were in the limbo of the fathers, was temporary for those sent there prior to Christ’s death. So, when the Catechism speaks of hell as an eternal state, I take the Catechism at its word. As we know, the Council of Florence says that those who die in original sin alone are sent to hell to be punished, though with unequal pains compared to others there. Now, to substitute the terms provided by the Catechism, I conclude that those who die in original sin alone are sent to eternal death where they are to be punished, and since the principal punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, I further conclude that they suffer eternal separation from God.
Now, I readily admit that I could be making a mistake here, and I will do my utmost to the understand the arguments presented by those who disagree with me so that I can arrive at the truth.
Also, if there is evidence from scripture or from the magisterium to support the position that hell is not a permanent state for all sent there following Christ’s resurrection, I am open to seeing it.
May 6th, 2010 | 2:58 pm
Aegis,
Yes, Florence does state that no one in a state of “original-sin-minus-actual-sin” will reach heaven. But to extend this doctrine to unbaptized infants imports the tacit assumption that formal baptism by water is the only means of baptizing and thus of obtaining salvation. It assumes that the two groups–those infants who die in a state of original sin and those infants who never receive formal baptism–are coextensive. As Michael has shown, that assumption is already dubious in other well known areas of enquiry, such as the cases of the Patriarchs of the Faith, catechumens, and those who are baptized by blood. Why should we assume that the two groups are identical in the case of infants?
It seems completely within the realm of possibility that God in some way offers infants without formal baptism the opportunity to appear before Christ–either immediately after their deaths or at the general resurrection–and exercise their reason and choice for or against God, exercising the opportunity to choose which they never had in this life. In this way they would receive an extraordinary form of baptism, and thus enter heaven in a state of grace, not in a state of original sin. If this reasoning is correct then nothing Mike says contradicts Florence.
May 6th, 2010 | 3:11 pm
Mr. Hamilton,
If I may, I would like to refer you to my post on May 4th 2010, 9:48 am, which read in part:
“I regret not being more specific about my first question. Certainly, if the passage from the Catechism (paragraph 1261) is referring only to children who have not received baptism by water, then I have no objection, so long as the necessity of baptism of some kind is being upheld. Granted, it is not explicit about what kinds of baptism it is referring to when it talks about children who have not received the sacrament, but I am willing to give the Catechism the benefit of a doubt.”
And then later in that same post:
“Considering the Council of Florence’s teaching that those who die in original sin alone go to hell, and given the Catechism’s teaching that hell consists principally in eternal separation from God, I must conclude that infants who die without baptism of any kind (whether it be of water, or blood, or desire), are eternally separated from God.”
It is fairly clear, then, that I recognize that infants who have died without baptism by water may receive baptism of some other kind. My position is simply that one needs some form of baptism to be healed of original sin, and that if one has not received any form of baptism and then dies in original sin, that the teaching of the Council of Florence then applies to that person. Then I simply proceed to follow what the Catechism says about hell, namely that it is eternal death whose principal punishment is separation from God.
May 6th, 2010 | 5:56 pm
Well then. I’m glad to see that you agree with Dr. Liccione so completely. Since you acknowledge that infants may receive an extraordinary form of baptism even after death, and he has never denied that those who receive no form of baptism–ordinary or otherwise–will not go to heaven, then all sides are in agreement. Glad that’s cleared up.
May 6th, 2010 | 7:04 pm
Mr. Hamilton,
I am only human, and I may have once again misrepresented myself in some way in any of the numerous posts that have appeared in this comment box. Given the misunderstandings that have arisen, I can see why you would be able to attribute to me the position that baptism can be applied after death in the time period following Christ’ death and resurrection. After all, in my last post I wrote: “It is fairly clear, then, that I recognize that infants who have died without baptism by water may receive baptism of some other kind.” I confess I did not put enough thought into that particular sentence. But the sentence immediately following that one is more detailed and, I think, places that sentence in its proper context: “My position is simply that one needs some form of baptism to be healed of original sin, and that if one has not received any form of baptism and then dies in original sin, that the teaching of the Council of Florence then applies to that person.”
