Several readers have e-mailed links to stories in the British press concerning the doctrine of limbo.
These articles reveal that Ruth "I’m Too Dangerously Unqualified To Keep My Job" Gledhill is not the only religion reporter from Great Britain who is too dangerously unqualified to keep her job.
A piece in The Guardian, for example, is titled "Babies to be freed from limbo"–as if the Church had the power to free babies from limbo and was preparing to do a mass baby-freeing.
Another piece in The Scotsman is headlined "Pope to abandon idea of unbaptized babies forever in limbo"–as if this were something the pope was teaching but has decided to chuck.
Both articles are chock full of errors. (Have fun spotting them & chronicling them in the combox if you want.)
Here’s the real story:
- Unlike purgatory, the existence of limbo is not a defined doctrine of the Catholic faith. Though it has been mentioned in important documents (e.g., the Catechism of Pius X), it has always had the status of a theological speculation.
- The speculation was an effort to explain what would happen to babies and others who depart this world without baptism (providing the sanctifying grace needed to be united with God in the afterlife) and also without personal sin (thus meaning it would be unjust for them to suffer in the afterlife). A variety of different understandings of limbo were proposed, including some versions in which those present there would have great natural happiness but not the supernatural happiness of seeing God.
- There were also other speculations about what might happen to such children, incluidng the ideas that God might give them enlightenment at the moment of death, enabling them to choose for or against God, and that God might count someone else’s desire for their baptism (e.g., the Church’s desire) as a kind of proxy baptism of desire so that they could go to heaven.
- The basis for limbo was significantly undercut at the Second Vatican Council, which taught that God offers everyone the possibility of salvation, even if is in a mysterious way that we can’t perceive (GS 22). If that’s true and if it includes unbaptized babies then there would be no need for limbo since they would either accept the offer of salvation or reject if (if they are capable of rejecting it).
- The doctrine of limbo thus is not mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which simply says that we can entrust unbaptized babies to the mercy of God.
- A few years ago, John Paul II asked the International Theological Commission to look into the question of limbo, and that is what’s happening now. The ITC has been having a meeting where they’re discussing this.
- The ITC is an advisory body that does not (typically) exercise Magisterial authority, therefore what it says is not official Church teaching. What B16 might choose to do with whatever they come up with is anybody’s guess.
- The commission has not announced that it will recommend repudiating the doctrine of limbo. It might or might not do that. Typically they’d want to nuance the whole question in a big way. They also might hold open the door for people to still believe this speculation if they want, though endorsing other speculations as well. Or they might wish to reject it more directly. We’ll just have to wait and see.
HERE’S A STORY THAT GETS MORE OF THE FACTS RIGHT.
This topic was also on Today show Nov30
What happens to unbaptised babies?
Nov. 30: Father Thomas Williams talks to ‘Today’ show Matt Lauer about the Vatican’s proposed guidelines eliminating the state of ‘limbo’ for deceased babies.
Link to MSN video:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?g=85cbf221-e0d5-4034-85ea-13a64b4811ca&f=copy
Limbo is a bunch of “bullimbo”!!! There was and is no original sin as there was no A&E. Augustine and his “original sin/limbo” thinking needs some official correcting. As I have noted before, here is the current teaching as per most Catholic USA universities.
“Original Sin as symbolic of the sins of our origins — in our families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
profoundly. The “sins of our origins” approach helps to account for certain patters of sin in particular families and societies.
Baptism does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. Yes, the old “laundry of the soul,” approach to Baptism is no longer
accepted.
Infant Baptism is therefore only a rite of initiation and commits parents and
godparents to bringing up the child in a Christian home. Yes, but, since baptism is now celebrated at Sunday Eucharist, all the
members of the parish family are encouraged to pledge their support and care
for the faith life of the newly baptized. (A manifestation of this is
persons volunteering to teach other people’s kids the basics of Catholicism.)”
And one of my favorite observations by one of the contemporary biblical scholars: ” Since there is/was no original sin, we are all created as Sons and Daughters of God.”
Therefore, there is no need for an Immaculate Conception or Virgin Birth?
Dearist Realist,
I again post this for your thoughts. I just don’t see “catholic” usa universities listed as having any authority. Maybe you should write to Pope Benedict XVI and correct him. You could sign it “Realist Martin Luther Jr.”
Pope Urges Theologians to Revive Natural-Law Teaching
Thursday, December 01, 2005 12:00:00 AM GMT
The work of Catholic theologians “must be carried out in communion with, and under the authority of, the living magisterium of the Church,” Pope Benedict XVI said at a December 1 meeting with the members of the International Theological Commission.
“To consider theology as a private concern,” the Pope said, “is to misunderstand its very nature.”
Benedict XVI, himself among the world’s most accomplished theologians, explained that the study requires “the spirit of faith and humility,” which fosters the understanding that the full revelation of God’s truth comes through the Catholic Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Please have a Mary Christ Mass!
Realist-
If you are going to make up your own religion, at least be original and give it a new name.
“Catholicism” is already taken.
How about “Pleasure Island”? You know, after the one in Pinnochio… “That happy land of care-free boys, where every day is a holiday…”.
If religion really is the opiate of the masses, yours sounds more like LSD.
You trippin’.
Wow, none of Realist’s posts ever struck me as trolling before now. (Of course I haven’t been watching very closely.)
What is the point of a post like that? It’s all spur and no boot. If you have a broadside polemic against the unanimous faith of the early Church to issue, why make it in a combox post on a marginal question such as (of all things) limbo? Suddenly Realist seems like a crank.
Since my wife and I had a child who was stillborn,
I hope this article expresses the correct view:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm
“Therefore, there is no need for an Immaculate Conception or Virgin Birth?”
Or Salvation, hell – or Christ for that matter. Eat drink and be merry…
The articles in the papers from across the pond were comically erroneous. Plato and Moses are still in Limbo now? Ouch.
Yeah, I think Realist qualifies as a troll.
It is getting so that, rather than discuss anything substantially related to the post topic, commenters spend most of their time blowing holes in Realist’s latest hallucinations.
