« Yesterday's Question | Main | Speaking of Bishops Speaking »
October 04, 2006
Worst headline ever.
I'm serious. Whoever at the UK Times is responsible for this needs to be doused in the Thames:
Pope tries to win hearts and minds by saving souls of unbaptised babies.
That is beyond irresponsible. Newspapers: remember when you blather on about how dedicated you are to "truth" - we remember nonsense like this. And laugh at you.
Background on the discussions of the International Theological Commission's discussions of this, from last December. (scroll down)
Last December, the secretary-general of the International Theological Commission, Jesuit Father Luis Ladaria, spoke about the document on Vatican Radio and explained that there is "no dogmatic definition " and "no biding Catholic doctrine" on limbo.
"We know that for many centuries it was believed that these children went to limbo, where they enjoyed a natural happiness, but did not have the Beatific Vision," he said. "Because of recent developments, not only theological but also of the magisterium, this belief is in crisis today."
To understand the question, Father Ladaria added: "We must begin by the fact that God wills the salvation of all and does not will to exclude any one; we must base ourselves on the fact that Christ died for all men and that the Church is a universal sacrament of salvation, as the Second Vatican Council teaches."
"Therefore, if we start from these assumptions, the problem of the need for baptism is framed in a larger context," he noted.
The communiqué clarifies that the assembly is also examining a first draft document on the topic of the identity of nature and method of theology as "scientia fidei" (science of faith), and opinions are being exchanged on the foundation of natural moral law in the light of the encyclicals "Veritatis Splendor" and "Fides et Ratio."
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Since sacraments are time-bound, this-worldly instuments of God's grace, God is not bound by them in their absence. It would seem peculiar that the God who calls us into life would somehow abandon His child because of a human, mechanical lapse. The idea of limbo has been propounded by unmarried, non-parental theologians who have somehow missed the utter graciousness of God's care for us.
Posted by: Steve Murray at Oct 4, 2006 12:26:52 PM
Rather, the idea was propounded by people who were trying to make sense of the seeming contradiction between the peculiarity you mention, and the wholly-Biblical statement of Christ himself that baptism is necessary for salvation.
One can hardly blame them for coming up with a variety of theories, one of which turned out to be quite popular.
Posted by: bearing at Oct 4, 2006 12:44:21 PM
It would be nice if this 'hope' had some foundation outside of "God's a nice guy." It is one thing to say that children who die before baptism would be saved by their parent's desire for baptism. It is quite another thing to say people do not acquire the stain of original sin until they are rational. What is the real difference between a chld who dies at 7 without baptism and an baby who dies during delivery? Why would we seek to baptise a child as soon as possible?
I would have no problem whatsoever if it was said the prayer of the church is that God will make provision for all children who die absent baptism. I see nothing justifying a hope on this matter. But heh, I could be wrong.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Oct 4, 2006 12:44:54 PM
That God is perfect mercy and goodness, and wills all to salvation - or, as you put it, that he is "a nice guy" - is part of Catholic Truth. I think the hope is on firmer foundations than you seem to suggest.
That being said, the article is terrible. Buried in the middle of the article we are told correctly that limbo was never part of official teaching. But the article opens up with "the Pope will cast aside centuries of Catholic belief later this week by abolishing formally the concept of limbo," with the word "abolish" being repeated later, as if this was some kind of dogma the church was backpedaling on.
Unless the Pope or a Council suddenly defined the matter for good (probably not going to happen) people are still free to believe in Limbo if they wish. In fact, Limbo may become popular again at some point in the future (though I doubt it), just as plenty of theological approaches wax and wane.
The snarky commentary the article links to is worth looking and shaking one's head at. Yes, it's all a conspiracy. I find it amusing that someone would find it crueler to speculate on the fate of stillborn infants but not raise an eyebrow at the idea that perhaps there is no Heaven to begin with, and so basically positing a fate for the dead worse then any Limbo Aquinas could ever dream up. Astonishing.
Posted by: Ryan C at Oct 4, 2006 1:47:41 PM
The Times article was co-written by Ruth Glenhill, who is something of a fave on Open Book, for precisely the wit she displays in her writing. In this article, though, she was off her game, and her usual cleverness degenerates into an off-putting snark.