Now, I can see where a misunderstanding would arise from a reading of those two sentences one after another, and, as I said above, I apologize for not being precisely clear. I also realize that no man’s patience is eternal, and it is not my intention to exasperate anyone.
So, to avoid any further misunderstandings of my position (all of which have arisen from my own fault), I offer the following formulation for your analysis. If I err at any step please correct me so that I can arrive at the truth.
Baptism is necessary for salvation, according to canon five of the seventh session of the Council of Trent in the section on baptism. There are many forms of baptism besides baptism by water, such as baptism by blood, and by implicit or explicit desire. According to the Council of Florence, anyone who dies in original sin alone is sent to hell to be tortured, though with unequal pains when compared to others found in hell. So, if an infant dies without receiving any form of baptism, he dies in original sin alone, and so, following the Council of Florence, is sent to hell. Paragraph 1056 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which cannot be said to be ignorant of the limbo of the fathers, says that “eternal death” is also called “hell.” Death is not a place but a state of being. So, eternal death is an eternal state. If “eternal death” is also called “hell,” then “hell” is also called “eternal death.” So, hell is an eternal state. The Council of Florence also says that those sent to hell are punished with unequal pains, and the Catechism, paragraph 1057, says that the principal punishment of hell is eternal separation from God. So, I conclude that, if an infant dies without any form of baptism that he dies in original sin, and so, according to the Council of Florence, is sent to hell, which is eternal death, and is punished with eternal separation from God.
May 6th, 2010 | 11:54 pm
Thanks for that formulation. Let’s take a small sample of what you said.
1) Baptism is necessary for salvation.
2) Those who die in original sin alone are sent ad infernum; those who do not receive any form of baptism go to hell.
3) Hell is eternal separation from God.
On each of these appoints, we agree, although on some we agree only verbally. We seem to agree on 1). Baptism is necessary for salvation, and baptism is understood in both its ordinary form, i.e. by water, and in certain extraordinary forms, such as by desire, by blood, and implicit desire. From this it logically follows that the group of people who have not received formal baptism is not the same as the group of people who die in original sin; this is because some people who die without formal baptism do not deny in original sin, i.e. those who receive some extraordinary form of baptism. We also agree on 3), that those who are sent to hell are in eternal separation from God.
On 2) we also agree, to this extent: per Florence, those who die without any sort of baptism are in hell eternally because they are still in original sin. But we have already established that to die in original sin is not the same as to die without formal baptism. There are extraordinary forms of baptism which do not involve water. While we can determine that infants who die soon after formal baptism go to heaven, it is not necessarily known to man who receives extraordinary baptism; for example only God can determine who has the implicit desire to receive baptism and who doesn’t. The point of dispute among theologians is how flexible the criteria for extraordinary baptism are to be interpreted.
The point in 2) on which we may disagree is the meaning of ‘infernum.’ Yes, every time we say hell, we translate it infernum; but it is not true that every time we say ‘infernum’ we translate it as hell. The counter-example repeatedly used in this thread is the limbo of the Fathers, which Christ harrowed after his death. It therefore does not logically follow that what the Catechism says of hell proper is true of every sense of the word ‘infernum’.
Hell, according to the Catechism, is “the state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed, reserved for those who refuse by their own free choice to believe and be converted from sin, even to the end of their lives” (CCC 1033; also, see the entry for ‘hell’ in the glossary). Now it is in no way clear how the ‘infernum’ discussed at Florence for those who die in original sin alone is the same as hell proper (from this point forward, assume that whenever we speak of Florence’s infernum we add the qualification “insofar as infants are concerned”). For it is in no way clear that infants who die are capable of exercising free choice prior to their deaths. Thus one of the criterion for entrance into hell proper is not met, and since hell and Florence’s infernum have different properties, they cannot be the same thing. Therefore, to say something about the permanence of hell is not to say anything about the permanence or lack thereof of Florence’s infernum. And this ties into one of Dr. Liccione’s suggestions, that infants may remain in a non-permanent infernum for a time, perhaps until the general resurrection before going permanently to heaven or hell. Furthermore in denying the permanence of the infernum mentioned at Florence, Dr. Liccione is not trapped into saying that hell proper is a temporary state.