It is a fact that most modern catholics who lived through the pre-Vatican II era recall being specifically taught all about limbo (correctly or incorrectly). If you went to a catholic school you were taught limbo.
I was told, as a new catholic in the 80’s, that limbo was a ‘theological concoction of the middle ages’. I know that limbo was never officially taught as a defined dogma but it was a part of mainstream catholic thought wasn’t it? Or was it merely tolerated?
While the new catechism doesn’t mention it by name, in No.1261 it says, “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,'[Mk 10 14 ; cf. 1 Tim 2:4 .] 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.”
My understanding of the theology of salvation is that there are different degrees of salvation and glory according to our love and that while limbo means ‘edge’ or ‘rim’ the fundamental truth is that any state of afterlife that is not damnation is salvation. This includes heaven, purgatory, and limbo, which at least one very faithful orthodox priest I know professes a belief in. Limbo seems to me to be a part of heaven, the edge of heaven, but heaven nontheless. Doesn’t the scripture teach that not all will attain the pinacle of heaven?
Could it be that some of us have merely missunderstood limbo as damnation and hell when it really should be understood as the edge of personal salvation?
I agree with Jimmy that much of the discussion regarding Limbo has been inaccurate. However, I also feel that a great deal of inaccuracy is coming from those conservatives leaping to defend this novel turn on 2000 years of Church teaching regarding the necessity of infant baptism.
To say that Limbo was never an official teaching of the Church may be true. But to say that the church never taught that water baptism is necessary for unmartyred unbaptized infants is not true. That latter, the necessity of infant baptism, has been in the ordinary magisterium up until the 1950’s.
Limbo is based on two pillars:
1. Sacramental baptism or baptism of blood being necessary for infants, who are incapable, as Pope Pius XII taught, of the baptism of desire).
2. The punishment for original sin does not desire fire or inhappiness.
All the “uncertainty” about Limbo has to do with what punishment original sin deserves. People who denied Limbo in the past did not deny the necessity of infant baptism, instead they consigned infants to hell-fire, darkness, the antechamber to hell, etc.
People keep conflating “Limbo” with the necessity of infant baptism, which is quite frustrating. The two are distinct concepts.
What is discussed as getting rid of limbo seems more appropriate a chucking of the 2000 year Christian tradition regarding the necessity of baptism of infants, and the belief that without baptism, an infant would not attain to heaven.
This belief was so strong that not even the Pelagians, who died original sin, would deny that baptism was necessary for infants to enter the Kingdom of God.
As for Gaudium et Spes, that didn’t teach anything new that wasn’t already in the theological teaching that accepted Limbo. Its statement mirrors that of Pope Pius IX regarding the salvation of those in invincible ignorance. There is no revolutionary expansion of the divine will to save that wasn’t already present in theological discussions 200 years earlier. To claim that Vatican II mandates an acceptance of the discredited theory of 19th century theologian Heinrich Klee, who thought that infants after baptism would receive an illumination to make a choice for or against God, is a serious error. Further, if you are to maintain that noone goes to heaven or hell without making a choice, then you have to maintain that we must be uncertain over the fate of baptized infants: after all, they may have chosen to reject God and be damned.
This enterprise strikes me as theological sentimentalism in the extremew. All the difficulties raised via the divine will to save were known and answered by the great scholastics and their descendants. Just because revealed truth has become unpalatable to us, we now search for ways to undermine or minimize it? The great Fathers and Doctors were aware of these difficulties, but they didn’t feel entitled to deny the necessity of infant baptism to vindicate their feelings. They felt bound by Catholic tradition which they could not gainsay. Indeed, the strongest argument for infant baptism is its necesssity.
In any event, we await the document. The concern isn’t over the ITC document, which is not magisterial, but rather over the CDF document that seems to be accompanying it.
For those interested in the discrediting about-face with regard to the ecclesiastical public talk the fate of unbaptized infants, check out the Old Catholic encyclopedia articles on Baptism (Unbaptized Infants) and Limbo.
The main point though, is that Limbo is not the issue here. To doubt Limbo is to claim that infants desire hellfire. To send infants to heaven, you have to doubt the revealed necessity of infant baptism.
So lets call a spade a spade. Limbo is a red herring, the real issue is, is infant baptism really necessary? If not, how to dismiss the startlingly uniform magisterial and ecclesiastical traditions of the past 2000 years?
Proud as I am (mostly) of being British, I sometimes despair of our press. The quality of religious reporting is apalling. As another example, an article in today’s Daily Telegraph suggests that the church of Santa Maria Maggiore “is the most important church for the adoration of Mary”. Adoration? When reporters get such basic details wrong, why should I trust them?
On second thought, maybe they’re more insidious than comical. I used to agree with Jimmy’s characterization of these kinds of news reports as just plain ignorant. But I’m starting to feel like the media types MUST know better than this.
Is it possible that they understand Church teaching better than we think, and are consciously trying to portray it as unreliable, hypocritical, whimsical, and much more fallible than they know it to be?
Just a thought.
Correction: Klee’s theory dealth with infants illumination before death, not after baptism.
For those who really want to read about this issue, avoiding the platitudes and slogans that so often mar it, I suggest two pivotal articles from different sides of the debate:
1. Fr. Bernand Lemming’s articles in The Clergy Review entitled “Is their baptism really necessary?” These were four articles that came out in the early fifties. They are an absolutely masterful defense of the traditional teaching.
2. Fr. Peter Gumpel’s two articles in the Downside Review on the lot of the unbaptized infant. These also came out in the early fifties, as a challenging response to Fr. Lemming. Fr. Gumpel is still alive today, the postulator of Pope Pius XII’s cause. He also has an interview about Limbo in Zenit. It’s important to remember though, that we the liberal guy arguing in the fities. I guess his side won the influence, but its important to remember that his side of the story is only one side.
3. The book “Limbo: An Unsettled Question” by George Dyer, which is a comprehensive study of the history of Limbo and its challengers. One learns that you can deny in fact Limbo: after all, some Augustinians were allowed without condemnation to maintain the view of their master that unbaptized infants suffered hell-fire, or the pain of sense. The book ends up questioning the value of the church’s teaching on the necessirty of infant baptism, though acknowledging the great historical difficulties this entails.
