« Praying on Good Friday | Main | Motu Mania, cont'd »
April 20, 2007
Out of limbo
The International Theological Commission report on Limbo has been released. John Thavis at CNS reports.
After several years of study, the Vatican's International Theological Commission said there are good reasons to hope that babies who die without being baptized go to heaven.
In a document published April 20, the commission said the traditional concept of limbo -- as a place where unbaptized infants spend eternity but without communion with God -- seemed to reflect an "unduly restrictive view of salvation."
The church continues to teach that, because of original sin, baptism is the ordinary way of salvation for all people and urges parents to baptize infants, the document said.
But there is greater theological awareness today that God is merciful and "wants all human beings to be saved," it said. Grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ's special love for "the little ones," it said.
"Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered ... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision," the document said.
"We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge," it added.
The 41-page document, titled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized," was published in Origins, the documentary service of Catholic News Service. Pope Benedict XVI authorized its publication earlier this year.
The 30-member International Theological Commission acts as an advisory panel to the Vatican, in particular to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Its documents are not considered expressions of authoritative church teaching, but they sometimes set the stage for official Vatican pronouncements.
I'm loathe to comment before reading the document itself, but CNS seems to have given an intelligent reading of the document and has stated quite clearly that the ITC doesn't have Magisterial authority. We cannot expect intelligent reporting of this in the secular press. Expect headlines to speak of the 'Pope' or 'the Vatican' 'abolishing Limbo'.
What we actually seem to have is a rather measured document which does not declare the automatic salvation of the unbaptized and does not totally dismiss limbo as being an unsupportable theological position. The report suggests that it does not obscure the genuine difficulty of the question and insists on the necessity and obligation of baptism.
For those who really want to immerse themselves in Limbo - Fr. Al Kimel wrote a great deal about this last fall, when the initial reports about the Commission's deliberations found some light.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
By the by, I should add that such a document outlining the reasons for hope is very welcome and a cause for consolation.
My initial reaction was conditioned by the widely touted expectation that the document would somehow try and render limbo a totally unsustainable theological position. I don't think that such an approach would have given due weight to the position of limbo in the works of so many of the theological masters.
On a personal level, I'm pretty agnostic about limbo and share the hopes seemingly expressed in the document.
I look forward to reading the document.
Posted by: Zadok the Roman at Apr 20, 2007 12:46:01 PM
I've not read the document yet, but judging from John Thavis' report, it seems to say exactly what I expected it to say -- the only thing it could say. It would have been rash and irresponsible to argue that limbo is erroneous or baseless, so I knew it wouldn't go that route, but it would explain theologically plausible alternatives to limbo. And in the end, it would have to leave a big question mark for the Church to answer at some later date, whenever the Holy Spirit deems it appropriate for there to be a dogmatic definition of the question one way or another.
Zadok is right, though, that the non-Catholic new reports will completely botch this one.
Posted by: Jordan Potter at Apr 20, 2007 1:28:20 PM
With due respect, I confess my difficulty with this. By that, I mean the Vatican's seeming conviction that it would be a good thing at this moment to speculate on this and, in particular, to judge earlier efforts at resolving this as "too restrictive of God's mercy." The world, by and large, has come to believe in universal salvation, and thinks very little about any other possibility. It is still not clear to me why, if there are true grounds for hope in universal salvation, that anyone needs to do anything at all in particular in this world, including being baptized. To me, the commission seems to recognize this because it makes a special point of saying that baptism is "still necessary." But why is it? It would not seem to be necessary for the baby, so then why?
To my mind, the modern world needs to hear something about God's justice. I am not trying to take the administration of that justice into my own hands. But I do not see that the commission considered the "pastoral difficulties" with this, beyond the fact that it provides a comfort for aggrieved parents of infants but that it also makes it necessary for them to instruct people to continue to take seriously the need for baptism.
But did they think of this? The first times that 19th century "progressives" argued in public for contraception and for abortion, they based part of their argument on the right of a woman over her own body, but they also argued that, in many cases, the child would be unwanted and would, for various reasons, have a difficult and painful life, and would make life harder for other people as well, and so, they said, who could blame mothers who, out of love for their unborn children and for the "race's" progress, to send them to "a better place"? Under this logic, the mother who does so becomes a suffering servant, who can show no greater love for her child than to put it directly into God's care. Who, as they said, could condemn such a choice? Implying, not just men, but God Himself ...