Nevertheless, Florence need not be interpreted as saying on the topic of extraordinary baptism. Florence says that those who die “in original sin” go ad infernum, so we can infer with certainty that any infant who dies without any sort of baptism goes to hell. We can also say with confidence that every person who is in a state of original sin is unbaptized; what is in dispute is the extent to which the extraordinary means of baptism are available to infants, and thus which infants count as unbaptized. The real question is what would be required of that infant actually to choose to go against God by its own free choice, and thus warrant eternal punishment for having rejected God and extraordinary baptism in the first place.
Florence, therefore, cannot be interpreted as saying anything definitive about infants in general after death beyond what the text *manifestly* says: any person who dies in original sin goes to hell. However, the text says nothing about how to determine who ultimately dies in original sin because it says nothing about how to determine who dies without some extraordinary form of baptism. Dr. Liccione and I think that God offers each infant some opportunity to choose extraordinary baptism after its death; others may disagree. But this discussion pertains to matters well beyond what was formalized at Florence and is assumed by both sides of the limbo debate.
In summary. Both of us can agree with your conclusion, though it is not clear that we interpret the words in the same way. While we both acknowledge the permanence of hell proper, it is unclear whether we both acknowledge that the infernum mentioned at Florence is the same thing as hell proper. And while we both agree that some form of baptism is necessary for salvation, it is not clear that a) we agree that Florence makes any definitive pronouncement against the position that Dr. Liccione and I defend, and b) we agree about how liberally we are to understand the phrase “extraordinary baptism.”
May 7th, 2010 | 7:12 am
Paul Hamilton,
thanks. I’m in agreement with much of what you’ve said, but I’m not sure you’ve answered the question I have re. the ITC’s statement I quoted.
That statement seems to be saying this: If Jack & Jill intend their baby Molly to be baptized, God will save Molly anyway if for some reason they are prevented from carrying this out. Well, let’s grant this arguendo, and call it baptism of (parental) desire. But consider the more interesting case not canvassed by the ITC, that Jack and Jill have no intention or desire whatsoever to baptise Molly, and she dies an infant. Does God save Molly anyway? If so, then why put in the words “when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do” when they have no bearing on the case? God is apparently going to save Molly who dies as an infant regardless of parental intentions. Thus, baptism by us of Molly in any form actual or by desire is not, after all, necessary for her salvation. If on the other hand we give these words a function in the sentence and take it to mean that God may not save Molly in this second case, then where does she go in all justice, but into a state wherein she lacks the beatific vision, but where there is no punishment due to personal sin, and perfect natural happiness forever?
Here is a theologically possible scenario. Under the guidance of Providence, no souls die merely in a state of original sin. But if there had been any, they would indeed go to a place that corresponds to St Thomas’s doctrine of limbo.
How could it be that no souls actually die in a state of original sin alone?
1.) Infants who die in utero cannot be baptised, physically and theologically (says St Thomas because, for starters, you can’t be “born again” if you’re not born a first time.) So baptism is not necessary for them: they are not yet subject to the action of men (St Thomas) and it’s impossible for them to undergo it. But as St Thomas says, it’s perfectly possible that those who are going to die in utero, who are subject to the action of God, “in whose sight they live”, could be sanctified in the womb as (eg) John the Baptist was. (III Q68 Art 11).
2.) For those children like Molly in the second case above, who die in infancy and unbaptised by disinclined parents, it’s theologically possible that God chooses to send an angel or a saint to administer the sacrament before the moment of death.(III Q64 Art 7 Whether Angels can Administer Sacraments.)