It is ironic to see people today so willingly ignoring all those great historical difficulties, in a kind of magisterial positivism.
In any event, for those interested I suggest you get that book and article. Two of them are “against Limbo” one for. Judge for yourself who has the better of the argument.
Is it possible that they understand Church teaching better than we think…?
No, I think they are genuinely ignorant. But it is a kind of willful ignorance in that they don’t want to know better that which they don’t understand.
Non-Catholics don’t understand a lot of church teaching. But there is a basic reversal here that people are on to. The Church has always taught that infant baptism is necessary for their salvation, that baptism is the sole means by which infants, outside of martydom, can be saved. This teaching was repeated by Pope Pius XII in an allucution in the fifties for those interested.
It was only in the second half of the 20th century when a larger movement arose doubting the traditional teaching on the necessity of infant baptism. These novel theories of infant salvation were attacted for undercutting Christian tradition on the necessity of baptism, that they were in effect throwing one doctrine under the bus (the necessity of infant baptism) so as to vindicate another doctrine, the universal salvific divine will.
The necessity of baptism has long been a part of Christian tradition. That’s why anyone can baptize, not just priests. That’s why we’re authorized to baptize someone in danger of death. Why you can baptize an infant child against the wishes of his parents if that child is in danger of death. And of course, that’s why there’s a stress on infant baptism. In baptizing soon after birth, instead of waiting til people can “make their own decision.”
All that wisdom from the past has been largely forgotten, to our loss. But I can tell you, if the CDF says unbaptized infants go to heaven, that’s going to be a far bigger reversal that altar girls.
Pope Pius XII on the necessity of infant baptism. Since what most people mean by “Limbo” is “unbaptized infants not going to heaven,” then this could be said to be official church teaching on Limbo.:
“If what We have said up to now concerns the protection and care of natural life, much more so must it concern the supernatural life, which the newly born receives with Baptism. In the present economy there is no other way to communicate that life to the child who has not attained the use of reason. Above all, the state of grace is absolutely necessary at the moment of death without it salvation and supernatural happiness—the beatific vision of God—are impossible. An act of love is sufficient for the adult to obtain sanctifying grace and to supply the lack of baptism; to the still unborn or newly born this way is not open. Therefore, if it is considered that charity to our fellowman obliges us to assist him in the case of necessity, then this obligation is so much the more important and urgent as the good to be obtained or the evil to be avoided is the greater, and in the measure that the needy person is incapable of helping or saving himself with his own powers; and so it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of the child deprived of complete reason who finds himself in grave danger or at death’s threshold.
Undoubtedly this duty binds the parents in the first place, but in case of necessity, when there is no time to lose or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring baptism is yours.”
(From the Allucution to widmives, available via Google or the EWTN website)
It seems to me like the Church may be saying that we have said too much about Limbo already, and need to acknowledge our ignorance in the area. The truth is, Limbo is a name for we-know-not what. Not Heaven, not Hell…
It might be better to simply entrust them to the mercy of God, as the Catechism states.
I know that as a Protestant, when I heard the word “Limbo” I got a mental picture of an indeterminate misty void, where babies floated forever and ever. I don’t expect this is too far from the idea that alot of Catholics have of Limbo.
If that is the case, it is serving no useful purpose.
Wouldn’t it be better to say “we just don’t know” than to create confusion with clumsy word pictures?
I do agree that postulating about last-minute “illuminations” is just as irresponsible. We need to admit to our own limited understanding and leave it at that.
For myself, I can’t imagine that God cares less about babies than I do. I expect He’ll take care of them in a way that satisfies both mercy and justice. That is all I need to know.
Tim,
That a physical place apart from hell called “Limbo” is speculative, I concede to you. But this doesn’t have anything to do with talking about a place.
What the Church has taught is that baptism of water or blood is absolutely necessary for infants to attain the beatific vision. That, I claim, is something we do know. Absent a miracle or exception to the rules, they don’t go to heaven. What is their state, not being in heaven? I commend them to the wisdom, mercy, and justice of God.
That is theological ground zero. Build Limbo on that if you will, or deny Limbo and say that infants who aren’t in heaven are in hell. But that doesn’t touch the main issue that I think people are really concerned about: is infant baptism necessary to attain the beatific vision? Is it impossible for someone to die with original sin alone?
That infants who depart this life without baptism of water or blood are saved, I can not concede to you. We have the revelation of God on the necessity of Baptism, and we have mountains of canonical, patristic, pontifical, liturgical, and other tradition backing this up. If God makes exceptions or works hidden miracles, that is his business. This is no presumption on my part, I’m simply repeating the clear words of the past magisterium, such as with Pope Pius XII. It is with that basis that we can properly interpret statements like that which we find in the Catholic Catechism vis a vis unbaptized infants.
From the flip-side, we might equally be in wonder at baptized infants going to heaven. How can they deserve something as wonderful as that, when we have to strive so mightily for it? The answer might be that we’re not entitled heaven, we have no natural right to it. It’s a grace, a free gift. Similarly, those infants excluded from heaven are not excluded from anything they had a right to. God has some plan for them, which we know not, but we do at least know the parameters.
As for the practical aspects of this, our answer to the speculative question determines the practical approach taken to concrete issues.
For example, consider abortion and the delay of the baptism of one’s children. A belief that baptism is unnecessary will clearly spur people to neglect the baptism of their children. Similarly, one’s view about the prime evil of abortion (loss of live, loss of heaven?) may well effect one’s sense of urgency.
As for abortion, this is official pontificial magisterial teaching that the prime evil of abortion is that it deprives children of the beatific vision of God. That you’re being an agency not only in physicial death, but spiritual death. That spiritual element might effect people differently, perhaps.
Wish I could find my copy of “The Ratzinger Report” so I could quote verbatim, but I’ll have to paraphrase. In response to a question about limbo, then-Cardinal Ratzinger stated that limbo was never an article of faith, that we are free to reject it, and that, speaking strictly as a theologian, he would tend to discount it.
Breier-
I don’t disagree with anything you said, but I wonder if there is room for the Church to say –
“There is no way for unbaptized infants to attain the beatific vision – THAT WE KNOW OF.”