In other words, it seems to me that the Church appears to be responding to what it perceives as a worldwide grief over abortion, but I hope that all this does not somehow make it easier for people to justify abortion. Euthanasia is also ordinarily justified as ensuring that the person is sent to a better place.
If someone could kindly show me how my fears are misplaced, and how the Commission's publication of its speculations can show the way out of this dilemma, I would be much obliged.
Posted by: Little Gidding at Apr 20, 2007 1:56:12 PM
There's a good deal of difference between saying "abortion is okay" and saying "we may hope that these mounds of baby corpses were not condemned to lose the beatific vision as well as life, and that they may receive at least as much chance of salvation as their murderers."
Posted by: Maureen at Apr 20, 2007 2:31:53 PM
I see just now that AP leads their story this way:
Pope Benedict XVI has revised traditional Roman Catholic teaching on so-called "limbo," approving a church report released Friday that said there was reason to hope that babies who die without baptism can go to heaven.
Posted by: Little Gidding at Apr 20, 2007 2:33:37 PM
Maureen,
Yes, I realize that, but my qualm is about the creation of the commission and its publications of its speculations. Really, let me try to put my finger on what makes me uneasy in another way.
I know that Calvinist theology held out the notion that innocent children could be consigned to everlasting hellfire. This was a subject of preaching. But ever since Jonathan Edwards stepped down from the pulpit and the last Puritan passed on or turned their waistcoat inside out and declared himself a Universalist, I do not think that this notion has held any sort of sway with anyone. That's been what, about a hundred and fifty years or more. I have never encountered a parent--provided that they believed in God's mercy at all and whether they were strictly universalists or not--who has lost an infant who has ever been convinced that His mercy would not somehow enfold their innocent child. I think they had good grounds for believing this.
So I don't understand what actual need is being met by the commission.
Posted by: Little Gidding at Apr 20, 2007 3:04:46 PM
Why, why, why, why?
ISTM, if the basis of the "hope" of unbaptized infants going to heaven is God's infinite mercy and universal desire to save everyone, that this hope may be applied to, indeed, everyone.
And I hate to point out to the theological commission that issued this report, but abortion is not new, nor is unbaptized infants dying not new. So I'm not sure where this great pastoral need comes from that hasn't existed before.
But I'll have to read the report to get the whole view.
Posted by: Ken at Apr 20, 2007 3:25:19 PM
"ISTM, if the basis of the "hope" of unbaptized infants going to heaven is God's infinite mercy and universal desire to save everyone, that this hope may be applied to, indeed, everyone."
Isn't this hope applied toward everyone?
Posted by: CMick at Apr 20, 2007 3:38:45 PM
Actually, Little Gidding, the Calvinist position was clearly the opposite of that. Calvin rejected Limbo (See Institutes 4.16.26 "We utterly reject the fiction of those who consign all the unbaptized to eternal death") because he believed the gift of salvation should not be limited to those who received certain external rites. He feel God's power could not be constrained that way.
Edwards was trained in the theology of the Calvinist Scholastic Francois Turretin, who expressly with all the Reforned Tradition(Elenctic Theology 18.13.3) said "We believe that baptism is not so absolutely necessary that the deprived of it through no fault of his own is to be excluded from the kingdom of heaven."
"Sinners at the Hand of an Angry God" had nothing to do with babies, baptized or unbaptized--it was addressed to unrepentant adult sinners.
If anything, the implications of the statement on Limbo would seem to agree with John Calvin and the Calvinists. They would consider the concept of Limbo "too restrictive of God's grace."
By the way, I consider Limbo still the best solution to the question--but I am not about to get into debate on it.
Posted by: Fr. Augsustine Thompson O.P. at Apr 20, 2007 3:39:52 PM
"ISTM, if the basis of the "hope" of unbaptized infants going to heaven is God's infinite mercy and universal desire to save everyone, that this hope may be applied to, indeed, everyone."
Isn't this hope applied toward everyone?
Posted by: CMick at Apr 20, 2007 3:40:12 PM
Ken,
In partial answer to your question, what is particular about unbaptised infants is the fact that their exclusion from would be based on original sin alone. Additionally, they do not seem have the opportunity to accept or reject the Gospel in an implicit or explicit manner.