(I have a lot of theological problems the idea of baptism or sanctification after death, suggested in posts above. For one thing, it compromises the fundamental Christian idea of the finality of death. Plus, on the principle of Occam’s Razor, it’s superfluous to requirements. If God could sanctify in an extraordinary way after the moment of death, surely He can just as easily do so before the moment of death. Etc)
3.) For pagan adults who have the requisite dispositions, similar provision could be made as in 2) (viz. the vision of Venerable Maria Agreda and the pagan indian in South America.)
On this scenario, baptism is necessary for salvation in the strict sense (ie, baptism by someone, even an angel or saint) and while limbo is a valid and reasonble theological hypothesis, it’s in fact empty.
But this it’s impossible to say whether this scenario is wholly or partly the case. God in His wisdom has chosen never to reveal as definitive such information from us in the Church Militant, for reasons some of which are pretty obvious even to me. Therefore the thesis that limbo exists and is populated is equally possible, and is a valid, indeed I think compelling theological hypothesis, even if it does turn out to be unpopulated.
The only safe course for us is to desire and intend that our born children be baptized, and that everyone in the world is baptized or at least has it as their top priority in their hour of death. We must leave the rest to the infinitely merciful to God.
P.S. Limbo, hypothetically or actually existing, has had an unjustifiably bad press. I’m unable to see insuperable theological objections to the following possibilities for inhabitants of Limbo.
1.) That they commune and intermingle with the saints and angels in heaven, even though lacking their Beatific Vision. [After all, Jesus had the Beatific Vision while He interacted with us, sinners or otherwise, on earth.]
2.) That they contemplate with restored preternatural gifts of knowledge the truths of the Faith which will unfold eternally for us all. [Even though the knowledge by which they will grasp these will not supernatural faith after all, even “The devils believe and tremble.”]
3.) That they will meet know and enjoy an eternal relationship with Jesus Christ with all their (natural and possibly restored preternatural) powers. [Just as people with original sin on their souls encountered and befriended Jesus of Nazareth.] And possibly through Him, experience in some way with their heightened natural powers, the presence of the Father and the Holy Ghost. [As Abraham encountered the Trinity in the form of three angels.]
Naturally, I submit to the rulings of the magisterium on all of these points.
May 8th, 2010 | 12:16 pm
Nick Paul,
I was going to make my previous post my last, but you raise some interesting points that I would like to address.
a) If my account is correct (provided in detail in my previous post), the Molly in your example is still saved by baptism, even if she does receive baptism formally or by the desire of her parents. She is saved because she would be given an opportunity to choose to accept or reject God when, and through God’s power, she is capable of making such a choice–and this would be an extraordinary form of baptism. God does not save her “no matter what”, but by her desire for salvation, when in God’s time she becomes capable of desiring or not desiring God. It is also possible that she ultimately rejects God.
b) The possibilities you set forth about limbo are interesting, although I’m not sure that any of these states of affairs are equivalent to limbo as it is classically defined, i.e. as a state of perfect natural happiness. I don’t see how any of these scenarios matches that description–but that’s not due to any lack of interesting and creative thought on your part, but because a perfect state of nature independent of grace is probably impossible in the first place. But if we allow that children who die in original sin alone possibly spend their days in God’s grace, why not admit the possibility that they reach heaven?
c) Your point about the finality of death is interesting and worth addressing. However, there is no finality of death absolutely speaking; that is, there are ways in which death is said to be “not final” in a qualified sense, such as those who go to Purgatory prior to entering heaven, and the limbo of the Fathers. I say this not as a counter-example to your position (obviously because the people in these examples will ultimately have a final resting spot, and so their destinations really are final), but because it requires us to examine in exactly what way death is said to be final.
Death seems to be final in two ways: a) the desire for or aversion to God that we exhibit in this life is final, in that it determines b) our permanent destination after death–either heaven or hell. It is in both of these ways that our deaths are final.