Or does the magisterial teaching make that impossible? I admit ignorance.
Dear Et Al,
First, I am not a troll but a “born” Catholic of 64 years. In these 64 years there have been a lot of Church teachings that do not make sense. Limbo and original sin are two of the top non-sensical notions. The problem as aluded to above, if you insist original sin exists, then limbo follows to make it fit into Augustian theology. If original sin does not exist then limbo is a non-entity. The problem, as I noted previously, is that original sin is also necessary to make the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin birth fit into our dated beliefs and that ladies and gentlemen are the cruxes of the matter.
As with my Catholic professor friends, I do not need limbo, original sin, the Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth to hear and follow the words and examples of Jesus. And remember the first Catholics had none of this theological “mumbo-jumbo”. It is time we stop competing with Greek and Roman gods.
Tim,
The new catechism teaches that the church knows no other means than baptism. That can be taken in two ways, either admittingly the possibility of something beyond our knowledge or denying it.
The only reason why baptism is the only means of infant salvation we know about is because Christ taught that baptism was necessary for salvation. Unless a man be born again of water and the spirit he will not enter the Kingdom of God. Thus infants who are not born again of water and the spirit do not enter the Kingdom of God. This is precisely the text used to justify infant baptism. If there was another way to infant salvation we were unaware of, Christ statement that Baptism is a sine-qua-non would be false. While God can always work a miracle or exception, not being bound by his Sacraments, he has freely chosen to bind salvation to his sacraments. I fail to see how we can offer unbaptized infants the hope of heaven without making the baptismal necessity a practical nullity.
It is a logical correllary of the necessity of baptism that it is, in fact, necessary. Because infants don’t yet have free will, their condition is dependent on the actions of others, and their salvation or lack-thereof seems more gratuitious.
It was Saint Augustine who pointed to this gratuity, one infant baptized and saved, the other not baptized and not saved, for his proofs against the Pelagians, and his demonstration that grace is a free-gift of God, independent of our merits.
The scholastics who dealt with this question were at pains to draw the necessity of baptism to its logical conclusions, even if the teaching appeared harsh. For example, St. Thomas had an article in his quodlibetal questions asking “If a mother gives birth in a desert where there is no water to baptize her baby and her infant is dying, Will that infant be saved?” Saint Thomas replies that baptism is necessary for salvation. Baptism is either of water, blood, or desire. Baptism of water can’t happen hear, the infant has not been martyred, and infants are incapable of desire, which must be personal, the fruit of charity in the soul. Therefore without water baptism, that infant will not go to heaven. Not much comfort to the mother, perhaps, but the scholastics didn’t shy away from answering hard questions. For those interested in how Aquinas answered the objection about the universal salvific will, I suggest they find the quodlibetal question and read it in full.
Pope Pius XII, in that quite I posted, had no scruples about saying that infants were incapable fo baptism of desire, and therefore in need of water baptism.
While St. Augustine isn’t definitive, this was his view:
“If you wish to be a catholic, refrain from believing, or saying, or teaching that “infants which are forestalled by death before they are baptized may yet attain to forgiveness of their original sins.” (On the Soul to Victor, Book III)
1500 years later the standard reference work of English-speaking Catholicism, the Catholic Encyclopedia had enough confidence to say:
“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.”
(Article Baptism, Section XI)
What does that language imply? That baptism is necessary, we think, at least as we know? Or is it more uncompromising? Christ could have simply said that those who are born again of water and the spirit would enter into the Kingdom of God. That would leave open the question of other ways into the kingdom. But instead he chose to say “Unless a man be born of water and the spirit…” Thus forestalling other ways.
I can’t deny that this is a difficult teaching, a hard saying, as it were. But it gets me thinking, do we really know things today that people in the past were all ignorant of?
Clearly all things are possible to God. Our answers to these questions do not save children or condemn them. Our job is simply to conform with the revealed reality as we have it. Christ has told us baptism is necessary, and the greatest fathers, doctors, and theologians of the Church are unanimous on the point. The contemporary challenge to Limbo does not come from new insights, but from modern discomfort at “harsh” medieval religious truths unpalatable to modern man.
OK, I know this is wildly OT, but . . .
Realist, you don’t believe in the virgin birth? What Bible do you read? Perhaps you should read the first chapters of Luke again – even the words you’ve blacked out with a Sharpie.
From Wikipedia:
“A troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt discussion or to upset its participants.”
Yes, Realist is a troll. My suggestion to him is not to go out during daylight.
“Baptism does not erase Original Sin since the sin does not exist.” Then God must be an idiot, who became man, suffered horribly, and died for nothing.
This argument perhaps puts 1 Cor. 15: 29 into perspective~ “Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?”
Dearist Realist,
YOU may not need the doctrine of Original Sin or the dogma of the Immaculate Conception but a CATHOLIC needs to believe them because not to believe them is the defintion of heresy no matter what your silly professor pals say.
Do you want to spend eternity with Christ or those who deny him?
CCC 389 The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ.
CCC 491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:
The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.
In case you need a good definition of heresy, Fr. John Hardon’s MODERN (you should like that!) CATHOLIC DICTIONARY gives this entry:
Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is consider a heretic.
I recommend you read anything written by Fr. John Hardon.
Have a Mary Christ Mass!
Yes, the old “laundry of the soul,” approach to Baptism is no longer
accepted.
Note the use of passive voice.
It never was accepted — by some people.
The poor medieval theologians have been branded as speculators who came up with a theological concoction to explain limbo.
The modern theologians may well come up with another speculative theological concoction…
A new mode of Baptism: Baptism of innocence.
[Dear Et Al, First, I am not a troll but a “born” Catholic of 64 years. In these 64 years there have been a lot of Church teachings that do not make sense. Limbo and original sin are two of the top non-sensical notions. The problem as aluded to above, if you insist original sin exists, then limbo follows to make it fit into Augustian theology. If original sin does not exist then limbo is a non-entity. The problem, as I noted previously, is that original sin is also necessary to make the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin birth fit into our dated beliefs and that ladies and gentlemen are the cruxes of the matter. As with my Catholic professor friends, I do not need limbo, original sin, the Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth to hear and follow the words and examples of Jesus. And remember the first Catholics had none of this theological “mumbo-jumbo”. It is time we stop competing with Greek and Roman gods.]
