Pope to drop idea of limbo

  • Thread starter Thread starter meno
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Richardols said:
Certainly it had been taught and was “part of the Faith,” but given the modern re-evaluation of the opinion on it, it may well be relegated to the dustbin just as belief in St. Christopher was.

I suppose it doesn’t hurt to believe in it.
Click to expand...
I wonder if, many years from now, issues like divorce, birth control, gay rights, female Priests, etc. will be re-evaluated . Certainly there has to be a lot of Priests around the world who treat these issues with a wink and a nod now. Wouldn’t it be great if the Pope could devote all of his time to issued like human rights, starving people in poor countries , medical care and research , political corruption, child abuse, etc.
 
meno said:
OK, this report says no document is expected today, proving once again the difficulties in trying to hold the Vatican to a timeline. 🙂

newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-vatican-limbo,0,1423913.story?coll=sns-ap-nationworld-headlines

Note this quote:
Click to expand...
That is correct, all of us do have hope of attaining heaven. Note the word here: hope. That does not at all remove Christ’s own condition that people be born again of “water and spirit” before attaining everlasting life. The thief on the cross was the exception—he repented before death; however, it was physically impossible for him to go down from the cross. All of these secular news sources have their articles filled with a mix of truths, half-truths, and downright filth.
 
There are problems with ridding ourselves of limbo. For one it can create problems with the doctrine of original sin, that teaches that we are all born into sin due to the Fall in the garden of Eden. It is the sad truth that there are no sinless people, not even new borns are free from the stain. The only exceptions were Mary and Christ. Just because you do not like the teaching is not some reason to rejoice at it being called into question (Because there are many teachings people disagree with theological and moral, whether priestly celibacy or homosexuality), grave theological implications rest upon it and each other.

Limbo is a solution to what happens to unbaptized children and new borns. They are kept in a place where they feel neither pain nor sorrow. It is however not heaven and they do not have the pleasure of being in the presence of God. Because nothing covered by sin of even the slightest in them can approach God, otherwise they’d be destroyed!

But know that they will not be there forever… When the time comes for Christ’s return, the Final Judgement shall take place for both living and dead. At that time, it is believed that they will be freed from limbo and be able to enter heaven.

Unbaptized adults of other religions etc. shall be judged based on conscience and their knowledge of the Truth and Law (See Romans). There is even Purgatory. But other religious can also go to heaven providing they are humble, holy and always seeking to please God.
 
And what, according to the new theology if it is approved or whatever (I’m not worrying about the exact wording here), would now happen to those people?
 
I understood it that babies are not in Limbo, but it is the magisterium that is in limbo. In other words, the magisterium has no clear revelation that reconciles the necessity of baptism and the innocence of babies.
 
The Catholic Church cannot “abolish” limbo. The Church cannot, and will not, attempt such an impossible feat. Here are reasons for this contention:
  1. Even though limbo is a theological deduction rather than a Catholic dogma, it is an eminently rational deduction that is demanded by the very logic and entire structure of the Faith. If you were to pull this one thread from the fabric of Catholic theology, the whole garment would unravel. Limbo, though not itself a dogma, is indispensable for the defense of two propositions that *are *dogmas: the existence of original sin, and the fact that all those souls dying in original sin only are somehow punished in the next world.
  2. In keeping with point #1, the Magisterium of the twenty-first century *cannot *contradict what the Magisterium solemnly taught in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries. Two medieval ecumenical councils–Second Lyons (DS 858) and Florence (DS 1306)–taught that souls departing this life with original sin only are punished–though not with the same punishment as that undergone by the souls in hell. Clearly, this penalty is the deprivation of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision. The Church cannot now withdraw these conciliar statements: Catholic doctrine develops over the centuries by explication, not by retraction.
  3. If you contradict the Church by saying that the souls of all unbaptized infants achieve the beatific vision, then you’re saying that the Church’s practice of baptizing babies makes no sense. What’s the point of emphasizing the urgency of infant Baptism if all those children are going to achieve eternal supernatural happiness anyway? Or do you think that infant Baptism can also be “abolished”?
  4. It is not true that there is no reference to limbo in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please see the index under “limbo,” and note that the index links limbo to section 1261. I believe that the “way of salvation” mentioned in that section should be understood as limbo, not the beatific vision. Limbo, since it is unending *natural *happiness, can be called a kind of salvation: salvation from the pains of hell. And unending natural happiness is hardly anything at which to sneer. Limbo is an example of God’s goodness, mercy, and love.
  5. If all infants dying without Baptism are guaranteed the beatific vision, then it’s better to be aborted than to be born. After all, if you’re born and reach the age of reason, you may sin mortally, die unrepentant, and then go to hell for all eternity. Or do you also wish to “abolish” hell? Please think logically: the anti-limbo position leads straight to the conclusion that abortionists are actually doing the unborn a favor by killing them. And it even turns the horror of abortion into a quasi-sacrament, for abortion would then become an indirect means for the unborn child automatically to obtain both sanctifying grace and everlasting supernatural happiness in the next world.
I respectfully and fraternally suggest that any Catholic who thinks that limbo can be “dropped” should respond to the above arguments.

