Limbo, or do dead babies go to hell?

April 22, 2007, 8:40 pm
Posted by stephen in Catholic issues
Recently, the Vatican's International Theological Commission allegedly released a document indicating that Limbo, the place where unbaptised babies go after death, may be restrictive, and that there are good reasons to hope that they might be in heaven.  (Also see the Pontifications blog.)

This has caused some consternation in some corners of the Church.  But then so did the concept that God could understand languages other than Latin.  Some cling to the idea that Limbo is a formal part of the Tradition of the Church, when really it isn't, as can be seen by looking at the hopes and prayers of the saints throughout the centuries.  It certainly has never been defined as such, and I've only seen claims regarding texts explained better elsewhere.

So I took a look at some of what HH Pope Benedict XVI said prior to his becoming pope.

This is a very wise man.  I've always been impressed by him, and this leads me to believe that he thinks at a level far above most.  He's orthodox, very much so, in his theology, and he's not going to go around approving documents that are not orthodox in their teachings.

Some say that he's ignoring tradition - no he's not.  He has it very well understood.  He knows what the history of limbo is, and knows where it can and can't go.  Think again.

Some say he's fallen prey to the "hell doesn't exist and because God loves all people, all people will be saved" mentality.  Some say that he's fallen prey to the modern lovey cuddley idea that punishment is bad and cute babies can't be punished.  In reality, he's far too smart and far too orthodox for that.  Think again.

Some say that the idea that the unbaptised can go to heaven detracts from the importance of the teaching that salvation comes through Christ alone.  In reality, that is far from the truth.

HH Benedict XVI has shown that he can, without betraying the historical truths contained in the Apolostic faith taught by the Catholic Church, preach God's love and mercy by raising our understanding of those truths beyond the rigid interpretations required by a need for defensiveness and protectiveness, as is often the case in apologetics, canon law, and other branches of theology.

I'm hoping for more incredible insights from one of the most brilliant minds God has given to lead the Church.  Hopefully more will be said, from him directly, on this issue. God is not the abortionist of the soul.
Some worthwhile reading:
Limbo In Limbo? ... by Jimmy Akin
Development and Negation III: limbo ... by Michael Liccione
Limbo ... by Alvin Kimel [a 5-part series; each part separately below]
Limbo: Doctrinal Development in Action ... by Alvin Kimel
Consigning Limbo to Oblivion ... by Alvin Kimel
Keeping the kids in limbo ... by Alvin Kimel
The doubt that leads to limbo ... by Alvin Kimel
The emptiness of limbo ... by Alvin Kimel
Evangelium Vitae ... HH Pope John Paul II
Mail this   Printer friendly   

Comments

Posted by Jared Olar  
on April 22, 2007, 9:14 pm
The Catholic doctrine that all who die in original sin go to hell was infallibly defined by the Second Council of Lyons in 1274:

"The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with only original sin soon go down into hell, but there they receive different punishments."

We know that baptism remits original sin, and that ordinarily those who die without baptism would die in a state of unremitted original sin. We also know that God has extraordinary means of remitting original sin for adults, apart from baptism. So the only question remaining is whether or not God ever extraordinarily remits original sin in the case of unbaptised infants. The Church knows of no such means, and although this new (non-binding, non-magisterial) study paper from the International Theological Commission argues that we have reason to hope that there is such a means, it still admits that we know of no such means. Like it or not, that leaves Limbo on the table as a viable option. It is conceivable that someday the Church could issue a formal definition either affirmimg Limbus Puerorum as a doctrine, or definitively excluding it. But for now the question remains open. (By the way, as late as the 1950s, the Holy Office condemned as unsound and "without foundation" the proposition that all babies who die without baptism go to heaven.)

See also, "The Roman Church teaches . . ."

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2006/10/roman-church-teaches.html

And Fr. Brian Harrison's "Could Limbo Be 'Abolished'?"

http://www.seattlecatholic.com/a051207.html

Reply to this comment
Posted by stephen  
on April 22, 2007, 10:24 pm
I should add: such infants, by the grace of God, if they enter heaven, would have their original sin removed. I agree - no sin can enter heaven. And quite likely, those infants are given the opportunity to choose between God's love and rejection of it. That is what all of us get to do. None of which happens apart from Christ's sacrifice.

Reply to this comment
Posted by stephen  
on April 22, 2007, 10:20 pm
That comes from the Council of Basle/Ferrara/Florence 1439, not Lyons in 1274 (I find nothing like that at http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum14.htm) Considering that Florence was a council attempting union between East and West, such a reference to the teaching of original sin, which the Western Catholics, but not Eastern Catholics or Orthodox, accept, makes it strange.