Posted by: Larry at Oct 4, 2006 2:05:21 PM
The Church only knows what God has revealed. There are things that have not been revealed, and it appears that this is one of them. We baptize infants so that they will be, as soon as possible, incorporated into Christ and freed from Original Sin. What happens to those who are not baptized, whether they are stillborn babies, or people who lived before Christ, or people who have never been evangelized, we don't know. There are places in Scripture from which we may infer things; for example, the image of the sheep and the goats implies that "the nations" (non-Christian Gentiles) might be judged on how they treated Christians. Jesus certainly threatens some people with Hell (more than anyone else in the Bible), but all the people he condemns are people who have committed actual sin. One thing we do know, because it is revealed, is that we have no real conception of what Heaven--and thus probably by extension Hell--is like: "Eye has not seen, nor ear has heard, nor has it entered into the mind of man what God has prepared for those who love him." So it is perfectly correct to say that while we don't know what the fate of unbaptized children is, we do know that God is merciful, because He has revealed that aspect of his character to us. "Merciful" is not the same as "nice." But it does mean that He will not condemn the innocent, although he may forgive the guilty. Just how innocent a stillborn, or newborn, child is, we do not really know. What God is like, we do know: that is the foundation of our hope. Better we should do what we know is right: preaching the Gospel to all nations and baptizing all of them, adults and children, including our own children, and leave the rest to God.
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Oct 4, 2006 2:06:51 PM
This would be a change whether you believe in Limbo or not. The current position is that the Church's expectation through revelation is that those dieing without baptism are in hell. Limbo is a nicer place in hell without suffering, but lacking the beautific vision. If the Church's position becomes there is no limbo, then how does the expectation change that those without baptism are in heaven? It appears the limbo debate is being used as a backdoor to promolgate an extra-revelatory belief that those unable to reason and are not baptised are in heaven.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Oct 4, 2006 2:14:09 PM
"The current position is that the Church's expectation through revelation is that those dieing without baptism are in hell."
I don't think this is correct, at least not the "expectation" part.
The Church recognizes that God is all-merciful, desires all to be saved, and calls all to himself. Thus the Church "hopes" that all who do not knowingly, intentionally reject God can be saved.
Posted by: ajesqure at Oct 4, 2006 2:19:44 PM
Geez, do I get tired of this kind of idiotic British info-torial, written by people who wouldn't know a Catholic doctrine if it bit them on the butt.
The headline blares out the misinformation that the Pope thinks he can "save souls" (which is a power of God which no pope claims for himself) and the outright fabrication that this clarification of doctrine was made in order to score points off the Islamic world.
You have to go down four paragraphs before The Times even sees fit to mention that limbo is not a dogma of the Church. So the Pope isn't changing Church dogmas after all. Huh.
For centuries, Christian people have wondered what happened to innocent but unbaptized people who died. One scenario was that those who possessed supernatural life attained supernatural happiness (heaven), but those who possessed only natural life, attained only natural happiness (right on the edge, so to speak, of heaven.)
This is what "limbo" (from Latin "limbus," the edge or border) is all about: a hypothesis that there might exist a state of natural blessedness for those who had only a natural capacity for enjoyment.
This is in line with a poetic imagination which delighted in guessing about different circles of heaven corresponding to different degrees of blessedness, and different ranks of angels such as seraphim, cherubim, etc.
It's a benign notion. Not a dogma of the Church (check your online searchable Catholic Catechism) but a widespread and kindly thought all the same.
Trust the Times of London to put a Pope vs Muslims spin on the most innocent of heavenly thoughts.
Posted by: Julianne Wiley at Oct 4, 2006 2:24:36 PM
The current position is that the Church's expectation through revelation is that those dieing without baptism are in hell.
That is not at all the what the Church believes. It is true that all who die in original sin cannot enter Heaven. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether God can infuse someone with the Holy Spirit extra-Sacramentally. The Church already answers yes with respect to baptism of desire. She may eventually answer yes with respect to unbaptized babies who have not committed any personal sin. The Catechism specifically leaves the question open:
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.
Posted by: Jason at Oct 4, 2006 2:28:06 PM
When it comes to who will be saved and who will not be saved, I think that the Church should adhere very strictly to what Christ said. The temptation to broaden the number of those who might be saved by God is understandable, but the words of Christ, our only source of knowledge for what happens after death, seems to me to be fairly restrictive. The mercy and justice of God are both infinite, but the Church in her teachings is always bound to follow Christ.
Posted by: Donald R.McClarey at Oct 4, 2006 2:29:38 PM
The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The same doctrine is found also in the Decree of Union of the Greeks, in the Bull "Lætentur Caeli" of Pope Eugene IV, in the Profession of Faith prescribed for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII, and in that authorized for the Orientals by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV. Many Catholic theologians have declared that infants dying without baptism are excluded from the beatific vision; but as to the exact state of these souls in the next world they are not agreed.