That is why classically unbaptised infants have been treated separately in discussions about salvation. Indeed, the idea of limbo itself shows that the questions surrounding the salvation of infants are not precisely the same as those surrounding unbaptised adults. (And you should certainly not think that this has anything to do with the situation of adults who die in a state of mortal sin.)
Therefore, a clarification of the issues surrounding unbaptised babies does not lead to the universalism you fear.
Note especially:
1. Whilst critical of the idea of limbo, and pointing out its flaws, it does not seem that the document totally rules limbo out as an impossibility.
2. The ultimate position of the Church on unbaptised infants is a resounding "we don't know."
3. Reasons are given for 'prayerful hope' - but the document seems to acknowledge the speculative nature of these hopes.
Posted by: Zadok the Roman at Apr 20, 2007 3:46:46 PM
Is there anything written on how "Baptism of Desire" would apply to the unborn? I'm specifically thinking of miscarried and stillborn babies....
Because if the parents had an ardent desire to have their child baptized, and would have if only the baby had lived, how is that different than an adult's baptism of desire?
Does anyone have any info on this?
Posted by: Deirdre Mundy at Apr 20, 2007 3:48:46 PM
Deirdre, yes, the idea of "baptism of desire" has been applied to infants--by the great Thomist theologian Tommaso da Vio, Cardinal Cajetan (died 1547). Sorry I don't have the citation, I read him in theology studies 30 years ago.
He argued that, in the case or Catholic parents, indeed in the case of any parents who intended to have their children baptized, one would be justified in assuming a "vicarious baptism of desire" for the child.
The argument was that catechumens in the ancient Church who died were buried as Catholics because they intended to be baptized (baptism of desire). Also, babies are baptized because of the intention and faith of their parents, who have the direct responsibility for their child's spiritual well being (vicarious intention). I like this idea, even if I don't consider it conclusively proved.
Note that it does not apply to the unbaptized children of those who had no intention of baptizing them. It is hard to see how vicarious intention would work in those cases.
Posted by: Fr. Augsustine Thompson O.P. at Apr 20, 2007 4:07:03 PM
Because if the parents had an ardent desire to have their child baptized, and would have if only the baby had lived, how is that different than an adult's baptism of desire?
For some reason I seem to recall that Cajetan made an argument along these lines.
Perhaps his confrere, Fr. Thompson, knows something about this.
Posted by: F C Bauerschmidt at Apr 20, 2007 4:29:07 PM
Cmick,
I can go no further than Christ and the Church, "unless one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
We may hope in God's promises. The rest is speculation.
Posted by: ken at Apr 20, 2007 4:56:46 PM
Fr. Thompson,
I was thinking of the converse--not that Calvin would have required baptism for salvation, but rather that anyone whatsoever could be damned without regard for whether they had undergone baptism. And that would include innocent infants. Calvin had no need for anything like Limbo because no matter what "works" anyone does here--including undergoing "rites" and "sacraments"--the destination of the individual, Heaven or Hell, is entirely up to God. That's why, I guess, Calvin let the sacraments go as well as Limbo.
One of the commission's speculations as to how the innocent infant might gain salvation appears to me to be borrowed from the traditional explanation of martyrdom--"conformity" with the sacrifice of the innocent Lamb--baptism by blood, in other words. I can sense the commission here looking for a way to give comfort, but I wonder if this suggested "conformity" is entirely apt. As Zadok points out, the sacrifice of the Cross, while made of and by an Innocent, was made by an adult who consciously accepted it. If conscious acceptance is not important to baptism by blood--as the Church evidently believes it is not with regard to baptism by water, then I'm not entirely clear on how any murder, including abortion of course, does not confer martyrdom on its victim.
Again, I'm just trying to understand the pastoral need for getting into all this now. The priests who have already commented here, or any others, would surely have a better perspective on this than I do. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the stumbling block for the Faith of parents who have lost an innocent child is much less likely to be worry over how a merciful God will receive their child than it is how a merciful God could permit their innocent child to suffer and die in the first place. Perhaps a "theodicy commission" would have been useful for that pastoral need.
Again, this is something I'd be interested to hear about from a priest. To me, it feels like the "need" to have Limbo "worked out" a little more more likely comes from the sort of intellectual itch that academics feel compelled to scratch when they sense that there might be something that needs explaining, rather than from a widespread despair among the Faithful about the ultimate salvation of unbaptized infants.