Note that the destination of heaven or hell is not permanent due to any quality in the individual himself or just because God said so. They are permanent because the states of affairs are permanent. In Thomas Aquinas’ account, on earth we are capable of sinning because we do not know God with simple vision, and thus can choose to see God as just another good among goods. Yet when we reach heaven and see God with the simple vision of him as he is–as the highest good– we cannot but will him. Hell is permanent because the damned choose to live in a state of being without grace, and God in deference to their will sends them to a place without grace. Since without grace they can never make it to heaven, the state of the damned is permanent.
But it is unclear that the deaths of formally unbaptized children like Molly can be considered final in either of these ways. First, heaven or hell cannot be permanent for Molly because her situation is such that she does not have the credentials to belong to either. While original sin is sufficient to keep her out of heaven, having original sin alone is not sufficient to place her in hell proper, which the Catechism states is reserved for those who actively reject God. Nor can her choice or desire for or against God be considered final, since she never made a choice in the first place.
If limbo exists, it is unclear why it must be a permanent state of affairs. Its permanence cannot be explained by the abundant goodness and grace of God like heaven is; and if there is no such thing as a perfect state of nature lacking completely in grace–which theologians have given us no good reason to think exists–then its permanence cannot be explained in the same way as hell’s is. If limbo exists, then there doesn’t seem to be any clear reason to assert its permanence.
If my analysis is correct, I see no reason why we must assert that there is such a finality of death for infants that they cannot come to desire or reject God after their deaths in order that they might merit heaven or hell. Since they made no choice in this life–indeed, they were incapable of making a choice in this life– it is hard to see how the “choice” they made in this life was final.
Thanks for the references to St. Thomas on whether the angels can administer the Sacraments. I will enjoy reading them.
May 9th, 2010 | 11:12 pm
[...] Conversation on Limbo By phamilton Over at First Things I got involved in a discussion on Catholic conjectures about Limbo, a state of being proposed by [...]
May 10th, 2010 | 2:58 pm
In section 1261 of the *Catechism of the Catholic Church*, the hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants can, and should, in line with twenty centuries of Catholic tradition, be understood as a hope for their attaining *natural* happiness in limbo. Limbo, in addition to being a kind of damnation, can be legitimately viewed as a kind of salvation: the souls in limbo are saved from the positive punishments of hell. Regrettably, the negative punishment of hell–deprivation of the *supernatural* happiness of the beatific vision–remains for those infants. Please note that the new catechism’s official Latin index links section 1261 to the concept of *Limbus*.
The affirmation that unbaptized infants are, indeed, penalized for original sin by being excluded from supernatural beatitude is an inescapable conclusion from the teachings of two ecumenical councils–Lyons II and Florence (DS 858 and 1306; Neuner-Dupuis 26 and 2309)–concerning those who die in original sin alone. If this affirmation is false, then what the Church’s teaching authority is saying to us through those two councils is undermined, as is the entire dogma of original sin. But no Catholic can undermine the solemn teaching of a general council, nor can he or she reject the fact of original sin, which the new catechism calls “an essential truth of the faith” (section 388).
If there is no limbo, and if, instead, all unbaptized infants immediately or eventually attain the beatific vision, then it would be more advantageous to be surgically or chemically aborted with an absolute guarantee of heaven than to be born with the chance of ending up in hell by dying unrepentant in mortal sin. Abortion would then become a kind of demonic sacrament, more salvifically efficacious than even the true sacrament of Baptism. In practical, pastoral terms, Catholics should wonder whether jettisoning the hypothesis of limbo in favor of heaven for all aborted infants may help foster attacks on the lives of unborn children.
May 10th, 2010 | 5:40 pm
I confess I find this a depressing thread. I have pondered the past few days what I might say in rejoinder. Infant salvation has been a difficult, and neuralgic, question in the Western Church for almost 2,000 years–and rightly so. Once esteemed bishops and theologians of Latin theologians found themselves affirming the eternal damnation of unbaptized infants, how could the the Church of Jesus Christ ever ultimately accept such a morally repugnant position? Clearly the scholastic construal of Limbo is an improvement, affirming as it does a natural beatitude for unbaptized infants; yet it is still not the salvation that God wills for humanity in Jesus Christ. We were created for Heaven, not for the theoretical non-supernatural happiness contrived by the scholastics.