New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Oct 4, 2006 2:31:12 PM
"Baptism of desire" is not a real baptism, it's just an analogy, similar to how "original sin" is not in us a sin, but a sin by analogy.
Our Lord nowhere speaks of "baptism of desire". Even that would too liberal if we relied on Scripture alone. When our Lord speaks of "baptism", he means the ordinary concept of baptism, in water. There is nothing to prevent the Church from applying the developed concept of "baptism of desire" to unbaptized infants. Call it "baptism of mercy" or whatever you want to call it.
Posted by: Jason at Oct 4, 2006 2:35:27 PM
Our Lord nowhere speaks of "baptism of desire".
St John the Baptist taught :-
I have baptized you with water; but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Which teaches that there is a baptism of water and a baptism of the Holy Ghost. From which we can conclude (and the Church does conclude) that there are forms of baptism other than that those of water.
Christ taught that there is a baptism of suffering and martyrdom :-
And Jesus said to them: You know not what you ask. Can you drink of the chalice that I drink of: or be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?
But they said to him: We can. And Jesus saith to them: You shall indeed drink of the chalice that I drink of: and with the baptism wherewith I am baptized, you shall be baptized. Mark 10:38
The scriptural basis for baptism of desire is pretty sound.
--------------
What strikes me is that some of those commentators most in favour of killing in wars on earth also seem most in favour of killing spiritually in the next life. Is there are theological connection between the two ? A conception of a God who favours killing (bodily killing and spiritual killing) ? A God different in nature to the God who is Love (Deus Caritas Est) ?
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Oct 4, 2006 3:51:01 PM
I'm just worried this is going to put an end to my Thursday night Limbo Contests
Posted by: cricket at Oct 4, 2006 3:57:31 PM
The commission’s conclusions will be approved formally by the Pope on Friday.
Won't be holding my breath...
Posted by: John Henry at Oct 4, 2006 3:59:20 PM
Probably due to my ignorance of Catholic dogma, I'm failing to see how this idea of infant salvation can be conformed to the doctrine of Original Sin. My understanding was that because of the sin of Adam, we were all lost and remain so until baptized.
Is that wrong? If so, how? Help, please.
Posted by: fbc at Oct 4, 2006 5:08:03 PM
In short, this change if made, would mean throwing out the window the considered views of the Fathers, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, the scholastics, the modern Popes (until JPII perhaps) for the Pelagian view that children do not need grace to attain heaven, which in turn is to say that infant baptism is not really necessary, which is to say that the Scriptures which insist on baptism are not to be taken literally.
Please, there are a host of problems with denying the very sound teaching of Limbo. To pitch it because we want to re-make God into our own supposedly more compassionate image? Pure hubris. God owes heaven to no one.
Posted by: Tom McKenna at Oct 4, 2006 5:12:09 PM
"What strikes me is that some of those commentators most in favour of killing in wars on earth also seem most in favour of killing spiritually in the next life."
Yeah, that war-monger Christ and his talk of eternal fires and worms that dieth not.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Oct 4, 2006 5:15:29 PM
My understanding was that because of the sin of Adam, we were all lost and remain so until baptized.
Your understanding is correct.
The issue is whether infants who die without being formally baptised using the method of pouring water with the words "I baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" can actually be baptised by some other method.
The Church has long held that in addition to the normal sacrament of baptism by water as administered by Catholic priests (and any person in case of necessity, even a non-believer) there are other forms of baptism which also mark the soul with the the same indelible mark of baptism.
Two such methods are those of martyrdom (those who die for Christ without being formally baptised with water) and that of baptism of desire (those who desire baptism but are unable to receive it formally).
The Church teaches that God is not bound by his sacraments and can baptise whomsoever he chooses in whatever way he so chooses.
A development of baptism by desire is baptism by implicit desire ie if the soul knew what baptism really was, he would desire it. I expect most of humanity are saved by implicit baptism of desire.
Hope this helps.
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Oct 4, 2006 5:31:48 PM
A development of baptism by desire is baptism by implicit desire ie if the soul knew what baptism really was, he would desire it. I expect most of humanity are saved by implicit baptism of desire.
If that is so, then is everybody saved? And if so, what did Christ die for?
And finally, isn't that a perfect example of the exceptions swallowing the rule?
