Fr Flader answers question on the theological status of “Limbo of children”

[TominAdelaide]

From “Question Time 1” (by Fr John Flader) (the work has the nihil obstat and imprimatur):

Does the Church believe in Limbo?

I read recently that the Pope has asked a group of theologians to examine to the question of Limbo. Does the Church have an official teaching on this topic?

To begin with, you do well to ask whether the Church has an official teaching on Limbo since, strictly speaking, it does not. The idea of Limbo came rather from theologians, who started from Christ’s words to Nicodemus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5). These words imply that some form of Baptism is necessary for salvation. In the case of adults, the Church has always taught that Baptism of desire, whether explicit desire as in the case of catechumens, or implicit desire, is sufficient. But infants cannot have this desire and so the theologians concluded that if infants are not baptised with water they cannot go to heaven. But neither are they deserving of hell. Therefore, they must be in a state of natural happiness, much greater than our happiness here on earth, but without the joy of seeing God face to face, a state the theologians call the “Limbo of children”.

Over the centuries, different views were expressed to explain possible ways by which unbaptised infants could still go to heaven. For example, Cajetan spoke of vicarious baptism of desire, where the infant would be saved through the desire by the parents or the Church of the child’s Baptism. Klee spoke of infants being given the use of reason in the moment of death so that they could choose for themselves for or against God. And Schell suggested that the suffering and death of the infant were a sort of “quasi-sacrament”, so that the infant would be saved by a “Baptism of suffering”.

More recently the then Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said in The Ratzinger Report : “Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally – and here I am speaking as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation – I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of Baptism. To put it in the words of Jesus to Nicodemus: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Jn 3:5). One should not hesitate to give up the idea of ‘Limbo’ if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed ‘Limbo’ also said that parents could spare the child Limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be” (p. 147).

continued….

 

[TominAdelaide]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church sums it up: “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) 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” (CCC 1261).

The International Theological Commission – the “group of theologians” you mentioned in your question – had been entrusted by Pope John Paul II in 2004 with a study of the possibility of salvation of unbaptised infants. On 19 January 2007 their report was made public by Cardinal William Levada, President of the Commission, with the approval of Pope Benedict XVI. Their conclusion is very similar to that expressed in the Catechism: “Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge … What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament. Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptise them into the faith and life of the Church” (International Theological Commission, “The hope of salvation for infants who die without being baptised”, 19 January 2007, 102-103).

In summary, we have great hope that unbaptised infants can be taken to heaven by God. But we do well to have them baptised as soon as possible after birth, in order to have the certainty of their salvation.

https://www.amazon.com/Question-Time-Questions-Answers-Catholic/dp/1921421053

 

[Genesis315]

I find it helpful to break this issue down into two questions. What happens to those who die in original sin only? and Do infants who die without having been baptized necessarily die in original sin?

To answer the second question first, while God has not revealed that He does so, He certainly could cleanse them of original sin, even without the requisite desire, by a kind of gratuitous privilege. St. Thomas explains this with regard to those who might die in the womb (he is replying to the objection claiming that original sin is more powerful than the salvation of Christ, since baptism cannot reach into the womb, but original sin can. It seems this same logic could apply to other instances where baptism could not reach through no fault of the infant):

Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article11

As for the first question, if anyone dies in original sin only, they descend into Hell. This is dogmatic. From the Council of Florence:

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

Limbo would be the state of hell without any torments. It is based on the idea that the punishment for original sin is the deprivation of the beatific vision, but the actual torments of Hell are due to one’s actual sins.

From a letter of Pope Innocent III to the Archbishop of Lyons in 1206 (cited in Denzinger 410):

The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell.

Whether someone who descends into Hell without actual sin suffers actual torments is not definitively settled, but likely the case. This is why Limbo was never considered definitive–it could be worse for those who die in original only. Someone who dies in original sin only cannot see God.

Again, whether any infant actual does die in such a state is unknown and we can certainly hope and pray that God grant them the gift of grace and the full beatific vision of Heaven.

 

[F_Marturana]

Lex Orandi lex credendi means we believe how we pray.

We ask Our Lady every time we pray the Hail Mary, “pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.”

So I’m sure she prays for the little unbaptised babies at the hour of their death.

We also pray, in the memorare:

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary,
that never was it known that anyone who fled to your protection,
implored your help, or sought your intercession,
was left unaided.
Inspired by this confidence,
I fly unto you, O Virgin of virgins, my Mother.
To you do I come, before you I stand, sinful and sorrowful.
O Mother of the Word Incarnate,
despise not my petitions,
but in your mercy, hear and answer me.
Amen.

Our Mother is a good mother. Her Son is Merciful.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

This is why Limbo was never considered definitive–it could be worse for those who die in original only. Someone who dies in original sin only cannot see God.

We’re talking about infants here aren’t we? Are you saying that the fate of unbaptized infants could be worse than a simple absence of seeing God? That seems a little unmerciful and unjust.

Anyway, there are plenty of theological reasons to say that unbaptized infants are not deprived of anything that God has to offer. There isn’t really anything to say otherwise.

 

[StudentMI]

We’re talking about infants here aren’t we? Are you saying that the fate of unbaptized infants could be worse than a simple absence of seeing God? That seems a little unmerciful.

God is both mercy and justice. What Genesis posted is true. Avoiding the ‘ugly’ aspects of our faith helps no one.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

I edited my post.

 

[ThomasMT]

It seems to me that the bottom line is that we just don’t know. For the sake of those suffering loss, we offer hope… but we don’t know.

 

[SPBlitz]

As for the first question, if anyone dies in original sin only, they descend into Hell. This is dogmatic. From the Council of Florence:

But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

How would this square with the church’s teaching on invincible ignorance? Since those who’ve never heard of Christ could not be baptized, they’d still have original sin, right? Or does the church teach that it’s possible for original sin to be removed without baptism in these cases?

 

[Genesis315]

We’re talking about infants here aren’t we? Are you saying that the fate of unbaptized infants could be worse than a simple absence of seeing God? That seems a little unmerciful and unjust.

I don’t believe that to be the case, but various Fathers (like St. Augustine) did. I think essentially the idea is that one would not be “naturally happy” knowing one was definitively cut off from God–torment would have to accompany this state. Again, while never definitively ruled out, it certainly became a pretty rare opinion by the second millenium.

 

[Genesis315]

How would this square with the church’s teaching on invincible ignorance? Since those who’ve never heard of Christ could not be baptized, they’d still have original sin, right? Or does the church teach that it’s possible for original sin to be removed without baptism in these cases?

They’d have to have their original sin cleansed one way or another to be saved. Sacramental baptism is the ordinary way. We also acknowledge the desire for baptism–even an implicit one–to suffice if one is impeded (due to ignorance or otherwise) from receiving sacramental baptism if the desire is animated by faith and charity.

Finally, for those without a will who cannot desire, it is still possible for God to gratuitously infuse this grace, like for those sanctified in the womb or the Holy Innocents.

 

[Wesrock]

1Lord1Faith:

We’re talking about infants here aren’t we? Are you saying that the fate of unbaptized infants could be worse than a simple absence of seeing God? That seems a little unmerciful and unjust.

I don’t believe that to be the case, but various Fathers (like St. Augustine) did. I think essentially the idea is that one would not be “naturally happy” knowing one was definitively cut off from God–torment would have to accompany this state. Again, while never definitively ruled out, it certainly became a pretty rare opinion in recent centuries.

I believe you already know this, but I’ll just add that St. Thomas Aquinas disagreed with St. Augustine of Hippo on this point, believing that those infants who died in original sin only would not experience the pain of loss. And, like you explained earlier, he maintained that they would live with natural happiness.

As for limbo… I am perfectly happy expressing the hope for them receiving the beatific vision as is stated in the catechism. But I don’t have (or agree with) a total aversion to the idea of limbo as taught by St. Thomas Aquinas and other Church Fathers throughout history. We do not have absolute surety in this area.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

We do not have absolute surety in this area.

I hope you have a more sound reason than this for not abandoning the idea that innocent people will never see God. The idea doesn’t even make sense on its surface.

There is plenty of reason to believe innocent people see God. There is nothing in scripture or tradition to say otherwise.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Finally, for those without a will who cannot desire, it is still possible for God to gratuitously infuse this grace,

There is not necessarily anything gratuitous about it other than Christ’s incarnation. We are all children of Christ unless we knowingly reject Him. Christ is the new Adam isn’t he? If an infant doesn’t reject Christ then the infant is a child of God and will be with their creator. It’s not to difficult.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

We do not have absolute surety in this area.

I hope you have a more sound reason than this for not abandoning the idea that innocent people will never see God. The idea doesn’t even make sense on its surface.

There is plenty of reason to believe innocent people see God. There is nothing in scripture or tradition to say otherwise.

There is nothing in Scripture or in the Church Fathers on the necessity of Baptism and all humankind being dead to sin by the actions of one man and needing supernatural grace merited by another to be saved?

No one is due salvation or known to be born already justified by God except for a handful of revealed cases.

 

[Wesrock]

We are all children of Christ unless we knowingly reject Him.

That is definitely not Church teaching on how incorporation into the body of Christ works.

 

[StudentMI]

Anyone else mistakenly read the title as Fr Flanders?

 

[Wesrock]

I am not saying baptized children must be thought to be excluded after death. But their incorporation would require extraordinary action on the part of God that has not been directly revealed to definitely happen in any universal way, but would certainly be within his power.

And some statements in previous posts are directly counter to Church theology on matters of baptism and original sin.

 

[AlNg]

As for the first question, if anyone dies in original sin only, they descend into Hell. This is dogmatic.

Has not this dogma been changed so that even if an infant dies in original sin, she may not descend into hell but God may take her into heaven?

 

[Wesrock]

Genesis315:

As for the first question, if anyone dies in original sin only, they descend into Hell. This is dogmatic.

Has not this dogma been changed so that even if an infant dies in original sin, she may not descend into hell but God may take her into heaven?

The dogma hasn’t changed, just the acknowledgement that God can act in extraordinary ways to remove original sin from the unbaptized infant prior to death, such that they don’t die in original sin.