From http://catholica.pontifications.net/?page_id=2025 -
*************************
Yet one needs to be careful with this text, which is a direct quotation of St Fulgentius. Pope Clement IV included this statement in the profession of faith that he sent to Emperor Michael Palaeologus. In The Christian Faith (Neuner-Dupuis), we read about this profession of faith that it “was not written at the Council, nor was it accepted by the Greeks as a basis for a doctrinal agreement with the Latins. It was neither promulgated, nor even discussed by the Council Fathers, but simply read from a letter sent by the Byzantine emperor� (p. 17). The Fulgentius citation was, however, subsequently included in the Florentine decree Laetentus caeli. Traditional Catholics understandably read Florence as reaffirming the Augustinian belief in the damnation of unbaptized infants, just as they understandably read Florence as consigning, without exception, “not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics or schismatics� to “the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels� (Decree for the Copts). Yet the Catholic Church has not restricted itself to a narrow reading of Florence but has affirmed the possibility of salvation for those outside the sacramental bounds of the Church (see William Most).

The Council of Florence was the one General Council of the second millenium that had a substantial Eastern presence. Though its documents are composed in a Western idiom, this does not mean that the Oriental bishops understood themselves as abandoning in any way their fundamental theological convictions. Their subscription to the decree, therefore, does not mean that they suddenly embraced the views of Augustine and Fulgentius on original sin and infant damnation. The Council of Florence must be read with both Western and Eastern eyes.

... If the question “Do all infants who die without baptism die in original sin?� was not being discussed and argued in the 14th century, as it apparently was not, then the Council of Florence cannot be invoked as providing a definitive, irreformable answer to the question. It may well be that many of the doctors of the council took for granted the possibility, and indeed the reality, of an infant dying “in original sin only�; but this still does not allow us to state that this opinion was formally proposed by the council. That all who die in the state of original sin are excluded from the beatific vision is indeed de fide dogma; but this does not necessarily exclude the possibility that God may regenerate souls by nonsacramental means, even though this possibility might not even have been entertained by the council fathers. This judgment is strengthened by the observation that the paragraph of Laetentus caeli that addresses baptism and original sin is not formulated in the language of solemn definition: it does not call for an irrevocable act of faith and anathematize the contradictory proposition. In his important essay “Unbaptized Infants: May They Be Saved?� Peter Gumpel asserts that the issue addressed by Florence in the paragraph on original sin is the timing of divine retribution—at the the time of death or at the final judgment. “The thesis that there are (some) infants who die de facto in the state of original sin,� he concludes, “is therefore not directly defined� (Downside Review 72 [November 1954]), p. 432).
*************************

Either we need to accept the Pope John Paul II and now possibly Pope Benedict XVI are in error on this, or we need to consider the probability that God can and does act outside of the Sacraments. We already acknowledge, with Vatican II, that non-Christians can be saved.

"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life." - Lumen Gentium 16

If we understand that mechanism, and apply it to infants (who are surely in the same group if unbaptised) then what we have is a mechanism by which original sin can be removed by God's mercy outside of the normal means. Of course, this means cooperation with the Holy Spirit, without whom even prayer is not possible. And I believe that must apply to infants too.

Canon 3 of the Council of Orange. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

"Christ is the Logos of whom the whole race of men partake. Those who lived according to Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus." - St Justin Martyr, 1st Apology, 46

I am thoroughly convinced that the current and previous pope are not ignorant of history or Catholic teaching.

Reply to this comment
Posted by Jared Olar  
on April 23, 2007, 5:29 am
"That comes from the Council of Basle/Ferrara/Florence 1439, not Lyons in 1274."

No, it comes from Lyons. Florence reiterated it, but it first appears in a magisterial document of the Church in 1274. I found the quote from the Second Council of Lyons on page 349 of "The Church Teaches -- Documents of the Church in English Translation" (1955).

"Considering that Florence was a council attempting union between East and West, such a reference to the teaching of original sin, which the Western Catholics, but not Eastern Catholics or Orthodox, accept, makes it strange."

Eastern Catholics don't accept the dogma of original sin? In what way could they be Catholics then? Or are you referring to a different theological explanation of the dogma of original sin? (I am aware, of course, of "crypto-Orthodox" among the Eastern Catholics: I've had run-ins with some who don't believe in papal infallibility or papal primacy, and who actually think that the Church could retract some of its infallible doctrines. One fellow tried to argue that councils like Trent don't apply to Eastern Catholics, but is only a local council for Latin Catholics, because the Eastern Catholics weren't united with the Church at that time. By that reasoning, of course, Trent doesn't apply to the Protestants either, since they also had separated from the Church by the time Trent was convened. So I could well believe there are Eastern Catholics who don't believe in original sin. Actually I suspect most Western Catholics don't believe in original sin any more either.)

Anyway I see nothing strange about a reference to original sin from a council attempting to reunite the Eastern Orthodox with the Church. Reunion couldn't be possible unless the Orthodox can come to understand and accept the Catholic doctrine of original sin, and it would be no more strange for a reunion council to address original sin than it would be for it to address the Filioque or Papal Infallibility or the Immaculate Conception.