Hmm.
One: that is not an especially wise thing to say on a Catholic site.
Two: If this is so, I object to your defining of yourself as a Catholic. A protestant would be more appropriate since you disagree with two of the main teachings of the church.
Three: Y’know, those aren’t exactly recent teacahings either. Yes, the Early Church DID have them, they just weren’t defined because EVERYONE took them for granted. The problem is that that led to heresy on those who didn’t understand it well and, like Martin Luther, tried to interpret the Bible by their own power.
Four: I would suspect that your so-called ‘Catholic’ professor friends aren’t ‘Catholics’ either.
~Kosh
I would also like to say that bill912 raises a good point. If there is no original sin, than what the heck did Christ die for and what was he redeeming us from?
“A new mode of Baptism: Baptism of innocence.”
“Posted by: Pseudomodo” Bravo Pseudomodo!!!!
And supported by the likes of J.D. Crossan:
“20+. Kingdom and Children: (1) Gos. Thom. 22:1-2; (2) Mark 10:13-16 = Matt 19:13-15 = Luke 18:15-17; (3) Matt 18:3; (4) John 3:1-5,9-10. Positively from the Historical Jesus.
“People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16 And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them. (Mark 10:13-16 )”
And I “troll not” but follow the dictates of B16- “The study of the Bible is, as it were, the soul of theology, as the Second Vatican Council says, borrowing a phrase from Pope Leo XIII (Dei Verbum, 24). This study is never finished; each age must in its own way newly seek to understand the sacred books. ” from http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2
As with my Catholic professor friends
How sad they are, these fallen kings of academia. Where once they walked with the stride of giants, they now stagger and stumble, confused that their adoring subjects have abandoned them. “Do we still not speak our honeyed words, that tickled their ears for so long? Do we not still bear our titles and accolades, that dazzled the throngs and announced our rights as the self-annointed? Why do they no longer listen to our proclamations of our intelligence and wisdom?”
So sad, these fallen kings, all alone on the wind-swept plains of academia. Their time has gone, and the realize it not.
So sad.
Dearist Realist,
Then also follow this dictate from Pope Benedict
The work of Catholic theologians “must be carried out in communion with, and under the authority of, the living magisterium of the Church,” Pope Benedict XVI said at a December 1 meeting with the members of the International Theological Commission.
“To consider theology as a private concern,” the Pope said, “is to misunderstand its very nature.”
Benedict XVI, himself among the world’s most accomplished theologians, explained that the study requires “the spirit of faith and humility,” which fosters the understanding that the full revelation of God’s truth comes through the Catholic Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Please have a Mary Christ Mass!
[“People were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” 16 And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them. (Mark 10:13-16 )”]
Are you using this as an argument against original sin? If so, could you state it? I dont’ understand it, I am sorry.
I also don’t understand the point that you are trying to make by saying ‘Baptism of Ignorance’, I’m only 15, so could you explain that? I don’t get it.
But I do know that while you are entitled to your interpretation of the bible it may not conflict with the teachings of the church. There are good reasons for this including the bible. I’m too tired to fetch quotes now though, I apologize.
But I agree with one thing you say: I would not classify you as a troll as your posts are NOT deliberately inflamatory and raise intellingent points. I can see that, in general, you are being as polite as possible and I respect you for that.
~Kosh
Hey All,
Just wanted to say that I just posted a link to this page on a forum where there are a bunch of Protestants looking to read this and all of your comments. Just thought I’d mention it.
Anyway…..
To me, Limbo even now makes perfect sense. Of course, the alternative also makes perfect sense, so I guess it’s better to err on the side of God’s mercy.
Realist-
The thorizing of Crossan, et al, is of no interest to me. I could make up a new theory about Jesus every half hour – it’s not difficult. It’s called sophistry.
The opinions held by you and your professor friends are why we can expect a number of “Catholic USA Universities” to soon be known as simply “Universities”.
If reports out of the Vatican are accurate, these hothouses of dissent will soon be stripped of the false designation of “Catholic”.
They have weighed down the barque of Peter for too long, and it will be good to toss this bilge overboard.
The times, they are a changin’!
Dear Tim,
You noted: “If reports out of the Vatican are accurate, these hothouses of dissent will soon be stripped of the false designation of “Catholic”.
Please cite your references. And do really think the Vatican will change the status of Notre Dame and Catholic U???
Realist-
Yes, I do!
Please see my post on this topic:
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/11/catholic_univer.html#comments
The post contains a link to another article with more information.
Yes, I think Notre Dame may be high on the list. I certainly hope so.
Dear Everyone,
How about some real history? I recommend “The Discovery of Purgatory” by Le Goff. It is not light reading but fascinating.
Dear Everyone,
How about some real history? I recommend “The Discovery of Purgatory” by Le Goff. It is not light reading but fascinating. Brian Stock of the Pontifical Institute of Medievel Studies, in reviewing it, refered to it as a “a magisterial study.” Interestingly, Le Goff points out that the word “purgatorium” did not even exist in Latin Theology until the 12th century.
To me, the issue is even more chilling for mothers who’ve miscarried — and as we get better and earlier pregnancy tests, women are recognizing miscarriages that were once thought to be nothing more than a period that was a few days late. I’ve had several friends be late, get a positive pregnancy test, and the next day start their period. Maybe it was a false positive and there never really was a baby, but it seems cruel to add to the grief the thought that one’s baby will never get to go to heaven, simply because it wasn’t *possible* to baptise them.
In fact, there’s strong evidence that enormous numbers of newly conceived babies never implant, or miscarry before the mother even realizes she’s pregnant — it just looks like a normal period, or one that’s a little early. Some scientists think that the number of such miscarriages may be as large as the number that get to the point that we know about them, or maybe even several times higher. Although it’s possible that some of the conceptions are so grossly defective as to not even be human, and therefore not be ensouled (say, one with only a fraction of the normal number of chromosomes), most of them are probably human, but simply never had a real chance because of defects that caused them to fail to implant or to miscarry within the first two weeks, or because of defects in the mother’s uterus that made implantation or sustenance of the pregnancy impossible. A lot of women who think of themselves as infertile may well have conceived several times, but never been able to sustain the pregnancy long enough to have it recognized as a pregnancy.