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
Excellent points Steve O’Brien.

And for thsoe interested there’s some interesting information here:
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/limbo_in_limbo.html

Do note that even the Pope, when not speaking infalliablly, can make theological speculations and comments that may be out of sync and inaccurate. Pope Benedict is a brilliant man, but can also be mistaken until put in the proper context and understanding that those around him that advise him can provide. The doctrine of limbo can be discarded only if something else takes it’s place that is also in perfect harmony with dogmas.
 
jdnation said:
Excellent points, Steve O’Brien.

And for those interested there’s some interesting information here:
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/limbo_in_limbo.html

Do note that even the Pope, when not speaking infallibly, can make theological speculations and comments that may be out of sync and inaccurate. Pope Benedict is a brilliant man, but can also be mistaken until put in the proper context and understanding that those around him that advise him can provide. The doctrine of limbo can be discarded only if something else takes its place that is also in perfect harmony with dogmas.
Click to expand...
I thank jdnation for the above comments.

I emphatically disagree, however, with Jimmy Akin’s contention that the Catholic Church has never infallibly defined that all unbaptized infants are deprived of the beatific vision.

On the contrary, this is precisely what the Church taught through a dogmatic statement solemnly issued by two ecumenical councils: Second Lyons in 1274 and Florence in 1439. (I’m leaving aside, as the councils did, the question of “baptism of blood,” as in the case of the Holy Innocents.) The DS references for these councils are 858 and 1306. Here are the exact words used by the Second Council of Lyons:

"But the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, to be punished, however, with different kinds of punishments."

Infants who die without Baptism are certainly souls who die “with orginal sin only,” right? And, if these souls are not deprived of the beatific vision (without suffering the other punishments of hell), then how can the council say that they are punished?

Please note that no one has a strict right to the beatific vision; accordingly, there’s no real injustice in this penal deprivation. This deprivation is a sad consequence of the fact of original sin, but a consequence that must be balanced against the unending natural happiness of limbo.
Please judge Mr. Akin’s contention for yourselves.

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
Steve_O_Brien said:
I thank jdnation for the above comments.

I emphatically disagree, however, with Jimmy Akin’s contention that the Catholic Church has never infallibly defined that all unbaptized infants are deprived of the beatific vision.

On the contrary, this is precisely what the Church taught through a dogmatic statement solemnly issued by two ecumenical councils: Second Lyons in 1274 and Florence in 1439. (I’m leaving aside, as the councils did, the question of “baptism of blood,” as in the case of the Holy Innocents.) The DS references for these councils are 858 and 1306. Here are the exact words used by the Second Council of Lyons:

"But the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, to be punished, however, with different kinds of punishments."

Infants who die without Baptism are certainly souls who die “with orginal sin only,” right? And, if these souls are not deprived of the beatific vision (without suffering the other punishments of hell), then how can the council say that they are punished?

Please note that no one has a strict right to the beatific vision; accordingly, there’s no real injustice in this penal deprivation. This deprivation is a sad consequence of the fact of original sin, but a consequence that must be balanced against the unending natural happiness of limbo.
Please judge Mr. Akin’s contention for yourselves.

Keep and spread the Faith.
Click to expand...
Heaven hell purgatory
Question from on 01-02-2002: Prior to Jesus, was there purgatory? Did souls only go to heaven or hell? Jesus went to hell right after his death? WHy?

