Pope: No Original Sin (?)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crumpy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Crumpy

Guest
I picked up the Saturday morning newspaper, and it says the Pope says there’s no original sin, overturning centuries of Catholic teaching.

specifically, the matter seems to have addressed Limbo. The document seems to expel the guilt that parents might have, if their children die in infancy before baptism.

Can’t find an obvious link to the document at vatican.va. They still have the announcement of the last conclave listed under “news.”
 
Limbo was never an ‘official’ teaching. The Pope has certainly not denied original sin, but (and quite rightly) commends the souls of the innocent unborn and unbaptized infants to the mercy of God–who alone knows the fate of any person.

I would not trust the “Sat. a.m. newspaper”–not because they would deliberately try to mislead, but simply because most sources/presses etc. simply do not have the experts or the expertise to report accurately–on religion or even on a lot of other subjects. Most ‘regular’ reporters etc. do the best they can but when it comes to religious, and specially Catholic religious news, few are solid practicing Catholics with the ability of, for example, Karl Keating, who would be able to interpret what ‘came across’ and present it with accurate explanations.

I found that article and read it. It is so brief and presented in such a sour and condemning view, it put a bad taste in my mouth.

This is ‘old news’ in that as far back as 2001 the vatican was teaching that we do not hold to ‘limbo’ for unbaptized children but commend them to God’s mercy.

As far as ‘heaven’, pray tell me what is the difference between the old ‘view’ of children enjoying the ‘limbo’ of ‘natural happiness’ (which meant certainly that they were not in hell, correct?) or the idea that there might be a part of heaven ‘set apart’ where they would enjoy that natural happiness? Or that God could remit the sin through His mercy? (Not us, but God). Benedict is not saying that there is no ‘original sin’ but only that God’s mercy for the INNOCENT might somehow permit (but only through GOD and His own decision) an opportunity for God to cleanse the children of that original sin. Nothing to do with us per se.

This is no ‘changing’ of teaching. Even that silly paper acknowledged that there is no ‘official doctrine’ on Limbo, so where it came up with “Benedict overturning centuries of doctrine” is beyond me!!!
 
I also read this in the news today. I was taught years ago as a girl that unbaptised babies go to a place called Limbo, because they could not go to heaven. A few years back, I also read this doctrine in an old Baltimore Catechism I came across. In the early 1920’s, my grandparents had 2 still-born babies that were buried in a Catholic cemetery, but were buried in a section of the cemetery also reserved for murderers and criminals, because these babies were not baptised before they died. To this day, this still bothers my 84 year old mother.😦
 
Limbo has been said to not have been an official Church teaching, but it certainly was taught at the level of parish schools and high schools by Sisters and Parish Priests. In a similar fashion Catholics were often taught that not being a “card Carrying” Catholic was a stright ticket to hell. In the past couple of decades it has become abundantly clear that there was “common teaching” and “official” teaching; the latter carrying all the nuances while the former did not. I have not been able to lay blame on our teachers because they often were not properly taught themselves. The Pope did not dismiss Original Sin at all.
 
Well, the news item I read this morning in the secular press jumped from the Pope and limbo to Fr. Richard O’Brien and original sin.

So, that’s why my original post is posing that question. The problem is I don’t have any more reliable thing to go by, then this article.

I was hoping that someone would provide a link to the actual document supposedly released by the Vatican on friday. But, I didn’t ask any leading question about that. I was just leaving it for someone to provide.

I never believed in Limbo either, I say, as long as the Pope is confessing his disbelief in that concept. I can’t see God doing that “natural joy” stuff to infants.

Moreover, I don’t think that infant souls are ‘infants’ in heaven. I think they instantly mature and enjoy the fullness of the beatific vision, no more than I think that a stroke victim dies and has a mental defect in heaven, so as to deprive them of the full sense of the joy and mercy and splendor of God.

As it is written:

Rev 5:11 I looked again and heard the voices of many angels who surrounded the throne and the living creatures and the elders. They were countless in number,
5:12 and they cried out in a loud voice:
"Worthy is the Lamb that was slain
to receive power and riches, wisdom and strength,
honor and glory and blessing." (NAB)

I think that every voice of every creature joins in that refrain.
 
Go to Zenit.org and you’ll find the article there. I cannot provide a link as they do not link directly to the page of the article. Here it is as received in my inbox yesterday:
Code: ZE07042008
Date: 2007-04-20
Panel Backs Hopes for Unbaptized Infants Who Die
Pope OKs Publication of Report on Limbo
VATICAN CITY, APRIL 20, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI authorized the publication of a report that expresses the hope that babies who die without baptism are able to get to heaven.
Click to expand...
The report by the International Theological Commission, published today, concluded that there are serious theological and liturgical grounds for the hope that such babies are saved and enjoy the beatific vision.
Click to expand...
The commission says the theological hypothesis of “limbo” appeared to be based on an unduly restrictive view of salvation.
Click to expand...
The 41-page document noted this is an “urgent pastoral problem,” especially because of the large number of unbaptized babies who die as victims of abortion.
Click to expand...
The commission’s documents are not considered official expressions of the magisterium. But the commission does help the Holy See to examine important doctrinal issues.
Click to expand...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church in No. 1261 explains: "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.
Click to expand...
"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,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism.
Click to expand...
“All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism.”
Click to expand...
The part about the Holy Father doing away with Original Sin is hogwash in the OP.
 