Since this is a natural process rather than the result of human intervention, it seems odd that a loving God would allow such numbers of little souls to be forever banished from His presence simply because there was no way to *find* and baptise them. (My own religious upbringing is in the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement, which holds that Jesus was referring only to persons who’d attained the use of reason in the “Unless a man…” passage, not every member of the species _Homo sapiens_ from conception on, and that unborns, infants, little children and persons who never attain the use of reason due to defect are not held to have sinned, and thus do not need to be baptized — and when these discoveries about ultra-early miscarriages came out, there was some excitement at church that heaven might be far more populous than we’d ever imagined, with the vast majority being such babies miscarried almost as soon as they were conveived).
There is a definite peril in becoming overly concerned about the minutae of the rules, that we give ourselves over to legalism and rules-lawyering where we ought to have faith, and come to regard God as a sort of pinch-faced cosmic bureaucrat obsessed with technicalities.
“There is a definite peril in becoming overly concerned about the minutae of the rules, that we give ourselves over to legalism and rules-lawyering where we ought to have faith…”
Well said, Leigh.
As long as we have faith in the One who watches over these little ones, we don’t need to obsess over details and mechanisms.
I hope that is the gist of the coming instruction on the matter of Limbo.
If anything is terribly clear from scripture God is faithful and full of loving kindness (mercy). Why is it so hard for people to simply accept that?
Tim and Leigh,
Applying reason to truths of faith, theology, is hardly “obsessing over details.”
Either the necessity of infant baptism is a revealed truth, or its not. If it’s revealed, one can’t stick one’s head in the sand.
If it’s a truth of faith that baptism is necessary for the salvation of everyone, including infants, which is in fact the Catholic faith, then decrying that as legalism is simply an attack on the Catholic faith, nothing more, nothing less. Anyone bright line may offend someone, but faith is not a warm fuzzy. One might as well also attack the sacramental disposition, the need for confession, discussions of moral theologians, and many other things. While some may see the necessity of infant baptism as “obsessing on rules,” my grounding is not on a nitpicking of Greek participles, in the Protestant tradition, but on the living voice of tradition. Even if we didn’t have John’s Gospel, the truth would be same.
As for early miscarriages, a far easier solution is that the infusion of the soul happens later in pregnancy. There is no church teaching on when the soul is infused. There is no requirement that we hold the rational soul to be infused at conception. The massive number of miscarriages could be prior to the infusion of the rational soul. Perhaps the defective human bodies are winnowed away, and only zygotes that have been judged and not found wanting have human souls infused.
The talk over Limbo is not obsessing over anything at all. It’s simply acknowleding simple truths.
Everyone is conceived in original sin.
Baptism of blood, water, or desire is the sole divinely appointed means for the remission of original sin, including infants.
Those who die without such baptism die in original sin.
Original sin does not deserve a positive punishment, but rather a privation of heaven, as the nature of original sin is the inherited privation of original justice, not a personal sin.
Pretty simple. Sentimental platitudes which ignore hard sayings are hardly helpful. If the Lord has told us what the situation is, we have no right to ignore him.
Some may find the revealed truth of original sin to reflect a “pinch-faced cosmic bureaucrat.” They are free to construct their own God. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
Patrick,
If anything is also clear from scriptures, it’s also clear that one can’t make a broad generalization and use it to deny doctrines that one doesn’t like.
To say that God is full of loving kindness is most true. It is also not the point. You might as well us that to deny any doctrine you find harsh, like an eternal hell, mortal, sin, or the necessity of faith. God’s ways are not our own.
This isn’t a question of who gets to be more nice, or who has the better view of God. It’s of humility before divine revelation. Our job is to conform our minds to the truth, not to conform the divine Gospel to our notions of fairness and equity.
Of course, if one believes in the sacraments, and the momentous reality that is Baptism, it becomes impossible to see them as simple technicalities. As if conformity to Christ and a sharing in the very divine life were the merest trifle! Clearly for someone who doesn’t view the sacraments as divinely insitutes means of grace, and simply sees them as abtritrary symbolic ordinances, the necessity of baptism, or any other sacrament, will appear an absurdity.
But the reality is that baptism, and the other sacraments, are not mere legal ordinances. They are life giving realities, saving mysteries.
Given that, the real grief is that God doesn’t treat everyone equally. That simply brings us back to the basic truth that grace, and heaven, are infinitely beyond anything with deserve.
Indeed, I would wager to say that among those who reject Limbo, their idea of heaven probably approximates what Limbo is. A place of natural happiness. For once one seems heaven in its supernatural aspect, and the utter gratuity of it all, it is hard to see how God is being unjust, or ungenerous, in not giving such a great gift to everyone. That he should give it to anyone is a wonder.
There is no injustice in some people receiving an unmerited gift, and others not. Injustice happens when people don’t get what is due to them. And none of us is due the great grace of elevation to the divine life and eternal beatitude in glory. If one believes in grace, and that grace is freely given unmerited gift, then it is impossible to impugn the giver, when he chooses to make some the special vessels of his devotion, and others to experience a natural bliss that, even in Limbo, eye has not seen, nor ear heard.
I’m surprised that no one has pointed out the part in our creed where we say that Jesus “suffered, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day…”
I was taught that the hell refered to in the creed was a sort of limbo where the righteous souls of the Old Testament (before Baptism of water and the Holy Spirit) awaited the coming of the Christ. Some 1st century documents (such as the Protoevangelium) make mention of Jesus’ descent into hell or “the abode of the dead”, where those who had died before Christ were given the choice to receive or reject the mercy of Jesus.
This would be my understanding of those that die without Baptism, both infants and grown-ups – they are presented before Jesus, where they are given the choice to accept or reject Him. This reconciles both the question of the righteous “infidel” (like the Good Samaritan), as well as the statement from Acts 4:12 that says that salvation is found in no one other than Christ.