So I wonder what the commission has clarified. Another point that bothers me is its justification for why the practice of the baptism of infants should be continued (this is all according to the CNS story, of course, so I don't have the whole documents, of course). It is important, says the commission, because this is how the way to salvation is shown. This sounds very much like a sort of "spirit of Vatican 2" statement--sacraments "show" something to those who participate in them, or they let us express something to ourselves. Period. But that surely cannot be the whole explanation, because to quote Flannery O'Connor, who made the comment in a different context, if that's all the sacrament is, then "to hell with it."
So how does the commission help in real life? When I was born, I was dark blue. I was my mother's third child. Her second had been stillborn. The doctor took me away from her before she came out of anesthesia and the nurses did not let her see me because they were convinced I was about to die. They let my father know that. He called a priest, who came to the hospital immediately. He went directly into the nursery, where I was, while my father was not there, and, because of my father's earlier request, baptized me, blue though I was.
My father was Roman Catholic. My mother was not. My father did not tell my mother that I was about to be baptized, nor, afterwards, that I had been baptized. He believed it would have been too much for her to bear to hear just then that her third child was in imminent danger of dying, given that she had recently lost their second child. Of course, my mother was furious afterwards when she learned that the priest had come in and baptized me without her having known that.
Anyway, I didn't die. And a month or so later, my parents took me to the parish church where another priest administered conditional baptism (is that the correct term).
Now, I do believe that something real happened to me in the hospital nursery when I was baptized. But it was only the priest and me there at the time, and I certainly wasn't in any position to appreciate being "shown the way of salvation." But like a tree falling in the forest with no one around and still making a sound, my little soul was washed clean that day, even though I was there but hardly conscious of the fact. So much for a "spirit of Vatican 2" explanation for what occurred. However, I can also believe that my father--and probably the priest?--would not have gone to the extremity that they did in order to get me baptized, if they had read the commission's report. Am I wrong about this? If I'm not, I'd like to know what pastoral need they have answered.
Posted by: Little Gidding at Apr 20, 2007 6:38:30 PM
From Fr. Richard McBrient:
"If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.
"Baptism does not exist to wipe away the "stain" of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church," he said in an e-mailed response.
Am I overstating it to say that this is heresy, or at least very close to heresy? Assuming he is quoted accurately.
If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of 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 only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema. Whereas 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.
--Council of Trent, Session 5, Canon 2
Posted by: Jason at Apr 20, 2007 6:57:29 PM
And actually, I was thinking of Jonathan Edwards' "Why Saints in Glory will Rejoice to See the Torments of the Damned," not his "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."
And, seeing McBrien's "handling" of the commission's report, as Jason quotes it, makes me wonder even more forcefully why the commission felt it needed to speculate on this further at this time, especially, as I mentioned above, by seeming to reduce the need for baptism to "showing" the way to salvation (rather than also being the way--as I recall, sacraments are both signs and the things that they signify). I would like to hear what reply the commission might make to McBrien, now that he seems to have walked into the hole that it dug.
Posted by: Little Gidding at Apr 20, 2007 7:30:23 PM
I wonder how this relates to the Divine Mercy devotion and Sr. Faustina's revelation from Christ that he calls to all souls till the last moment. In the ordinary way, we receive Christ's call through our conscious mind, but we can't limit God to working only through that.
Obviously, private revelations aren't public teaching, but I think that such a private revelation could direct people's hopes towards a certain direction.
FWIW, I agree with this hope.
Posted by: Eileen R at Apr 20, 2007 8:22:20 PM
Little Gidding:
now that he seems to have walked into the hole that it dug.
I think this is a really unfair criticism. Is there ANYTHING that Richard McBrien has not purposefully misinterpreted, tangled, or generally made a mess of? On the grounds that Richard McBrien has twisted it we'd have to ditch the entire Catholic faith.
About your pastoral sense,
Again, I'm just trying to understand the pastoral need for getting into all this now. The priests who have already commented here, or any others, would surely have a better perspective on this than I do. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the stumbling block for the Faith of parents who have lost an innocent child is much less likely to be worry over how a merciful God will receive their child than it is how a merciful God could permit their innocent child to suffer and die in the first place.
I think you're wrong here. Do you have any experience on this issue? Because having dealt with people who have lost pregnancies, I can say that the former question is much more pressing to them to the latter. Perhaps it's because losing a pregnancy before you actually see the child alive is a whole different experience than seeing a child suffer and die.