"Pope Clement IV included this statement in the profession of faith that he sent to Emperor Michael Palaeologus. In The Christian Faith (Neuner-Dupuis), we read about this profession of faith that it 'was not written at the Council, nor was it accepted by the Greeks as a basis for a doctrinal agreement with the Latins. It was neither promulgated, nor even discussed by the Council Fathers, but simply read from a letter sent by the Byzantine emperor' (p. 17). The Fulgentius citation was, however, subsequently included in the Florentine decree Laetentus caeli."

That basically agrees with "The Church Teaches," which says of the document in which the quote ["The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with only original sin soon go down into hell, but there they receive different punishments"] appears:

"The emperor in the East, Michael Palaeologus, subscribed to this creed through his ambassadors at Lyons."

Thus, although it may not have been written at the Council, it was formally received and ratified at and through the Council. It's misleading to say the creed was not promulgated by the Council, since the Fathers read it aloud and accepted it. (It's also misleading to say it wasn't the basis for a doctrinal agreement with the Latin Church, since it is itself the Eastern Emperor's statement of doctrinal agreement with the Latin Church. Not that it matters, since this attempt to reunite the East with the rest of Christendom was a failure.) But one cannot dismiss or downplay the statement from this creed from the Second Council of Lyons, since it obviously is at the very least a declaration of the authentic magisterium. The fact that it was repeated in a magisteral document of Pope John XXII in 1321 shows that by then it had become at the very least a declaration of the infallible ordinary magisterium. Its promulgation by the Oecumenical Council of Florence in 1439 raised it to the level of the infallible extraordinary magisterium. So, perhaps one could argue that at Lyons in 1274 the statement was not a conciliar definition, and hence not infallible at that time. But after 1439 one could no longer make such an argument.

All that being said, as I have indicated, the dogmatic statement that those who die in original sin go to hell tells us nothing one way or the other about whether or not God has extraordinary means for remitting the original sin of unbaptised babies. If God does not remit their original sin, they will be excluded from heaven. We don't know that he does remit their original sin, but it certainly wouldn't be a bad thing if He does.

"Zadok the Roman" has some helpful comments on this subject here:

http://zadokromanus.blogspot.com/2007/04/and-you-think-english-language-rel
igion.html



Reply to this comment
Posted by stephen  
on April 23, 2007, 10:37 am
I've checked a number of places, and while 2nd Lyon is mentioned as having said that, none of the texts available online that I can find contain it.

Original sin: the Western Church believes that the guilt and consequence of Adam's sin passed on to us, and is often seen as a stain to be washed away in baptism. The Eastern Church doesn't share that, and says the consequences passed on to us, and that that consequence is not a stain, but the affliction of death, with creation moved away from God.

It is usually simply be a case of the same teaching, but the Eastern Christians not using Western reasoning for their explanations (and they don't usually try to explain anyway) of the fall of man, Mary's sinlessness, and the Real Presence. Instead of Purgatory, the Byzantines have the Final Deification, and the Pope and Patriarch agreed that there would be no debate - the essential aspects of the teaching are shared. Similarly, by the same agreement, the Byzantine Catholics are exempt from the Filioque, while acknowledging that the reason for disunity was due to not wanting to understand each other. In fact, in 1995 John Paul II welcomed a document from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity stating that the Creed without the Filioque was the normative form, as it was shared by all Catholic Churches, not just the Latin Rite.

The Immaculate Conception: problematic because the decree is expressed in terms of the absence [negative declaration] of original sin as understood by the West who formulated the definition, whereas the East expresses their view in a positive declaration about purity and sinlessness. But, since both share the same faith, how it is defined is not considered important. Mary was never considered to have the guilt of Adam's sin (i.e. West: she didn't have original sin; East: no such concept), but she did die (West: being human; East: the effect of original sin = death.) (The West considers belief in her death to be optional, the East not.) So Mary never sinned, she never had the guilt of Adam's sin - both sides agree ... but express it differently, and at times in ways that may appear to be contradictory, because the two sides mean two competely different things and talk past each other.

Some Eastern Catholic Churches have been more westernised than others. But some have not, and the CCC in Greek takes the original sin issue into account, using a neutral term - ancestral sin - that is acceptable to both. In most cases of Catholic/Orthodox agreements, it is agreed that we share one faith expressed differently. So the one faith might in the West be expressed as original sin, or purgatory, or transubstantiation, while in the East it may be different. Beneath any declaration of what the faith is, is a concept that could be explained in other words and using other philosophical constructs without error.

In short, the East is more patristic, and the West more scholastic, but some argue that the West is working to move more Eastwards.

http://www.east2west.org/ is a good site, run by a Byzantine Catholic from EWTN.

I think a lot of statements do need interpretation in light of what they were intending to address. But I think we're in agreement on the baby issue ... and for most things, we simply can't see to the other side of death to find out.

Reply to this comment