ASJ Responds to Weak Anti-Limbo Arguments

Limbo opponents make poor arguments, and they ignore what Scripture teaches about miscarriage.

Last we left the issue of limbo’s future in the Church, Pope Benedict had postponed accepting the recommendation of a panel of theologians who advised him to do away with the notion of limbo. Thankfully, word is that a decision has been put off until next year. This gives ASJ more time to supply the pope with the arguments he needs to maintain orthodoxy by keeping the idea of limbo alive even if only as a theological hypothesis. ASJ, as you may recall, is a big supporter of the idea of limbo; we see it as critical for preserving the key Christian doctrine that baptism is necessary to enter heaven.

In our first article on this theme, The Loyal Lion critiqued the anti-limbo position from the aspect of the monumental damage that would be done to Christianity if we guarantee heaven to infants that never make it to baptism. We explained how the logical conclusions of such a doctrine would produce a religion totally different than that of the apostles. In this article then we focus not on these absurd conclusions, but on the poor arguments, invoked by those who oppose limbo.

In general, both theological and pastoral arguments are used to attack limbo doctrines. From a theological standpoint, opponents rightly ask whether the construct of limbo is really needed to uphold certain truths of the faith. For if in fact limbo is an unnecessary complexity that adds nothing to our understanding of then faith, then Occam’s Razor says to abolish it. But in our last article ASJ showed that limbo does answer critical theological questions, and helps reconcile fundamental Christian truths. So we focus here on the pastoral or practical questions that drive the anti-limbo crusade.

The primary pastoral argument made by limbo opponents is well summarized by Nick Pisa of The Scotsman, who writes, “[T]he modern Catholic Church is concerned about the parents of stillborn babies, whose grief could be compounded if they believed the souls of their children were to be excluded from heaven.”

This concern is thought to apply especially to the developing world where infant mortality rates are so high.

ASJ counters that infant morality is not in itself a valid argument against limbo, since anyone can baptize a baby. The solution to this pastoral difficulty is wider use of non-ministerial baptisms, and efforts to instruct Christian mothers and fathers, doctors and nurses, on what to do in the face of infant mortality. Of course, this doesn’t address stillbirths and miscarriages, both of which certainly cause maternal angst.

But the anguish of these mothers who lose children in the womb is more of a reason to support limbo than to oppose it. Limbo is a merciful state of no harm, far better than the experience of many third-world children. Besides, if a mom truly feels her baby deserved to go to heaven, then she exhibits a dire need of the exact teaching that limbo reinforces, namely, that you don’t get into heaven by default just because you haven’t done anything wrong! Such mothers need to be taught you get into heaven by receiving God’s grace, being elevated to the status of sonship in the sacraments, and then never acting in such a manner as to disinherit oneself. Abolishing limbo plays right into the hands of those who hold the heretical view that heaven is some kind of human right.

But ASJ has another solution to the problem of distraught mothers that will help the Church whereas simply abolishing the possibility of limbo will certainly hurt it. To see our point though, we must discuss something Catholics don’t like to talk about these days: Scripture does little to console those who have suffered a miscarriage or stillbirth. While the modern mindset views miscarriage as just “nature’s way of taking care of things,” or as purely random acts to be alleviated with better pre-natal care, the Bible tells a much different story. In Exodus 23 for example God tells Israel that miscarriages are a sign of infidelity to the covenant. He says He will preserve women from miscarriages if Israel obeys His laws. This text gets ignored by many of today’s Christians who have become saturated with the modern medical worldview and an unhealthy emphasis on natural motherhood and childbearing. But this passage holds the key to the proper pastoral approach to the difficulty of miscarriage. The first thing we see is the problem with eliminating limbo and sending the unbaptized to heaven—it deprives these Scriptural words of their coercive force. God’s word implies that miscarriages or stillbirths among God’s people should sound an alarm that something isn’t right. This should send us on a search to figure out what can be done to merit God’s favor so that nobody has to suffer the pain of miscarriage. But if we eliminate limbo, and miscarried children become saints, people will not need to worry about what behavior is behind the tragedy of miscarriage.

And here we come to the heart of ASJ’s vehement insistence on keeping limbo alive and well. The frequency of miscarriage means there’s a problem. But what? Is it the prevalence of extramarital unchastity? Is it the widespread use of contraception? Perhaps. But it could also be—and this is the ASJ hypothesis—that too many women marry and have sex when God really wants them to live as celibates or consecrated virgins. Miscarriages and stillbirths, then, are strong indicators of women who God had destined to celibacy.

While this hard truth may not assuage mothers who lost babies in the womb, the fact is the Church has long used the fear of losing a child to advance her salvific mission. As mentioned above, God used the fear of miscarriage to demand loyalty from all Israel. Church fathers like St. Jerome also used this fear to inoculate virgins against the carnal desire to marry. And St. Paul himself says in words that cannot be clearer, “if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh.” Certainly, one of the greatest of these “troubles” is the emotional pain of carrying a child only to lose it. This potential for such mental anguish should cause a woman to consider whether she has the strength to forgo childbearing for celibacy. Why else would Paul even mention it?

Couples who presume to marry when God is really hoping they live celibacy act very much like a mooching friend who shows up one day at a rich man’s house and asks to be provided dinner. The wealthy host may very well overlooking the forwardness of his visitor and say that in fact there are some leftovers from the night before. But he’s well within his rights to say that the food He does have is for some other purpose. If the rude friend is offended by this answer, it speaks to his own lack of a sense of justice, and not against the wealthy man’s hospitality.

In the case of miscarriage and stillbirth, these sad things happen because couples behave like this rude friend, having sex and children without God’s desire that they do so. They commit no sin, but they cannot expect to be spared suffering if God’s plans do not call for a child at the same time theirs do. So they stand in need of a favor from God, and it’s totally at His discretion whether He bends His own plans to accommodate those of man.

Our point is that the anguish caused by miscarriages is God’s way of warning Christians to properly discern whether they truly need recourse to marriage. For we are only assured that God will bless that which is in accordance with His will. Changing our limbo theology to assuage mothers only masks the problem at hand rather than confronting it. This makes it harder for others to hear the true message God is sending His covenant people: “I want more virgins and celibates!”

The real solution to the pastoral problem of miscarriages is to eliminate miscarriages themselves—not limbo. We do this by spreading the truth that most women shouldn’t have kids to begin with because God desires celibacy for the vast majority of Christians.

 This article appeared in the December 6, 2006 issue of The Loyal Lion.