Limbo Decision (or Lack Thereof) Scores Big Win for ASJ Theology

ASJ's strategic interest in the Church's limbo doctrine appears safe for at least a little while longer.

The dust has settled, and the Church doctrine regarding limbo seems safe for a little while longer. The Apostolate of St. Jerome can breathe a sigh of relief, having dodged a theological bullet. We knew deep down that the Spirit would not let the Church make the error that many were speculating she would make by abolishing limbo. But let’s just say we were a bit nervous.

Contrary to media reports suggesting that the Church has reversed course on limbo, the long-awaited document released by the International Theological Commission, The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized, changed absolutely nothing. Undoubtedly, during the unexpected delay before the final release, the Holy Spirit was busy dabbing gallons of white-out on the document that had so many enemies of ASJ so giddy.

More than once The Loyal Lion has charged that to abolish limbo and teach that unbaptized souls attain heaven would mean the end of the Catholic Faith as we know it. This doctrine would render baptism useless, and would turn abortion mills into saint-making machines. But most damaging to our work on the celibacy front, it would remove what we regard as one of the major “cons” a person should weigh when considering marriage. That is, the risk of miscarriage or other natural abortion means the possibility of creating a soul that ends up deprived of the fullness of heaven. In a faithful soul, this can and should be a strong counter-check on the lure of the flesh, and might even be the deciding factor in choosing celibacy for the kingdom.

You wouldn’t know it from the incompetent media, but the recent Vatican document on limbo effectively left the present teachings about unborn infants unchanged.

Thankfully then, in point of fact, the document says absolutely nothing of consequence on the limbo issue. Furthermore, even if it had taught on the destiny of these infants, documents such as these have no dogmatic authority.

But then what does the document say? Merely that, and we quote, “besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture[.]” It emphasizes, “[i]t must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptized infants who die.” So for all of the hullabaloo the document just says that limbo is still a valid opinion for a Catholic to hold, but that there are sensible reasons to hold other opinions. In other words, the document maintains the status quo. Let the debate continue to rage among faithful Catholics, and may the side that presents the most cogent arguments win!

The Church has always been clear that limbo is a matter of pure theological speculation, and nobody is bound to believe it. In short, the belief in limbo can be summarized as “these unbaptized souls certainly aren’t damned, but they aren’t certainly blessed.”

In light of this, there are only a few things the Church could say regarding the fate of unbaptized infants that would be of any significance.

First, Rome could say that these deceased infants definitely go to hell. This unduly harsh view is not the Church’s teaching and has no basis in Scripture or Tradition. Augustine taught this ruthless, groundless doctrine and God overran his diocese with vandals while the bishop watched from his deathbed.

A second option could assert that unbaptized infants definitely go to heaven. This is what ASJ was afraid the commission might do, and this would definitely mark a change from the current belief. But the document not only stops far short of doing this, it even labels this view, defended by Pelagius, as “alien to the Catholic faith.” Whew!

Either of these positions would be a grave error that would challenge the faith in the Church of even the most ardent Catholic. Yet the document steers clear of both heresies, leaving the panel only two options for nudging the Church closer to a doctrine on limbo—a weak belief in limbo, and a strong belief in limbo. The strong belief would say that we can be certain the infants are not in hell, but we are equally certain they are not in heaven. This posits a middle ground. The weak belief would agree that we can be certain these souls are not damned, but that there just may be a chance to hope that they are somehow in heaven. This is essentially the position the document tries to develop, though all the while being careful not to say this view is definitely true.

Again, since this was already a legitimate view for Catholics to hold, the document makes no change whatsoever to the Catholic theology of limbo. It merely develops the view that there may be some way God offers the sacraments and thus the necessary grace to those who have died without having had a chance at baptism. And perhaps He does. But the point is we don’t know for sure.

Now the ITC document does levy some harsh language against the strong belief in limbo in clearly favoring the weak view. “Though some medieval theologians maintained the possibility of an intermediate, natural, destiny... namely Limbo,” it says, “we consider such a solution problematic and wish to indicate that other approaches are possible, based on hope for a redemptive grace given to unbaptised infants who die which opens for them the way to heaven.”

Problematic? Tell us something we don’t know. There are many teachings of the Church that are problematic, but that doesn’t mean they are not true. We are concerned though that the ITC is not as troubled by the belief in limbo as it is the doctrines that spawn the belief in limbo. What really troubles them is the tragedy of Original Sin and what that means, and the necessity of baptism and what that means. Yet, the document authors repeat more than once that however appealing their view may be, it’s just opinion as the Church has no certainty on this issue.

Unfortunately, the media has reported this as some type of change in the Church’s teaching, and this is simply not true. It didn’t help either that Catholic news outlets, which should have known better, were equally shoddy in their work. The Catholic News Service, for example, quoted the document as saying that the “traditional concept of limbo...seemed to reflect an ‘unduly restrictive view of salvation.’” But a reading of section 2 of the document from which the quote is taken clearly shows that “unduly restrictive” does not necessarily refer to the strong belief in limbo.

Now we’re not trying to defend the document itself, which ASJ wishes had never been written. For lending to the confusion over the document’s interpretation is the fact that it contains all the unclear thought, logical lapses, and apparent contradictions that show up in a lot of what comes off the Vatican presses these days. Space doesn’t permit an entire treatment of the document’s many problems. But we can hit the high points.

The most glaring weakness is that the document makes no mention whatsoever of the concept of sin by analogy that is so important to properly understanding man’s predicament. Original sin is not a guilt per se that all descendants of Adam are born with. We might explain it as being like how Americans born in the future will have the responsibility of paying back our national debt. The people to whom that money is owed have the right to exact it from the children of those who promised to pay it. If they want to, the children of tomorrow can be rightly upset at their forefathers for putting them in this position, but they have no moral right to refuse payment to our federal creditors. A better example might be a man who is forced into exile for treason against the United States, and expatriates to, say, Russia with his wife. Now when the man has children in exile, will they be considered American citizens? Absolutely not! Will this be unfair to the children? Absolutely not! Nobody regards the children as American traitors, but nobody regards them as American citizens either. Similarly, unbaptized infants have no offense registered against them that merits positive punishment, but neither are they citizens of the Kingdom of God.

Explanations like this go a long way to explaining how God’s justice and mercy are preserved. (God cannot show mercy to those who have no guilt!) As a result of this neglect, the document presents a largely straw man interpretation of Original Sin. The Church has always believed that in speaking of Original Sin, the term sin is meant analogically. Even the Catechism makes this point abundantly clear (CCC 404). But shockingly, the document makes no mention at all of the concept of analogy! The result is a caricature of Original Sin in the Western tradition that underlies an obvious guilt complex among the authors who jump at any chance to denigrate Western Christianity in favor of that of the East.

Perhaps the strongest anti-limbo argument the document makes note of the Church’s liturgical practice of celebrating the Holy Innocents. But yet we also celebrate the Chair of St. Peter, and, at last check, it still looks firmly grounded in the Lateran basilica—and not in heaven.

In the final analysis, the document doesn’t do away with the idea of limbo at all. At the end of the day, two versions of limbo are still possible, just as they have been for centuries. The document lays out some ways God might act to save unbaptized infants in a manner that does not contradict Catholic revelation. Of course this simply begs the question of whether He does this for all such infants, or for just a select few—the same perplexing debate that occurs regarding the grace of salvation in general! But ASJ can rest assured that we are still free to teach that unbaptized infants might end up deprived of the glory of the saints, and we can rightly use this fact to bolster our arguments for celibacy.

 This article appeared in the May 2, 2007 issue of The Loyal Lion.