God can work extra-sacramentally to save souls – man is limited to the sacraments. Each one of us must use that which we are given/know about. An infant, who is not given the opportunity for Baptism, is in the same situation as a non-Catholic who never heard of Jesus or Baptism – they must rely on God’s mercy working outside, above, and beyond the sacraments.
Dear Brier,
And you are a Vatican theologian? Hear any confessions lately? PhD in anything resembling philosophy, biblical scholarship and/or theology?
Dear Tim J,
I checked your citation, http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/11/catholic_univer.html#comments. I don’t see your name on any of the responses. Did you use another name? Of the responses listed, I see no reference to any planned purges of any US Catholic university to include Notre Dame.
Patrick,
Real history? The word transubstantiation was not used either until Trent but the teaching was always there as guaranteed by our Blessed Lord.
Tertullian writes not only about souls in hades (the place of the dead and not the damned) but also about offering sacrifices for the dead in the early 200’s.
I am always amazed by the people who write “real” history centuries later while ignoring the best resources because they come from the Church. Like all the people Realist quotes.
Blessed Feast of St. Nicholas to everyone!
Breier-
I think you misunderstood my comments.
My trust in the mercy of God does not mean that I am a mushy-headed sentimentalist.
What I meant was that beyond saying deceased unbaptized babies do not attain to the beatific vision, there is very little else that is useful to say.
Okay – Unbaptized babies don’t attain the beatific vision.
What DO they attain? WE DON’T KNOW.
That is ALL I am saying, here.
I trust God will do precisely the right thing by everybody, WHATEVER THAT IS. I will be the last to question his judgement.
And I don’t think theology is obsessive nit-picking. I enjoy theology. Some of my best friends are apologists.
Realist-
You were looking in the combox. What I wanted to direct you to was the post itself, which I wrote. Just scroll up. There is a link there to another article that goes into greater detail.
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2005/11/catholic_univer.html#comments
Realist,
“And you are a Vatican theologian? Hear any confessions lately? PhD in anything resembling philosophy, biblical scholarship and/or theology?”
Pope Benedict fulfills all your requirements and he just said theology is not a private concern that can be seperated from Church Teaching or Authority. Which echoes our first pope St. Peter.
2 Peter 3:15: And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16: speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
And from Pope Benedict Thursday, December 01, 2005:
The work of Catholic theologians “must be carried out in communion with, and under the authority of, the living magisterium of the Church,” Pope Benedict XVI said at a December 1 meeting with the members of the International Theological Commission.
“To consider theology as a private concern,” the Pope said, “is to misunderstand its very nature.”
Benedict XVI, himself among the world’s most accomplished theologians, explained that the study requires “the spirit of faith and humility,” which fosters the understanding that the full revelation of God’s truth comes through the Catholic Church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Have a Blessed Feast of St. Nicholas
Tim,
My bad, happy to see we’re on the same page. I think the writings of St. Thomas are about as far as we can go on this question, without getting into more imaginative speculation. The questions at the end of the supplement to the Summa and Question Five of his De Malo thresh out the issue at length.
I think our investigation into a question like this is kind of like theology’s investigation into God. We learn by negation, by knowing what God’s isn’t. Similarly, we could learn about an unbaptized infant’s state in the afterlife by knowing what his life isn’t like.
To commend someone to the mercy of God, we first have to understand something about what is and isn’t compatible with the mercy of God, otherwise we have a simple tautolgy. That requires questioning and investigation, theological inquiry.
Just at the last four things are profitable for meditation, so to meditating on other eschatalogical realities.
The really practical issue, of course, is the imperative of baptism and the urgency to prevent horrendous evils like abortion which attack both body and soul. We do what is in our power, by his grace, everything else we can leave to God.
Tim J,
OK, I found your commentary on Catholic universities but all I see is wishful thinking on your part.
Considering that the Notre Dame football team continues to fill seats and coffers ($15 million alone for their upcoming bowl game) and is the pride of most US Catholics in our “war” vs all those “terrible” Protestants and secularists, I would quite surprised to see any anti-Notre Dame rhetoric coming from the Vatican.
Did you read the linked story, Realist?
We’ll just have to wait and see what happens, of course.
But it doesn’t sound like good news for liberal theology, does it?
I think you, and many others, may be surprised to find how little American football and American money mean to this Pope. And many of us find Notre Dame a source of bewildered shame rather than pride.
Who is at war with the Prots? I see the “dictatorship of relativism” as a much more immediate threat, as does our Holy Father.
Okay, time to come out of the closet…
I’m a Notre Dame graduate student. My report is obviously limited to my personal experience, but I would say that based on that experience it would be a big mistake to boot her off the Catholic roster.
That’s not to say there’s not plenty of dissent and tomfoolery going on on-campus. It’s also not to say that there are a lot of people around here who’d be willing to change their ways, perhaps painfully, if it was the only way to avoid losing the “Catholic” lable. But, in my humble opinion, there are a lot MORE people around here who have convictions that differ from the Church’s but, out of respect for what is universally understood to be that Catholic nature of the school, are willing to mute somewhat their expression of those convictions. Of course, they’re never muted as much as uberCatholics like me would like them to be. But at the same time, I truly believe that working within an officially “Catholic” framework forces many people to consider ideas and viewpoints that they would not otherwise.
To be continued…
Realist,
I agree Tim’s post is wishful thinking…just like your theology.
May I suggest you read the Fathers of the Church as well as “modern for the sake of being modern” theologians.
Happy Feast of St. Nicholas!
… and we’re back. First, a correction: there ARE a good number of people at ND who’d make sacrifices p’raps even of their own ideological agendas, if it were the only way they could keep the label “Catholic.”
The saddest thing is that there’s this preoccupation with Church teaching, but the only people willing to really speak up about it are those who want to criticize it and misrepresent it. What Notre Dame really needs is an aggressive campaign of Catholic apologetics. Jim Caviezel spoke at the grotto a couple months ago, and the place was absolutely packed. Pro-life demonstrations on campus are massive. The Solemn Mass at 10 on Sundays is very solemn, complete with incense and organ. There is a huge hunger, almost palpable to hear what the Church *really* says. Whether people will accept it or reject it, I don’t know, but Catholic thought and values are still part of the fabric of this place. Many of the people here consider that fabric to be quite itchy or to not fit very well here or there, but very few of them want to rip it up. With a little sound advice, I think, a lot of students (especially students) would realize that its not the fabric that’s the problem– it’s the fact that they’re wearing it inside out, and maybe need to drop a few pounds.