Answer by Dr. William Carroll on 01-02-2002: Yes, there was Purgatory because souls had to be purified after death. After purification the souls would have gone to Limbo. That is the name given to the place where the souls of the just waited until the Redemption. The line “He descended into hell” does not mean the hell of the damned, but Limbo. God bless.
 
As far a stillborn and baptism goes here’s Father Most’s statement.

UNBAPTIZED INFANTS
By Fr. Wm. Most
The Church has given us no teaching on the eternal fate of these babies. The view of St. Thomas Aquinas has been widely accepted, never rejected by the Church.
Here is his position:
  1. On the one hand, there is no positive suffering for the babies, or they have no personal guilt. This is confirmed by Pope Pius IX, in “Quanto conficiamur moerore,” August 10, 1863 (DS 2866) “God in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.”
  2. On the other hand, their souls seem to lack the transformation by grace needed for the Beatific Vision, so they cannot have it. But they have a natural happiness, and do not miss what they do not have.
    Toward a Solution:
  3. God has the power to remedy this lack of grace even without a Sacrament. St. Thomas Aquinas, in Summa II. 68.2.c. wrote that God “is not bound to the visible sacraments.”
    Therefore God could supply that grace outside of Baptism. He did it in the case of the Holy Innocents.
  4. Does He actually provide the remedy?
    (1) Theologians commonly hold that God provided for the salvation of those who died before Christ in some way. As to the Hebrews, circumcision seems to have been the means for boys, but not of course for girls. (Cf. St. Thomas ST III.62. ad 3). But the theological opinion just mentioned extended also to those outside the Hebrew people.
    (2) St. Paul in Romans 3.28-30 says that if God had not provided for those who did not know the Mosaic Law, He would not be their God. So, Paul concludes, He must have done so, and did it through the regime of faith. Would Paul argue similarly for unbaptized infants? Likely.
    (3) St. Paul, in 1 Cor 7.14 says that the pagan partner married to a Christian is made holy through union with the Christian, “Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” “Holy” reflects Hebrew “qadosh,” set aside for God by the covenant. So the pagan partner and the children did come under the covenant.
    (4) God shows great concern for the objective moral order (cf. “Our Father’s Plan,” chapter 4.) For example, in the Gospel description of the Last Judgment, Jesus does not accept the excuse of those who say they did not know it was Jesus in the poor, etc. He pays attention only to the objective fact. Cf. also Leviticus 4, 1 Cor. 4.4, and all instances of involuntary sin.
    Does He also will to rectify the objective physical order?
    In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Abraham explains (Lk 16.25): “Remember that you in your lifetime received good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish.” Of course the rich man had violated charity-but that is not mentioned. Only the reversal and physical rectification is mentioned. The woes in Luke 6:24-26 seem similar.
    Conclusion: In view of all the above, God may well speak thus of the aborted babies: “These infants have been deprived of everything in the normal objective order they should have had, even of a chance for birth. Instead, without deserving it, they have been torn apart or cut up alive. So it is right to make up for that. They suffered evil, like Lazarus. Now they should be comforted. I showed concern for the rebalancing the object physical order in the case of Lazarus. I made provision for the eternal salvation of people before Christ. St. Paul argues in Romans 3. 28-30 that if I did not, I would not be their God. I revealed through St. Paul, in 1 Cor 7.14, that a pagan partner in marriage is brought under the covenant merely from being united to the Christian, and similarly the covenant merely from being united to the Christian, and similarly the children. So it is right for me to provide grace to these children even outside of the Sacrament. My hands are not bound by the Sacraments.”
    What if Limbo? If our deductions are not correct, then the babies would be in Limbo, which, as St. Tomas Aquinas said, involves no pain, and is such that the babies do not even know what they have missed (St. Thomas, “De Malo” q. 5, a. 3 and 4). We might compare two persons: one whose tastes are not highly refined, who is completely happy with a ballgame and popcorn; the other whose ability to enjoy things has been refined: he will be satisfied only with the most artistic things. Similarly the babies, lacking the refinement of the power to know given by grace, will be fully satisfied, and not know what they have missed.
 