And in the case of abortion, which *is* something new, because while abortion existed in the past it didn't end one out of every four pregnancies, the parents know that they *killed* the child. And that's absolutely different. And I've seen people wracked with doubt on whether they're child's in heaven, and trying to see if there's anything they can do to somehow fix that.
Posted by: Eileen R at Apr 20, 2007 8:30:57 PM
The really refreshing and hopeful part is to hear the Magisterium admit that they haven't got all the answers. That I need to hear whenever I meet fellow Catholics, ordained or otherwise, who do have all the answers.
Posted by: Caroline at Apr 20, 2007 8:40:01 PM
Little Gidding,
Perhaps you can point out the passage in Edward's "Why Saints in Glory will Rejoice to See the Torments of the Damned" that says that baptized infants who die before the age of reason end up in hell. I don't remember any such passage.
The idea of those in heaven rejoice over the punishment of the damned is not uniquely Calvinist. "Theologically incorrect" as it is, it is also the teaching of Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, Suppl. Q. 93, a. 3). Actually, I have a hard time understanding the alternative. It would have to be that the fate of the damned is hidden from the saints in heaven (possible, I guess). Or that the punishment would make them unhappy or indifferent to God's justice (not possible, I think). Or perhaps God is a sentimental type and really cannot damn anyone ("can we hope" asks Bathazar . . .)
Also, I think that you have misunderstood Calvin on Baptism. Calvin believed in baptismal regeneration (unlike many later "Calvinists")--I can get the cite tomorrow if you want; that means that he thought it had a real affect on the soul and gave new life. He had an equally high understanding of the sacrament of the Supper, which, he believed, united communicant to Christ's Real Body. If you are interested in what Calvin thought on this, see John W. Nevin's _Mystical Presence_ (available from Wiph and Stock Publ. via Amazon.com), which is the best summary of Calvin's Eucharistic theology available, old as it is.
Calvin, in some ways had a higher sacramental theology than we Catholics do. For example, he considered baptism valid only if done by a minister, as Catholics would hold only of Eucharist. I am not here to defend Calvin (God forbid), but he shouldn't be a straw man either.
Those who are happy to inform us that the magisterium "doesn't know everything," seem, in my experience, to usually think they do, or, at least, that the Magisterium should catch up with them. Calvin was something like that. See, I can criticize Calvin!
Posted by: Fr. Augustine Thompson O.P. at Apr 20, 2007 9:31:05 PM
If you go to the Yahoo page at just this moment, there you can see the lead story. A picture of Benedict XVI alongside the headline: "Catholic Church Ends Limbo. Sweeping away centuries of tradition, the Church scraps the concept of Limbo."
As for parents who have aborted their children, I do "have experience on this issue," as you put it, although not too much, but I cannot say what any particular parent would need to hear. Nevertheless, I am not so sure how many of them need to hear that now we've "fixed" what they've done. But leave that aside. My qualm is with the decision to publish these speculations. I observe that this is not a post-abortion counseling document per se. This is a statement by the Church on what the state of things is, insofar as we have the light to understand it. It is directed toward the world at large. The world at large happens to be struggling right now with whether abortion is morally licit. This includes a large number of people who are not post-abortion, but pre-abortion, that is, struggling with the issue of how to conduct their own lives and to do what they can to frame public policy. I cannot understand how this commission's report can do anything about that except make it easier for people to abort and to euthanize. Do you remember the vitriolic self-righteousness displayed by some who had convinced themselves that the right thing to do for Terri Schiavo was to "send her to a better place"? This is actually what concerns me.
Posted by: Little Gidding at Apr 20, 2007 9:56:38 PM
"Am I overstating it to say that this is heresy, or at least very close to heresy?"
No, you're not overstating it. It's unambiguously heretical, irreconcilable with the truth that Jesus revealed to the world.
Posted by: Jordan Potter at Apr 20, 2007 10:08:54 PM
"Pope Benedict has reversed centuries of traditional Roman Catholic teaching".
That's how AP are leading their story.
Is it too much to ask that Rome not engage in theological speculation -- of their own admission lacking any doctrinal weight -- which will naturally be reported as a reversal of doctrine? Or does prudence take a backseat in these matters?
Posted by: It's Limbo Or Flames at Apr 20, 2007 10:11:16 PM