I just want to re-emphasize that this document doesn’t rule out limbo at all. It doesn’t condemn it or prohibit Catholics from believing it. Just as before, it is still a point of liberty for Catholics (like the literalness of the Genesis account). All the document says is that one can have hope that the unbaptized are granted some grace by God–it doesn’t declare that they definitely go to Heaven without a doubt.

This is exactly what is in the Catechism. The pope had this commission study this issue, and this is the conclusion they reached. People need to stop trusting the sensationalistic headlines of the ignorant mass media.

Catholic dogma is still that we are born in original sin, that being without actual sin itself won’t get you to Heaven, but rather only by the grace of God. Those in original sin who do not receive the grace of God do not enter Heaven. Baptism is the normative means of being cleansed from original sin, but that does not mean God can’t grant that grace extra-sacramentally.

If God does not grant that grace to an unbaptized infant, they go to Limbo. If He does, they go to Heaven. This commission’s result is that it is reasonable to hope that He might grant that grace.

What is the big deal? People are flipping out for no reason. Nothing has changed changed about the principles.
 
Crumpy said:
I picked up the Saturday morning newspaper, and it says the Pope says there’s no original sin, overturning centuries of Catholic teaching.

specifically, the matter seems to have addressed Limbo. The document seems to expel the guilt that parents might have, if their children die in infancy before baptism.

Can’t find an obvious link to the document at vatican.va. They still have the announcement of the last conclave listed under “news.”
Click to expand...
I think they were mis-reading what Limbo was about. IIRC, it wasn’t even an official church teaching, just a Theology. It seems the paper was making that assumption.
 
Genesis315 said:
What is the big deal? People are flipping out for no reason. Nothing has changed changed about the principles.
Click to expand...
The thing that I find disturbing is the sort of “wishful thinking” that the news articles are reporting as the basis for the opinions offered in the document. Phrases like “new theology” and “evolving doctrine” are being used, and then the arguments being offered in the news media are things like "people find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness” and “Parents in particular can experience grief and feelings of guilt when they doubt their unbaptized children are with God, it said.” (See, Catholic.org article.) These do not constitute arguments. If the document is actually based on such arguments, then Theology has been reduced from a serious science to a form of pandering to popular opinion or emotion.

The same news article said: “The church’s hope for these infants’ salvation reflects a growing awareness of God’s mercy, the commission said.” This seems like a suggestion that the Apostles, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, etc. (not to mention Jesus) did not appreciate the scope and magnitude of Divine mercy. In fact, it seems much more likely that modern appreciation of Divine mercy is much diminished. When people start to think of heaven as a right which it would be wrong of God to “deny” to people who never did any wrong, then the startling scope of His mercy is almost completely lost.

Another upsetting aspect of the story is this quotation:

“Pastorally and catechetically, the matter had been solved” with an affirmation that somehow God in his great love and mercy would ensure unbaptized babies enjoyed eternal life with him in heaven, “but we had to backtrack and do the theology,” Father Kelly said. (See, Catholic News Service article.)

If accepted on its face, this is pure rationalization. One decides what conclusion one wishes to reach, and then pastes together an argument to support that conclusion. This cannot be the basis for theology in any respectable sense.

I am eager to read the actual arguments made in this document. If they become available to read – other than through the subscription service on Catholic News Service – please let me know.

I agree with you that the document, as reflected in the media, does not seem to “do away with limbo.” On the contrary, since the document offers only “hope” but not “certainty,” what are we to think of any unbaptized baby for which the hope is vain? Will such a child now be thought to go to the pains of hell? It seems such a child must still be thought to go to limbo – or some logical equivalent of limbo under a new name.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner
 
Yes, the original post was correct, but the Associated Press article by Nicole Winfield is just totally mixed up.

She apparently mixed up some news about Limbo (based on a story at the Origins website, Catholic News Service, NCCB, with some personal email she got from McBrien.

That’s why it made no sense. This is an example of incompetency in the press, sort of like the Eric Blair problem at the New York Times, but I don’t know if Winfield intentionally made up the story for sensationalism.

It seems more like she just didn’t take the time to read the news release from the Vatican.
 
This is the way that head coverings were said to be no longer necessary. The secular press gets lots wrong and their are many people that grab onto the misconception…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top