Why is it that Latin theologians have found it so difficult to affirm the eternal salvation of unbaptized infants and yet Eastern theologians have not?
I suggest that what we find in this thread is a kind of theological reflection that gets stuck in words, that remains at the level of dogmatic formulation rather than passing beyond the words to the truths to which they point. Or to put it somewhat differently, what we see in this thread is a failure to interpret the dogmas of the Church in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The fundamental question is, Who is our God? Who is the God who has revealed himself in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Surely the best answer we can give is, he is absolute and infinite and unconditional love, mercy, forgiveness, and compassion. Once we have given this answer, and more importantly, once we have seen and comprehended the truth of this answer, then not only will we reject emphatically the very traditional view of infant damnation but we will also reject the dubious fabrication of limbo. The infant who dies without baptism is that one person for whom God assumed human nature, died on the cross and rose on Easter morning into glorious eternity. Can we doubt, even for an instant, God’s will for that child? It may well be true that God has not revealed to us how he will regenerate unbaptized infants into everlasting glory; but that he truly desires their salvation we may not doubt; and if he truly desires their salvation, then we must indeed, as the Catholic Catechism instructs us, hope and pray for their salvation, in joyous expectation that he will fulfill in them that supernatural end for which they were created in and through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Do you want magisterial authority? Then go and read and re-read the encyclicals of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. If they are not sufficient to persuade you, then read and re-read the New Testament. And if the New Testament is not sufficient to persuade you …
May 10th, 2010 | 7:20 pm
Like Father Alvin Kimel, I find this a depressing thread, but for a different reason. I am saddened to see that confused Catholics are disregarding what Jesus has taught, and is still teaching, through his one true Church about the upsetting reality of original sin and its painful consequences for every human person except the Blessed Mother.
Confirming centuries of previous teaching, the Church, speaking in the name of Christ, solemnly taught at two general councils held in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries that deprivation of supernatural happiness in heaven is the punishment for those who die in original sin only. In the twenty-first century, the Church cannot reverse those statements, because original sin is “an essential truth of the faith’ (*CCC* 388). Granted, Catholic doctrine develops over time, but not by way of contradiction.
The fact of original sin is as much a truth of the Gospel as are God’s love and mercy, both of which attributes are evident in the natural happiness that unbaptized children may enjoy in limbo for all eternity. Such happiness is not trivial. Again, limbo can be understood as a form of salvation. It is imperative to realize that both kinds of salvation–the beatific vision and limbo–are pure gifts to which no human being has any right in the ultimate sense. Even our mere existence is an utter gift. Those points are demanded by the logic of the Faith.
May 10th, 2010 | 8:13 pm
“Confirming centuries of previous teaching, the Church, speaking in the name of Christ, solemnly taught at two general councils held in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries that deprivation of supernatural happiness in heaven is the punishment for those who die in original sin only.”
And has the Church ever solemnly defined that anyone has died “in original sin only”?
May 10th, 2010 | 8:54 pm
If the bishops at Lyons II and Florence did not believe that some human beings do, in fact, die in original sin only, they would not have taught as they did. Further, if no one ever dies in such a state, those Magisterial statements would have been pointless. When Christ speaks to us through the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (*Lk* 10:16), he is not making pointless statements.
May 10th, 2010 | 11:34 pm
Mr Brown:
I think that Paul Hamilton, Fr. Kimel, and I have already fielded the objections from dogma in our replies to Aegis and Nick Paul. But I also think your particular approach warrants separate comment.
You seem to be conceiving the issue as a choice between saying that no infants who die without baptism see God and saying that all such infants see God. But I don’t think either position can be deduced from what has been irreformably taught by the Church. The claim that no such infants see God assumes that we already know the full range of “extraordinary” forms baptism can take; but that assumption is unwarranted. The claim that all such infants see God assumes that we already know that all of them receive some extraordinary form of baptism, which is also an unwarranted assumption.