What if Limbo? If our deductions are not correct, then the babies would be in Limbo, which, as St. Tomas Aquinas said, involves no pain, and is such that the babies do not even know what they have missed (St. Thomas, “De Malo” q. 5, a. 3 and 4). We might compare two persons: one whose tastes are not highly refined, who is completely happy with a ballgame and popcorn; the other whose ability to enjoy things has been refined: he will be satisfied only with the most artistic things. Similarly the babies, lacking the refinement of the power to know given by grace, will be fully satisfied, and not know what they have missed.
If Limbo be the answer, will they be separated from parents who have reached Heaven and the Vision of God? No, for two reasons: 1) Heaven is not essentially a place, but a state. You could have two persons side by side, even in a place, such that one is enjoying interiorly the divine vision, the other is not. They can be together, yet in different states. 2) God does satisfy every legitimate desire of those who reach heaven. (Ct. Apoc. 21.4: “He [God] shall wipe away every tear from their eyes.”) Parents who deeply want their children of Limbo will not be separated from them. Limbo and heaven are most basically states more than places. And even as to place, after resurrection, bodies will be like the Risen Body of Jesus, who came to see the Apostles locked in an upper room. He simply ignored the door, did not bother to open it by a miracle. Risen bodies are not bound by place.
Objection: The Council of Florence in 1439 taught (DS 1306): “The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or only original sin descend into the realm of the dead (infernum), to be punished however with unequal punishments.”
Reply:
  1. The word “poena” in Latin need not always be the same as English “pain” - it can mean merely deprivation of something. As we saw above, Pius IX taught that God does not allow anyone to be punished with eternal punishments without the guilt of personal fault.
    Vatican II, “On ecumenism” #6, taught that if any language in older teachings is in need of improvement, it should be improved. Such is the case here, at least if we do not think of the difference of Latin “poena” and English pain. Paul VI in “Mysterium fidei” did not contradict the Council, but said that the older texts are not untrue in themselves, if properly understood.
  2. The word "infernum: in Latin means merely the realm of the dead, not hell in the English sense. Cf. the Creed in which we read that after His death, Jesus “descended into hell” - the archaic English use of the word.
  3. Our reasoning above tends to show that the aborted babies, and probably other unbaptized babies also, are given grace by God outside the Sacrament of Baptism, and so do not depart this world in original sin, which is merely the lack of grace that should be there.
 
This may be a stupid question, but couldn’t Purgatory cleanse these babies of Original Sin, and allow them to enter Heaven since they have not reached the age of reason to commit mortal sin?
 
Steve_O_Brien said:
The Catholic Church cannot “abolish” limbo. The Church cannot, and will not, attempt such an impossible feat. Here are reasons for this contention:
  1. Even though limbo is a theological deduction rather than a Catholic dogma, it is an eminently rational deduction that is demanded by the very logic and entire structure of the Faith. If you were to pull this one thread from the fabric of Catholic theology, the whole garment would unravel. Limbo, though not itself a dogma, is indispensable for the defense of two propositions that *are *dogmas: the existence of original sin, and the fact that all those souls dying in original sin only are somehow punished in the next world.
  2. In keeping with point #1, the Magisterium of the twenty-first century *cannot *contradict what the Magisterium solemnly taught in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries. Two medieval ecumenical councils–Second Lyons (DS 858) and Florence (DS 1306)–taught that souls departing this life with original sin only are punished–though not with the same punishment as that undergone by the souls in hell. Clearly, this penalty is the deprivation of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision. The Church cannot now withdraw these conciliar statements: Catholic doctrine develops over the centuries by explication, not by retraction.
  3. If you contradict the Church by saying that the souls of all unbaptized infants achieve the beatific vision, then you’re saying that the Church’s practice of baptizing babies makes no sense. What’s the point of emphasizing the urgency of infant Baptism if all those children are going to achieve eternal supernatural happiness anyway? Or do you think that infant Baptism can also be “abolished”?
  4. It is not true that there is no reference to limbo in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please see the index under “limbo,” and note that the index links limbo to section 1261. I believe that the “way of salvation” mentioned in that section should be understood as limbo, not the beatific vision. Limbo, since it is unending *natural *happiness, can be called a kind of salvation: salvation from the pains of hell. And unending natural happiness is hardly anything at which to sneer. Limbo is an example of God’s goodness, mercy, and love.
  5. If all infants dying without Baptism are guaranteed the beatific vision, then it’s better to be aborted than to be born. After all, if you’re born and reach the age of reason, you may sin mortally, die unrepentant, and then go to hell for all eternity. Or do you also wish to “abolish” hell? Please think logically: the anti-limbo position leads straight to the conclusion that abortionists are actually doing the unborn a favor by killing them. And it even turns the horror of abortion into a quasi-sacrament, for abortion would then become an indirect means for the unborn child automatically to obtain both sanctifying grace and everlasting supernatural happiness in the next world.
I respectfully and fraternally suggest that any Catholic who thinks that limbo can be “dropped” should respond to the above arguments.