Bottom line: there are a good number of rotten apples, and also many good ones. Notre Dame as a whole feels itself Catholic, and in many ways wants to be Catholic, but is genuinely puzzled right now about what that means. Someone should try telling her, loud and clear, before cutting her from the squad.
Pax.
That last one was me. Oh, and I almost forgot a personal favorite of mine.
Writen on T-shirts worn by a good number of ND fans to the game against the USC Trojans: “CATHOLIC VS. CONDOMS.” I didn’t think it was quite respectful to USC, since their mascot has a long and storied history of its own, but still….
I am sort of lost here. Is the reason that you all are talking about ND is because it is in some sort of limbo as to its status as a de facto vs. de jure Catholic university? If that is not the reason, I would like to understand the issues about limbo please.
One of the saddest moments in my life was when my wife and I lost our first child about 5-6 months into her pregnancy. We had the child’s remains “conditionally baptized” or at least that was what the priest called it. I never was able to get an answer from my searches as to the validity of that. The closest that I came to really was the passage from Corinthians that I referenced earlier. Paul didn’t seem to condemn the practice and it seems to confirm the efficacy of praying for the dead.
Frankly it is petty to rant on whether Catholic Universities should be allowed to retain the word “Catholic” in them. Revelations excoriated the seven churches basically calling them all apostate, but John wasn’t writing to them as churches, he was writing to the people in the churches who might still be faithful. My college experience is what I made of it, not what some student government or quasi-liberal administration dictated. I went to a public college, still found time to go to church every Sunday, make holy days of obligation, sing in the choir, lector, and even serve as an altar boy when the need arose. Despite it being downtown college, masses were full up often and kids who stuck around campus on break usually went. I even met my wife singing in the choir. and this was in the 80’s. The bottom line is that it was my parents, the parish priests where I grew up and the teachers I had in grade school that determined how I would act in college. If kids are that easily swayed by liberal and non-Catholic ideas once they get into college, then they must not have gotten a proper upbringing when they were younger.
My last thought is this-the issue of the Catholicity of a Catholic institution is not a new one. It’s almost as old as the church itself. If you look at history-almost every heresy that I have ever read about was started by a priest. And despite that, Satan still has not prevailed against the church. He won’t at her colleges either.
Paul Hoffer-
I’m afraid I may have helped get us a bit off-topic , here.
My ‘pologies.
The subject of Catholic Universities came up because of a post I made in answer to another of Realist’s heterodox opinions.
He seems to turn every post into a rant about his idea that there is no such thing as original sin. That’s what happened here.
I am glad that you were able to turn a secular environment into a positive, but many are not so well formed when they enter college.
The Catholic universities should represent the foundation of catechesis – they are the ones who teach the teachers – so when you have cock-eyed theorizing (or open hostility to Church teaching) in these places, it can be a huge problem. People have a lot more options now, of course, but the Catholic universities are still a strong influence.
And there is no divine guarantee that our universities won’t apostasize. Some have.
Of course, I pray that the institutions in question will turn and repent, rather than be cut off. That would be a most powerful witness.
Sorry, that was me.
“Which echoes our first pope St. Peter.”
I’ll bet Peter was surprised to find out he was something called a Pope when he died!
Patrick,
No, St. Peter was not surprised at all to be called father.
From the Modern Catholic Dictionary, Fr. John A. Hardon:
POPE. Title of the visible head of the Catholic Church. He is called Pope (Greek pappas, a child’s word for father) because his authority is supreme and because it is to be excercised in a paternal way, after the example of Christ.
What title would you have used to refer to St. Peter? Is the title the Church uses not good enough for you?
J+M+J
It’s a serious mistake to overemphasize God’s love to the point that we reduce Him to a wishy-washy, feelgood do-nothing. But equally, it’s a mistake to overemphasize God’s judgement and sternness to the point that we start seeing Him as a cosmic bureaucrat for whom the rules are an end unto themselves, tossing people into Hell for technical errors (say a well-meaning layperson flubs the words in an emergency baptism of a dying person, as opposed to willfully introducing heterodox elements or making a sacrelegious mockery of the sacrament) or an arbitrary and capricious tyrant who saves and damns on the basis of whims. Down that road lies the worst extreme of Calvinism, which makes our relationship with God into a cringing, terrorized servility more appropriate to the regul younglings in C. J. Cherryh’s _Faded Sun_ trilogy than to the respectful but loving human model we should have.
All the aspects of God’s being are in perfect balance, with nothing out of proportion. Although human justice in its imperfections often lets people fall through the cracks, God does not have to struggle under the limitations of human judges, and can deliver true and perfect justice.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if God has provided some way to make sure that extremely tiny unborns and other such innocents could still be saved, but doesn’t want it publicized because of the problem of people who like to stretch exceptions until they go beyond merely protecting those who would otherwise slip through the cracks and instead become excuses for laxness and not bothering to avail oneself of the sacraments.
Once again, Leigh, Well said.
There have always been those who can’t wait to turn liberty into license (as the Apostle Paul so ably noted) or law into tyranny.
Leigh, you might be on to something. The teachings of the Church and of the Bible are directed at us. These teachings are for people who are capable of receiving them and acting on the promise of salvation contained therein. God’s grace is always acting on us whether we are ready to accept it or not. He gave us the scriptures. He gave us the sacraments. Most importantly, He gave us his Son who died to save us all from sin. Perhaps God, in his infinite wisdom, love and mercy has a means of providing his gift of grace that we are not meant to understand because that means is not for us. sort of like the parable about the three servants who were given talents according to their ability. Two invested wisely and were rewarded. One did not and he was punished. We are all given the opportunity according to our abilities to accept God’s grace and act on it. Perhaps God offers the aborted children and the still born and the severely handicapped grace in some way as well that is not discernible by man.