The safest position, it seems to me, is to hold that it’s possible that such infants see God. If certain dead infants go ad infernum, by virtue of having died in original sin alone, there is no a priori why their alienation from God must be permanent, any more than the limbus patrum was permanent. They could be saved retroactively by the desire and prayers of those baptized persons who love them. We don’t know that they are, of course; but neither do we know they aren’t. Hence the Pope’s position is correct. He is not a heretic.
Best,
Mike
May 10th, 2010 | 11:34 pm
I meant to address my previous comment to “Mr O’Brien.”
May 11th, 2010 | 12:41 am
If it is God’s will that some or all unbaptized infants are ultimately able to attain the beatific vision through some “extraordinary” form of baptism (other than baptism of blood, or martyrdom), then the Church has egregiously misinformed and misled us by telling us in solemn conciliar teaching, and without any temporal qualification, that those who die in original sin only descend into *infernum* for some kind of punishment resulting from original sin.
The safest position, I respectfully suggest to Michael Liccione and other Catholics who are needlessly alienated from Catholic theology’s loving, compassionate hypothesis of limbo, is to honor the long tradition that has given us this reasonable deduction that is fully compatible with the dogma of original sin.
The conjecture that unbaptized infants will be gifted with unending natural happiness in limbo (St. Thomas’s solution to this troubling issue) entails much less danger for the lives of unborn children. Again, those who, unlike Mr. Liccione, believe that *all* unbaptized infants are guaranteed the supernatural happiness of heaven may, regardless of their intentions, be indirectly augmenting the threat that abortion poses to the unborn.
Please consider the words of Jacques Maritain: “This doctrine of limbo, disdained today by so many theologians who do not know what they are doing, ought to be regarded as a precious treasure by every intelligent Christian” (*Le Paysan de la Garonne: Un Vieux Laïc s’interroge à propos du temps présent*, 227-28 [footnote 4]; my translation).
May 11th, 2010 | 1:24 am
Mr O’Brien:
The basic fallacy in your position appears in the very first paragraph of your most recent comment. From the fact–assuming it’s a fact–the Church irreformably teaches that those who die “in original sin alone go ad infernum,” it does not follow that the extraordinary forms of baptism hitherto formally recognized by the Church are the only ones possible. So the Church has in no way “egregiously misinformed and misled us.” She has simply not settled the question.
I have theologically quite general objections to the hypothesis of a permanent state of purely natural happiness, quite apart from how beliefs about the fate of infants who have died unbaptized might affect peoples’ attitude toward abortion. But this thread is already too long, so I won’t produce my entire argument for that here. Let’s just say that, in the actual world, there is no such thing as a state of pure nature. All has been graced from the beginning, and I believe that all rational creatures will, in the end, be either permanently united with God in grace or permanently alienated from him in disgrace.
May 11th, 2010 | 1:26 am
Mr. O’Brien,
You will be relieved to note that in his last response to you, Dr. Liccione stated, “The claim that all such infants see God assumes that we already know that all of them receive some extraordinary form of baptism, which is also an unwarranted assumption.” Perhaps Dr. Liccione isn’t misleading people as badly as you think?
As one lover to St. Thomas to another, may I remind you how St. Thomas always gave his opponents a careful, charitable reading because he thought refuting the best objections was a great aid in coming to the truth?
May 11th, 2010 | 1:29 am
Correction of my first sentence: Now it’s Dr. Liccione’s penultimate response to you.
May 11th, 2010 | 5:50 pm
“If the bishops at Lyons II and Florence did not believe that some human beings do, in fact, die in original sin only, they would not have taught as they did. Further, if no one ever dies in such a state, those Magisterial statements would have been pointless. When Christ speaks to us through the teaching authority of the Catholic Church (*Lk* 10:16), he is not making pointless statements.”