Keep and spread the Faith.
Click to expand...
How do you explain this then?

Limbo
Question from on 01-14-2002: Dear Father,With both my father and myself involved in RCIA within our own respective parishes, we are a little confused about the church’s official decision regarding limbo and infants dying before baptism. Could you possibly spell it out for me? Much appreciated.
Vicki Ashmore

Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 01-15-2002: Dear Vicki, The teaching on Limbo was never more than the teaching of the theologians up until recently. The new Catechism does not teach it. So what is the teaching of the Church? I suggest that it is that we entrust the unborn innocents to the infinite Mercy of God and leave them there. God bless. Fr. Bob Levis

Why would God put unbaptized babies in punishment for something that isn’t their fault?
 
bones_IV said:
How do you explain this then?

Limbo
Question from on 01-14-2002: Dear Father,With both my father and myself involved in RCIA within our own respective parishes, we are a little confused about the church’s official decision regarding limbo and infants dying before baptism. Could you possibly spell it out for me? Much appreciated.
Vicki Ashmore

Answer by Fr. Robert J. Levis on 01-15-2002: Dear Vicki, The teaching on Limbo was never more than the teaching of the theologians up until recently. The new Catechism does not teach it. So what is the teaching of the Church? I suggest that it is that we entrust the unborn innocents to the infinite Mercy of God and leave them there. God bless. Fr. Bob Levis

Why would God put unbaptized babies in punishment for something that isn’t their fault?
Click to expand...
I explain the citation in this manner: after Vatican II (but not because of Vatican II), tremendous confusion has arisen in the human elements of the Church. Sister Lucy of the Fatima apparitions aptly called this confusion a “diabolical disorientation.”

Please remember that an individual priest, despite his merits and good intentions, can give a confused, misleading, or mistaken response. On matters of belief and morals, we must listen to Christ as he teaches us through the Magisterium throughout the centuries and in this century, not to an individual priest whose thinking does not fully reflect the solemn pronouncements of the Magisterium. With great respect for the priest whom you cite, I believe that even he would agree with that general statement.

Despite the confusion still raging among individual Catholics, Catholicism remains the one true religion, and all the teachings of the Faith remain true. Among those teachings is the dogma that the souls of those dying in original sin only are penalized in some manner in the next world. As Pope Innocent III taught in 1201, “[t]he penalty for original sin is the absence of the vision of God” (DS 780).

Nevertheless, this penalty, which is not imposed because of a personal, actual sin on the part of the unbaptized infant, can coexist with God’s unmerited gift of unending natural happiness. This gift, which can be called a kind of salvation, is known as limbo. Limbo is indeed not a Catholic dogma, but it is an eminently reasonable deduction from truths that are Catholic dogmas: the goodness, mercy, love, and universal salvific will of God, and the sad existence of original sin and its consequences.

Limbo is listed in the index of the Catechism of the Catholic Church; please check this for yourselves. The index links limbo to section 1261, which speaks of a “way of salvation” for children dying without Baptism. I believe that this “way of salvation” should be understood to be, not the supernatural vision of God in heaven, but the unending natural happiness of limbo.

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
bones_IV said:
Why would God put unbaptized babies in punishment for something that isn’t their fault?
Click to expand...
Why would you consider Limbo to be a punishment?

Aquinas taught that it was a place of natural happiness.

Granted, heaven is a place of supernatural happiness, but we have no claim on Heaven, it is a free gift of God.

So not being given a gift we don’t deserve in the first place, but otherwise living in enternal happiness greater than we could ever experience in mortal life hardly seems like a punishment.
 
Brendan said:
Why would you consider Limbo to be a punishment?

Aquinas taught that it was a place of natural happiness.

Granted, heaven is a place of supernatural happiness, but we have no claim on Heaven, it is a free gift of God.

So not being given a gift we don’t deserve in the first place, but otherwise living in eternal happiness greater than we could ever experience in mortal life hardly seems like a punishment.
Click to expand...
Brendan, thanks for your contribution!

We who realize why the Catholic Church can’t, and won’t, “abolish” limbo shouldn’t hesitate to grant that limbo is, in fact, a punishment. The theology of limbo is, it seems to me, multifaceted and somewhat complicated–but its facets and complications are hardly beyond the ken of the average Catholic.

In one sense, limbo *is *a punishment: the condition of having original sin, as Pope Innocent III taught, is penalized by deprivation of the supernatural happiness of the beatific vision. Nonetheless, in another sense, limbo is simultaneously a wonderful gift, since unmerited and unending natural happiness can only be described as a gift.

A rough analogy: the runner who comes in second is penalized by being forced to accept a less impressive trophy or medal because he lacks the ability of the runner who comes in first. Still, the second-place runner may–and should–rejoice in that lesser gift. In one sense, the second-place award is his punishment for the training he didn’t, or couldn’t, do. But, in anothers sense, it’s his reward for the training he did do–or merely for the fact that there were no other runners in his age category! 🙂 (I’m a guy who took up running late in life.)

Limbo is the second-place award.

It appears to me that the Magisterium, in a change of emphasis and terminology (not a true change in doctrine), has begun, with section 1261 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to underscore the understanding of limbo as a gift of eternal happiness emanating from God’s love and mercy.

But this shift of emphasis cannot be described as “abolishing” limbo, and it doesn’t retract what the Church said in the Middle Ages about limbo’s punitive aspect. Accordingly, Catholic doctrine on the fate of unbaptized children and on original sin (which the new catechism calls “an essential truth of the faith” [section 388]) remains intact and coherent. Saying that those children all go to heaven, however, would unravel the whole fabric of Catholic doctrine. That’s why we can’t say that.

Thanks for mentioning St. Thomas! We should all read what St. Thomas wrote about limbo.

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
This is an addendum to my last post on this thread.

I urge everyone interested in the concept of limbo to absorb what St. Thomas Aquinas wrote about it in the Summa theologiae:

newadvent.org/summa/600100.htm

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
Here is a point that I consider of great importance for the limbo controversy.

When Pope John Paul II’s encyclical Evangelium vitae was released in 1995, its section 99 originally contained the following sentence addressed to women who had undergone abortions:

“You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost, and you will be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.”

This sentence was subsequently removed from the official Latin text, which is the definitive one. Why? Some think that to say that the aborted infant is now living in the Lord is to say that the child is in heaven. I disagree. That is not the problem. Does not St. Paul tell the Athenians at the Areopagus that all human beings “live” in God (Acts 17:28)?

No, the problem is this: to say that “nothing is definitively lost” in abortion is true only for the aborting woman’s salvation: she can still repent, be reconciled with God and the Church, and attain the supernatural happiness of the eternal vision of God in the next life. Her aborted child, however, cannot (in the vast majority of cases) attain the beatific vision, since it is a Catholic *dogma–*not a mere theological opinion–that the souls of those dying with original sin only are penalized for this state of sin by being deprived of the beatific vision in the next world. Consequently, for those children, something priceless *is *definitively lost. It is this loss, in fact, that constitutes the deepest reason why abortion is an “unspeakable crime” (Vatican II, Gaudium et spes, section 51).

Is it true that an unborn child killed by an abortionist out of hatred for the Faith is a martyr who can reach heaven through “baptism of blood’? In accordance with Catholic tradition, we can answer this question in the affirmative. Nonetheless, we must confront the reality that this situation must be extremely rare. It cannot apply to the overwhelming majority of surgical and chemical abortions. In the case of chemical abortions, the woman may not even know that she is pregnant. I think of a startling, but valid, observation made by Father Paul Marx: there are women who are aborting (because of the contraceptive pill) while they stand in line to receive Holy Communion.

Although I respectfully disagree with James Likoudis’s statement that the “hope” and “way of salvation” for unbaptized infants in section 1261 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church refer to the beatific vision (I believe that this section should be understood as referring to limbo as a kind of salvation), I nevertheless urge all the readers of this thread to study Mr. Likoudis’s *Wanderer *article entitled “Abortion and Limbo.” Mr. Likoudis, who is associated with Catholics United for the Faith, has done Catholics a favor by publishing this article. Here is a link to it:

credo.stormloader.com/Doctrine/abolimbo.htm

Keep and spread the Faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top