Posted by: fbc at Oct 4, 2006 5:37:13 PM
Chris,
St. John the Baptist's words have nothing to do with baptism of desire. He was referring to the effect of his baptism. His water baptism did not communicate the Holy Spirit. The baptism of Jesus would communicate the Holy Spirit. Jesus still baptized with water, but his baptism was real and eternal, whereas the baptism of John was temporal, and ordered toward the public ministry of Christ.
In short, this change if made, would mean throwing out the window the considered views of the Fathers, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, the scholastics, the modern Popes (until JPII perhaps) for the Pelagian view that children do not need grace to attain heaven, which in turn is to say that infant baptism is not really necessary, which is to say that the Scriptures which insist on baptism are not to be taken literally.
Those are wild leaps.
1) How does it follow that children do not need grace to enter Heaven? In fact, it strengthens that truth, because the only way they enter Heaven is by God's grace and mercy, not by any action of man (that is, baptism).
2) The Scriptures on Baptism are taken "literally" in the sense that the Church literally believes she must baptize the world, and that Baptism communicates the presence of the Holy Spirit. But the Scriptures on Baptism do not exclude other forms of extra-ordinary grace on God's part. Again, we see this already with baptism of desire. The Church already understands the Scriptures on Baptism not to require water baptism absolutely. If the Church did formally repudiate the theory of limbo, she would simply be extending this exception.
Pope Pius IX wrote:
Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
Is Limbo a reward? No, it's a punishment, a punishment for original sin. In other words, because Adam sinned, unbaptized babies would bear the punishment of being excluded from his presence. But, if this is true what Pope Pius IX says, then God does not punish anyone eternally unless they have committed a personal sin.
I think Limbo, taken to its logical conclusion, is the ultimate depraved "gotcha" from God. Supposedly, as the Baltimore Catechism told us, he created us to be happy with him in the next life. But, through no fault of a child's own, they are excluded forever from what they were created for. What did he create them for? Limbo is a legalistic theory that upholds God's salvific economy to the exclusion of his infinite mercy.
Pope Pius IX also taught that those who die invincibly ignorant can enter God's Kingdom. Why are they excepted? That is yet another link in the chain of extra-sacramental action by God to save a soul despite not having been baptized by water. I think a child is the most invincibly ignorant creature imaginable.
I won't be sad to see Limbo go, although I doubt the Church will settle anything definitively, unless it really becomes a problem.
Posted by: Jason at Oct 4, 2006 5:48:40 PM
From Session V, Council of Trent:
2. If anyone asserts that the transgression of Adam injured him alone and not his posterity,[7] and that the holiness and justice which he received from God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has transfused only death and the pains of the body into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, let him be anathema, since he contradicts the Apostle who says:
By one man sin entered into the world and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. (Romans 5:12)
4. If anyone denies that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, are to be baptized, even though they be born of baptized parents, or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins,[14] but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life, whence it follows that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins is to be understood not as true but as false, let him be anathema, for what the Apostle has said, by one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned,[15] is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church has everywhere and always understood it.
For in virtue of this rule of faith handed down from the apostles, even infants who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this reason truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that in them what they contracted by generation may be washed away by regeneration.[16]
For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.[17]
Emphasis mine.
Posted by: M.Z. Forrest at Oct 4, 2006 6:01:39 PM
Nothing there about no exceptions. Yes, babies "must" be baptized, because that is the only means God has given the Church to save the world. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have other ways himself. Again, if "must" is taken literally, then there could be NO exception, no baptism of desire, no invincible ignorance.
Posted by: Jason at Oct 4, 2006 6:08:09 PM
Jason,
I agree with you about the baptisms of John (not a sacrament) and Christ (sacramental). However, I think there is a deeper meaning in what St John the Baptist said - that Christ can and does baptise through the Holy Spirit and without water.
fbc,
If that is so, then is everybody saved? And if so, what did Christ die for?
What did Christ die for? To save everyone.
Whether everyone wants to accept his saving grace is another matter.
IMHO there are excellent grounds for hoping that everyone will be saved because Our Lady at Fatima asked us to pray that Jesus will "lead all souls into heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy". We know that Mary continually intercedes to her son for all of humanity. And we know her son, following the Torah commandment to "honor your father and your mother" always listens to his mother's prayer.
I don't know of any stronger grounds for hope than her prayer.
We are invited to make her prayer our own daily prayer and to support it by offering up our sufferings and indulgences.
There's a role to play for each of us in the salvation of humanity. The point of the thing isn't so much to theorize about it all but to get on with the job of helping to bring it about.
God Bless
Posted by: Chris Sullivan at Oct 4, 2006 6:09:32 PM