The Latin Fathers of these two councils may in fact have believed that all infants who die without baptism die in original sin and therefore are excluded from the beatific vision; but that question was not what was discussed and defined by the councils, which is precisely the dogmatic point. One cannot simply assert an undefined presupposition as possessing irreformable authority, which is precisely why Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI are willing to seriously entertain the eternal salvation of unbaptized infants.
Moreover, I would suggest that you are imposing a Latin interpretation upon the conciliar definitions. It is by no means clear that the Eastern participants would have interpreted the definitions along the lines being discussed here, especially since “limbo” and “natural beatitude” are alien to Eastern theology. Certainly Byzantine Catholics do not interpret these councils as infallibly teaching the exclusion of unbaptized infants from the Kingdom of God.
The Catholic Church has achieved a clarity about the universal salvific will of God, a clarity that was not possible in earlier ages, thanks to the predestinarianism of St Augustine, which has so badly deformed Western theological reflection. As Henri Rondet notes in his book *Original Sin*, the history of the Catholic Church’s “theology of grace has been a gradual purification of the Augustinian theology of limited predestination.” Once the Church decisively rejected Jansenism, it was inevitable that she would eventually question the logic and rationale of the Limbus Infantium. The Catholic Church cannot now turn back on her apprehension of the gospel of God’s infinite love. She cannot deny the clarity she has achieved.
May 11th, 2010 | 7:48 pm
Fr. Kimel:
One cannot simply assert an undefined presupposition as possessing irreformable authority…
Yes, this is frequently the problem when people reject a doctrinal development. They assign dogmatic authority to assumptions that council fathers may in fact have held, but never stated as having dogmatic authority; hence, they reject any development contrary to that assumption. Regarding Florence in particular, many people have thought that its decree for the Jacobites, Cantate Domino, entails that the attainment of explicit membership in the Catholic Church before death is necessary for salvation. Hence the Feeneyite and SSPX rejection of Vatican II’s idea of “imperfect” or even unwitting “communion” with the Church. That may have been what the Fathers of Florence thought; but it’s not what they defined, which is why Vatican II was free to develop the doctrine extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it did.
Best,
Mike
May 12th, 2010 | 1:28 am
Again, Catholic doctrine *does* develop through the centuries, but *never* by means of retraction and contradiction. The Church cannot tell us in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries that the souls of those dying in original sin only are punished in the next world on account of this sin, and then tell us in the twenty-first century that this is no longer her teaching.
It was to counter such incoherence that Pope St. Pius X had the following statements inserted into the *Oath Against Modernism*:
“Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.”
May 12th, 2010 | 5:03 am
Mr O’Brien:
The Church never retracts any teaching that objectively meets the conditions on infallibility. But that doesn’t mean she never retracts “common doctrine.”
For instance, St. Augustine believed that original sin is personal culpa on the part of each person who inherits it. He even had the local Council of Carthage define as much in 419. And that was the common doctrine of Western theologians for at least a millennium thereafter. But CCC §405 repudiates it. That move became inevitable once the Church rejected Jansenism in the 18th century. And it’s perfectly compatible with Trent’s dogma on original sin, which speaks of the “guilt” of original sin as reatus rather than as culpa. For my explanation of that distinction, and the significance of it, go here and scroll down to “Original Sin as Inherited Guilt.”
The same goes, mutatis mutandis, for Florence’s dogma that those who die in original sin alone go ad infernum. As a Catholic, I accept that dogma. But simply as a matter of logic, it leaves open the question whether all infants who dies before receiving ordinary water baptism die in original sin alone; and it also leaves open the question whether, if some or all die in original sin alone and therefore go ad infernum, they are bound to stay there, unlike the OT “just” whom Christ liberated from it. The Church never bound Catholics to Augustine’s view that they are so bound; the Church never bound Catholics to Aquinas’ more optimistic view that they enjoy permanent natural happiness. Such answers never met the conditions on infallible and thus irreformable teaching. Hence they do not bind Catholics in conscience. That is why the Pope speaks as though they do not.
I suggest you delve more deeply into Ratzinger’s thought instead of suspecting him of heresy. Start with this book.
Best,
Mike
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact