Limbo of the Children

[christianley]

I don’t think it’s a reluctancy in hoping for the best of those unbaptized children, since limbo is identified as a place of natural happiness. However, if the unbaptized babies who died went directly into Heaven due to the fact that they haven’t committed any actual sins, the question remains, how can Jesus be said to be their Savior as well, if they had no need of being saved in the first place. Also, were the unbaptized babies who died before the Sacrifice of Christ on calvary able to enter directly into Heaven as well?

Andre

Didn’t Christ atone for Adam’s sin? Isn’t Christ’s atonement more powerful than Adam’s sin? Why wouldn’t babies simply be cleansed of original sin based on the work of Christ alone?

I believe we are all born with a tendency to sin because of Adam’s sin. The only one born without that tendency to sin was Mary because she was preserved from it from the moment of conception. She was given grace to fully overcome sin from the moment of her conception and she would never fall into sin. Babies are born with a tendency to sin, but no personal guilt. Are we condemned because we have a tendency to sin or are we condemned because of our actual personal sin? If I have a tendency towards homosexuality, but never commit a homosexual sin, am I condemned for my tendencies?

And what do the Eastern Orthodox think about this? I don’t think they would consign an unbaptized baby to limbo – what does the Eastern lung of the Church say?

I personally don’t know why people are so unwilling to say that unbaptized babies might be in heaven. It seems to me it would be a cruel God who would look at an unbaptized baby without personal sin and then condemn it to remain away from him forever.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Didn’t Christ atone for Adam’s sin? Isn’t Christ’s atonement more powerful than Adam’s sin? Why wouldn’t babies simply be cleansed of original sin based on the work of Christ alone?

I believe we are all born with a tendency to sin because of Adam’s sin. The only one born without that tendency to sin was Mary because she was preserved from it from the moment of conception. She was given grace to fully overcome sin from the moment of her conception and she would never fall into sin. Babies are born with a tendency to sin, but no personal guilt. Are we condemned because we have a tendency to sin or are we condemned because of our actual personal sin? If I have a tendency towards homosexuality, but never commit a homosexual sin, am I condemned for my tendencies?

And what do the Eastern Orthodox think about this? I don’t think they would consign an unbaptized baby to limbo – what does the Eastern lung of the Church say?

I personally don’t know why people are so unwilling to say that unbaptized babies might be in heaven. It seems to me it would be a cruel God who would look at an unbaptized baby without personal sin and then condemn it to remain away from him forever.

I don’t think anyone is unwilling to say that there might possibly be a way for unBaptized infants to go to Heaven that is known only to God. That is what the Church says. What I’m against is people saying that all unBaptized infants are or must be in Heaven, it’s not possible for them not to be.

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I don’t think anyone is unwilling to say that there might possibly be a way for unBaptized infants to go to Heaven that is known only to God.

Perhaps I am wrong, but my impression from certain traditionalists is that they are very much unwilling to say this.

 

[John_Hiner]

John,
Thank you for explaining what you meant. Would your opinion be different though if the baby who died would have been born to Christian parents who would have baptized the baby? . . .

Dear Carol Marie:

I do not have a fully formed opinion on this issue. However, the current sate of my thinking is that the unbaptized child of a mother and father who explicitly intend and desire baptism for the child is in the very best category to hope that the grace of baptism is extra-sacramentally conferred by God, while the child is still alive, if some physical impossibility makes the actual baptism impossible, through no fault of the parents.

This hope is consistent with the 1992 Catechism’s statement:

1261 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,"64 **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. (Emphasis added.)

Further, in defining the necessity for baptism, the Fathers of Trent taught:

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God. Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter IV. (Emphasis added.)

The doctrine of “baptism by desire” or “baptizma flaminis” has commonly been limited to adults, because the teachings of Trent which touch on it relate to the effects of perfect contrition in accomplishing the forgiveness of sins. However, the reference above to desire or “voto” is not limited to adults explicitly. I do not think there is any persuasive reason to think that it is inherently so limited.

(The other reason that the doctrine of baptism by desire has been limited to adults is because it is based on Jesus’ statements in John 14, which recognize acts of contrition and charity as sources of sanctifying grace. These statements by the Savior amount to an explicit exception to the general requirement of the formal Sacrament of Baptism, in extraordinary cases. To be completely secure in my confidence in a similar baptism of substituted desire for infants for whom baptism becomes impossible, I would need to discern a similar basis in Scripture for an exception proclaimed by our Lord. I am not now aware of such a Scripture – though I will look for one. This issue is the primary reason that I say that my opinion is not fully formed in these matters.)

When I read the discussion in the Summa Theologica on the requirements of infant baptism there seem to be many reasons to hope that parents or other appropriate persons may be able to provide the desire on behalf of the child.

Continued . . .

 

[John_Hiner]

Continued . . .

St. Thomas writes, in Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Question 68, Article 7, that the person receiving baptism must personally intend baptism. This is similar to the terms suggested by the Fathers of Trent regarding the perfect contrition that is effective in a baptism of desire. However, in Article 9 of the same Question St. Thomas writes:

The spiritual regeneration effected by Baptism is somewhat like carnal birth, in this respect, that as the child while in the mother’s womb receives nourishment not independently, but through the nourishment of its mother, so also children before the use of reason, being as it were in the womb of their mother the Church, receive salvation not by their own act, but by the act of the Church. Hence Augustine says (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i): "The Church, our mother, offers her maternal mouth for her children, that they may imbibe the sacred mysteries: for they cannot as yet with their own hearts believe unto justice, nor with their own mouths confess unto salvation . . . And if they are rightly said to believe, because in a certain fashion they make profession of faith by the words of their sponsors, why should they not also be said to repent, since by the words of those same sponsors they evidence their renunciation of the devil and this world?" For the same reason they can be said to intend, not by their own act of intention, since at times they struggle and cry; but by the act of those who bring them to be baptized. (Emphasis added.)

And further:

As Augustine says, writing to Boniface (Cont. duas Ep. Pelag. i), “in the Church of our Saviour little children believe through others, just as they contracted from others those sins which are remitted in Baptism.” (Emphasis added.)

And:

Just as a child, when he is being baptized, believes not by himself but by others, so is he examined not by himself but through others, and these in answer confess the Church’s faith in the child’s stead, who is aggregated to this faith by the sacrament of faith.

All of these considerations seem to apply to the “desire” or “votum” mentioned by the Fathers of Trent as well as to the intention, belief, and repentance explicitly considered by St. Thomas.

For all of these reasons, in my current state of knowledge, I am willing to paraphrase St. Augustine (as quoted by St. Thomas above) and say: “Why should they not also be said to desire baptism by the words and intentions of their parents or other sponsors?”

In my thinking at this time, these arguments apply most strongly to a child of Catholic parents who explicitly intend to baptize their child as soon as reasonably possible, but who are thwarted through no fault of their own. Such a child, in my mind, can be confidently thought to receive the sanctifying grace of baptism prior to his death. I would confidently expect to meet such a child in heaven, in the company of God.

However, there are other things said by St. Thomas which extend this hope somewhat more broadly:

Nor is it a hindrance to their salvation if their parents be unbelievers, because, as Augustine says, writing to the same Boniface (Ep. xcviii), “little children are offered that they may receive grace in their souls, not so much from the hands of those that carry them (yet from these too, if they be good and faithful) as from the whole company of the saints and the faithful. For they are rightly considered to be offered by those who are pleased at their being offered, and by whose charity they are united in communion with the Holy Ghost.” . . . But the faith of one, indeed of the whole Church, profits the child through the operation of the Holy Ghost, Who unites the Church together, and communicates the goods of one member to another. (Summa Theologica, Tertia Pars, Q 68, Art 9.)

Continued . . .

 

[John_Hiner]

Continued . . .

One has to remember that these comments refer directly to a child who in fact receives the Sacrament of Baptism. Therefore the case is one where by some means or another the parents have “consented” to the Sacrament, at least to the extent of not having prevented it from being administered. This consideration greatly weakens my hope that a child whose parents or immediate guardians do not desire baptism will receive the benefits of other person’s desires for the sacrament. However, if one considers their effects on the “desire” for baptism which is required by the Teaching of Trent, then it seems likely that some children, in cases such as where one parent desires baptism but the other does not, or where a grandparent, aunt, or uncle desire baptism for the baby, but the parents do not, then some hope remains. Surely the level of confidence here is much less than in the case where both parents desire and intend baptism explicitly, but these cases of more attenuated desire are not without hope.

I have greater reservations where the desired and intended baptism is not within the Catholic Church, or where the relationship between the child and the person, whose desire is hoped to be effective on the child’s behalf, is more removed and therefore less likely to have been effective in obtaining actual baptism, had the child lived and baptism been possible.

Still, even the most attenuated cases are not completely without hope, since the Church desires baptism for all children and so the great merit of the Church may be effective even for a child most under the sway of parents who are indifferent to baptism.

The least hopeful cases are those where the parents explicitly refuse baptism by desiring that it not be administered. In such cases, even the desire of a near relative is of doubtful value, since the wishes of the parents are the natural substitute for the child’s own desires.

In such cases, it is helpful to remember the arguments made by St. Thomas regarding unbaptized children. In such cases, limbo, a state of natural happiness, without pain or punishment, is the worst state to be feared for such children. They will not suffer. They will not be punished. They will not be unhappy, even though they will not reach the supernatural happiness of heaven.

Further, there is no reason of which I am aware to think that those who love such children will not be well able to visit with them and to be with them, to share in their joys and natural happiness, even while these loving friends are in the midst of the joys of heaven. Neither limbo nor heaven are likely to be geographically or spacially limited. So, one person being in heaven and another in limbo will not be likely to require them to be separated from one another. Though the child in limbo will not be aware of all that the saint experiences, this does not mean that they will not share a loving though unequal relationship. But this is likely to be true of many of the gradations of happiness in eternal life.

So, even if all hope of heaven fail, there is great – even certain – hope of reunion between the unbaptized and those saints who love them.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[Eireann]

I really don’t need to wait until the church says so. It’s obvious to me.

Obvious so you’ve been to the other-side, and you know exactly who is in Heaven ?

 

[mich2]

That’s not entirely correct; the *Limbus Patrum *was the place where the just souls who died before Christ went and were freed by Him when He descended there after His death. This is a dogmatic teaching (de fide).

The Limbus Infantium is the place (not the same as above) normally referred to as Limbo, where unbaptised children or the unborn are believed to go, but the view that they might go to Heaven after Judgment Day was condemned at the Council of Florence. Limbo is apart from direct experience of God, but the souls there experience as much happiness as is possible for their natural human state (i.e. without sanctifying Grace), and there is no suffering there.

I agree that “limbo of the Fathers” and “limbo of the infants” are different when used to identify the state of the soul. One identifies a person who has struggled to follow God’s law, while the other simply never had any potential to commit any sins. However, both of these limbos have something in common, in that
both hypothesis states that neither the righteous person nor the infant who never committed sins as having the capacity to enter Heaven for the reason of not having been saved yet.

What I am implying is that if the limbo of the fathers (known as Abraham’s bosom) existed before the sacrifice of Christ, then limbo of the infants must have also existed; for how does one explain the state of an infant who died before salvation was given, except to imply a similar state to those who were within Abraham’s bosom?

However, I do also greatly support the hypothesis that, since the time of salvation, limbo might no longer be necessary and that **all **who are prepared to pass through Christ, who is the door to Heaven, somehow receive a form of christening, a baptism of some sort, since in doing so, their nature become uncorrupt.

Andre

 

[mich2]

Didn’t Christ atone for Adam’s sin? Isn’t Christ’s atonement more powerful than Adam’s sin? Why wouldn’t babies simply be cleansed of original sin based on the work of Christ alone?

We believe that baptism is the work of Christ, christianly, not ours.The fullnes of it’s work will be acheived at the time of our death. Then, only, will we be fully set free from sin, due to our baptism received. If not, then for what other use was baptism commanded to be given by Christ?

If, at death, those who have not received the christian baptism can also be released from their sins, it must also be accomplished through a process in which the old sinful nature will be destoyed and a new, uncorrupt nature will be given. We call this process baptism.

I believe we are all born with a tendency to sin because of Adam’s sin. The only one born without that tendency to sin was Mary because she was preserved from it from the moment of conception. She was given grace to fully overcome sin from the moment of her conception and she would never fall into sin. Babies are born with a tendency to sin, but no personal guilt. Are we condemned because we have a tendency to sin or are we condemned because of our actual personal sin? If I have a tendency towards homosexuality, but never commit a homosexual sin, am I condemned for my tendencies?

I agree with most of what you wrote. I believe that we are condemned not by our sins but our attitude towards sin. We all are sinners, however, our nature leading us to sin needs to be destroyed and for us to struggle against our sinful nature will mean deliverance for us when we will be cleanse from such a nature. It is those who love sin, who will refuse to be relieved from their sinful nature and therefore will remain in sin, that state or place which we call Hell.

And what do the Eastern Orthodox think about this? I don’t think they would consign an unbaptized baby to limbo – what does the Eastern lung of the Church say?

I don’t know? What is their hypothesis concerning Abraham’s bosom? Or of the state of babies who died before the death of Christ? As for after the time of Redemption, the new theology presented by the Pope may be very similar to what the Eastern Church teaches…

I personally don’t know why people are so unwilling to say that unbaptized babies might be in heaven. It seems to me it would be a cruel God who would look at an unbaptized baby without personal sin and then condemn it to remain away from him forever.

I think it has been mentioned more than once that we are hopeful that unbaptized babies might be in Heaven. Our problem is with those who believe they **need **to be in Heaven since they have not committed any actual sins…this leaves out the doctrine of Original Sin…

Andre

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

First of all, there never was a formal teaching regarding Limbo, so there was nothing to “reverse”.

Secondly, the document doesn’t definitively teach against Limbo. It merely states that we don’t know, and so we HOPE that babies who die without baptism can receive the Beatific Vision.

Third, this is no different than what is already in the Catechism.

Fr. McBrien is a known dissenter and I don’t read anything he says, or take it seriously.

Although the existence of limbo is not a Catholic dogma, it is a reasonable deduction from the existence of original sin, which* is* a Catholic dogma.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not state that unbaptized infants may attain the beatific vision. Section 1261 merely states that we may hope for a “way of salvation” for them. In the light of the dogma of original sin and the totality of Catholic tradition, we should interpret this hope as the hope for natural happiness (i.e., limbo) rather than the hope for supernatural happiness (i.e., the beatific vision). The souls in limbo are indeed “saved”: they are saved from hell.

It is sometimes stated that limbo is absent from the new catechism. This claim is untrue, for the word “limbo” is listed in the official analytical index of the new catechism. The index links limbo to section 1261. I find the word “limbo” on page 816 of my copy of the new catechism.

It is true that Father Richard McBrien cannot be considered an authority on Catholic dogma. Nor can the International Theological Commission. In this instance, this commission falls into the same category as Pope Paul VI’s birth contol commission, which defected from Catholic teaching by proposing that the Church cease teaching that contraception is a mortal sin.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[thistle]

…or else what…death by torture on the rack, maybe a burning at the stake? Br. Rich…did you notice that the Middle Ages are over? Upon whose authority do you state that I cannot state what I want when “asked” directly? Should I lie, should I pretend to agree, when I don’t. As thistle pointed out, it is the Magistrum that decides this…but then again…aren’t they made up of “human beings”…or did I miss the boat on that too? Human beings fail and are capable of sin, no one is perfect…not on this earth. Actually, I do keep some things to myself…because I know that I will be flamed by conservo catholics. Not very charitable on your part.

In matters of faith and morals the Church can NEVER be in error and what the Magisterium (guided by the Holy Spirit) imparts to us based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is what you must believe.
Years ago my wife had two miscarriages. I really hope and pray the two miscarried children are in Heaven but only God knows that, not me. I trust in God’s mercy. If I were to say its obvious they are in Heaven or that I know they are in Heaven then I am putting myself equal to God and that would be a grave sin against the first commandment.
The Church does NOT teach that unbaptised children go to Heaven.

 

[Dan-Man916]

It is true that Father Richard McBrien cannot be considered an authority on Catholic dogma. Nor can the International Theological Commission. In this instance, this commission falls into the same category as Pope Paul VI’s birth contol commission, which defected from Catholic teaching by proposing that the Church cease teaching that contraception is a mortal sin.

This is a big “it depends”. The Declaration, Dominus Iesus, from 2000, came from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was signed by Cardinal Ratzinger. However, what gave DI it’s magesterial authority is that it was ratified by John Paul II.

If the findings of the ITC are ratified by Pope Benedict, then the ITC’s findings would indeed carry magesterial weight.

We’ll just have to wait and see when it is all released to the public.

 

[Neithan]

Steve O'Brien:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not state that unbaptized infants may attain the beatific vision. Section 1261 merely states that we may hope for a “way of salvation” for them. In the light of the dogma of original sin and the totality of Catholic tradition, we should interpret this hope as the hope for natural happiness (i.e., limbo) rather than the hope for supernatural happiness (i.e., the beatific vision). The souls in limbo are indeed “saved”: they are saved from hell.

Well… Limbo would actually be in hell, but it is free from positive punishment. This is clear from the Council of Florence. You might say it is the ‘first circle’ of hell. This ‘hell’ without suffering is our natural end, actually; but since the vast majority of us commit mortal sin at some point in our lives we condemn ourselves to eternal torment.
Paradise was preternatural (Adam and Eve had superhuman gifts in Eden).
So from this we must understand the “way of salvation” mentioned in the Catechism as actually referring to a way to heaven, which would mean supernatural happiness, a possible hope that some unborn and infants without baptism may attain the beatific vision by the extra-sacramental Grace and mercy [pity?] of God.

 

[Dan-Man916]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not state that unbaptized infants may attain the beatific vision. Section 1261 merely states that we may hope for a “way of salvation” for them. In the light of the dogma of original sin and the totality of Catholic tradition, we should interpret this hope as the hope for natural happiness (i.e., limbo) rather than the hope for supernatural happiness (i.e., the beatific vision). The souls in limbo are indeed “saved”: they are saved from hell.

There are 4 last things, Death, Judgement, Heaven, and Hell.
there is no mention of Limbo in eternity.

That means that if limbo exists, it exists temporally, like Purgatory. Therefore, those in Limbo will either go to Heaven or Hell at the General Judgement.

Therefore, if you state that those in limbo are saved from hell, they will ultimately end up in Heaven.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

There are 4 last things, Death, Judgement, Heaven, and Hell.
there is no mention of Limbo in eternity.

That means that if limbo exists, it exists temporally, like Purgatory. Therefore, those in Limbo will either go to Heaven or Hell at the General Judgement.

Therefore, if you state that those in limbo are saved from hell, they will ultimately end up in Heaven.

If we look at Magisterial teachings on original sin and the necessity of Baptism, and also at the totality of Catholic tradition, we find nothing to suggest that the natural happiness of limbo will be anything other than unending.

That limbo has traditionally been omitted from the list of the “Four Last Things” is not significant. The Magisterium has never denied that there is a final destiny in addition to heaven and hell. It has merely been the case that the Church has not focused as intensely on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants as she has focused on that of human beings who are capable of attaining the beatific vision through the sacrament of Baptism or through baptism of desire.

Now, however, with the growth of the world’s population and the horrific increase in the number of both surgical and chemical abortions, it is understandable that the Magisterium is turning its attention to the fate of unbaptized infants in a manner that is somewhat unprecedented in Catholic history. This, I suggest, is the rationale for section 1261 of the new catechism.

In the New Testament, we encounter a similar focusing on the Baptism of adults with a concomitant lack of *explicit *references to infant Baptism. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to use this silence as an argument for the abolition of infant Baptism.

Keep and spread the Faith.

 

[bilop]

There are 4 last things, Death, Judgement, Heaven, and Hell.
there is no mention of Limbo in eternity.

That means that if limbo exists, it exists temporally, like Purgatory. Therefore, those in Limbo will either go to Heaven or Hell at the General Judgement.

Therefore, if you state that those in limbo are saved from hell, they will ultimately end up in Heaven.

That is not correct. I believe the limbo of infants is generally theorized to be a region of hell, but without suffering. In fact it is theorizes a state of perfect natural happiness.

Therefore it is “hell”, i.e. outside the beatific vision, and eternal, but not “hell” as we view it, a place of suffering.

God Bless

 

[Dan-Man916]

That is not correct. I believe the limbo of infants is generally theorized to be a region of hell,

Yes, exactly, therorized, not dogmatic!

 

[Neithan]

Yes, exactly, therorized, not dogmatic!

It is a logical consequence of dogmatic teaching. If a person dies in original sin, they cannot go to heaven; however, if they have no personal sin, then they would not suffer punishment.
Therefore ‘limbo’ is a place in hell without punishment.

The ‘hope for salvation’ is that God would confer ‘extra-sacramental’ sanctifying Grace on unborn or infants without Baptism before they died and passed through the Particular Judgment. Though I *personally *think we ought to see this as an exception to the rule.

 

[Dan-Man916]

If we look at Magisterial teachings on original sin and the necessity of Baptism, and also at the totality of Catholic tradition, we find nothing to suggest that the natural happiness of limbo will be anything other than unending.

That is speculation, and nothing more. I am not saying that a Catholic is not free to hold this view. They can certainly hold this view. My only point I am trying to make is that it is a view among others, and is NOT authoritative.

That limbo has traditionally been omitted from the list of the “Four Last Things” is not significant.

Again, that is a conclusion of your own. That is fine, but it is a private opinion, which is just as valid as those who hold to the opinion of extra-sacramental sanctification.

The Magisterium has never denied that there is a final destiny in addition to heaven and hell.

I ahve no idea where you are getting this idea from. The Catechism and constant teaching of the Church is quite clear that only Heaven and Hell exist at the end of time. All other places are temporal (the limbo of the Fathers and Purgatory being examples)

It has merely been the case that the Church has not focused as intensely on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants as she has focused on that of human beings who are capable of attaining the beatific vision through the sacrament of Baptism or through baptism of desire.

And they have now done so. As I said, let’s all read the ITC document, and see if it is ratified officially by the pontiff, so we can see just exactly what the Church has focused on.

Nevertheless, it would be wrong to use this silence as an argument for the abolition of infant Baptism.

I simply do not udnerstand how you get to this conclusion.
No one has ever asserted that infant baptism is unncessary. The Church affirms that it is necessary precisely because it is the only way that has been revealed for the salvation of souls.

The problem with your conclusion is that you use this as a negative proof that there is no other way for an unbaptized child to be sanctified.

The Church has not authoritatively said this, so we cannot conclude that a negative proof is the foregone conclusion.

It would be equally wrong to conclude that these unbaptized must be saved.

The Church takes neither extreme, but only says that we entrust them to the mercy of God in the Hope that God makes a way for their salvation. Hope in this sense is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of Heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ’s promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit (CCC 1817).

That is the attitude that the Catholic should have for these unbaptized infants.

 

[Steve_O_Brien]

That is speculation, and nothing more. I am not saying that a Catholic is not free to hold this view. They can certainly hold this view. My only point I am trying to make is that it is a view among others, and is NOT authoritative.

Again, that is a conclusion of your own. That is fine, but it is a private opinion, which is just as valid as those who hold to the opinion of extra-sacramental sanctification.

No.

The existence of limbo is not merely the private opinion of some Catholics, nor is it just as valid as the view of those who hold the opinion of extra-sacramental sanctification.

In his Allocution to Midwives of October 29, 1951, Pope Pius XII, summarizing two thousand years of Catholic tradition, teaches as follows:

“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.”

Please read the full text of Pius XII’s statement:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P511029.HTM

Furthermore, whether or not they realize it, those who attack or undermine limbo are endangering the life of every unborn child. Logically, if all unbaptized infants go to heaven, then it is better to be aborted than to be born. The guarantee of attaining the beatific vision is obviously preferable to the risk of dying in unrepented mortal sin and going to hell for all eternity. There is no way around that conclusion.

Keep and spread the Faith.