US cardinal voices doubts on Vatican reform, Communion for divorced

[Sirach2]

Every knowledgeable Catholic learned long ago never to waste time with the dishonest spin by LA STAMPA or the HUFF POST (or their ilk, e.g., The National Catholic Reporter). The fish wrap media is no friend of the Church; it pushes its sensationalist propaganda to diminish peoples’ trust in the permanence of traditional (small t) teachings of the Church. Its message to unwary, orthodox Catholics is the opposite of “Be not afraid”, i.e., it’s message is “Be very afraid: ‘Conservative’ prelates are undermining the enlightened, progressive Pope and his enlightened, progressive supporters.”

Liberals will come to rue the day Francis was elected.

I see clearly that you did not read the article with the* heart* of Francis, but with the prejudice he opposes. Did you read the second article … from Zenit? This was not in any way sensationalist, but the gospel. Praise be to God that we have a pope who is willing to proclaim it, despite those who would silence him and demean his messages.

 

[ProVobis]

Pro bono? Hmm. I can see where there could be a role for the laity to do work (secretarial) for free to make this doable, especially those laity who have availed themselves of the services. However, anything beyond would require specialized training, yet if it were very specialized, it might not need as much training.

I suppose I should have thought this out a little more. I presumed when the Pope said he favors charging no fees for annulment process that he was asking for pro bono work on the part of these specialized people. But that doesn’t necessarily follow. Yours is a more viable approach.

 

[ProVobis]

It is gravely wrong to call a mortal sin not a mortal sin for the sake of letting everyone receive the Holy Eucharist. By doing so, it waters down both the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. When divorced and remarried Catholics can easily receive Communion without annulment procedure, the flood gate for divorce will be further wide open, the divorce rate for Catholics could go up for there is one less thing to worry about.

The divorce rate went up when the excommunications were lifted. Not to suggest one led to another but certainly one can’t expect a decline once divorces are either made easier or the penalties against them are lifted.

 

[Sirach2]

Read the article. Despite the very clear slant, I still see absolutely nothing that the Pope said as being against the Catholic faith

Francis never meant his homily to be an article against the faith. Of course, I read it, and I also posted a better version of his homily, by Zenit. He spoke to the new Cardinals, and I do not believe Zenit misstated his words, as this is a very reliable source…

I don’t see what all of your comments about Pope Benedict have to do with the topic. or the article, since we are not making comparisons between former popes and Francis. I’m hoping that seeing other POV’s will give outsiders a more balanced view, rather than one-sided, since there are those in the Magisterium who are not in agreement with what is being continually posted here in thread after thread.

 

[boar2roar]

You continue to misrepresent what is being talked about. The Pope, the Church, the Cardinals and Bishops (at least the honest ones), have stressed that this is not an examination aimed at changing the general rule regarding marriage and divorce. This issue is addressing a very specific group of people. Those who having lived through a marriage, divorce and remarriage… have experienced a conversion to true faith evidenced by their relationship with the Church. They live the life of faith regardless of whether their new marriage can be regularised or not.

The local bishops won’t be faced with every divorced remarried couple in their area of which of course there will be many. This issue is only regarding the some who have been living their conversion to faith already.

Pope Francis I imagine pays huge attention to the experiences of faith as being a true manifestation of God at work in peoples lives, since discernment of spirits in making life choices is a very important part of Ignatian spirituality.

It is these particular people than can show everyone by their life experience, the real difference between the marital love that fully appreciates the meaning of the sacrament of marriage… and the marriage that whilst being full of feeling and conducted by a Priest, is not worthy of sacramental ordination.

The question is, what special esteem can we give these marriages that gives value to the real good in them. That can highlight for young people how true godly love manifests in a marriage.

The reality is that the attitude that we often have towards these people is that they are irredeemable adulterers. That they deserved their fate since they weren’t as holy and perfect as us. That their marriages are valueless and without any redeeming quality. Is that really what God and nature is telling us? Is it only situations that the official process deems redeemable, that are genuinely redeemable?

The Pope and many good, educated and holy people in the Church think there are anomalies still to be addressed for the good of Catholic marriage in the future.

Rev 3:22 “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

Baby steps. The issue is very specific and it does claim to account for a small amount of people but that just shows that its real purpose is to take a first strike against the importance and seriousness of marriage vows. Once it passes people can shift their views further than that point and keep on chipping away.

Aren’t the rest of your points just arguments for why we should have catholic divorce? A lot of people might have that view but I aways thought the catholic “no we really mean forever” made it more special then the other marriages out their. It would feel funny if Henry VIII turned out to be right after all these years.

 

[LongingSoul]

Baby steps. The issue is very specific and it does claim to account for a small amount of people but that just shows that its real purpose is to take a first strike against the importance and seriousness of marriage vows. Once it passes people can shift their views further than that point and keep on chipping away.

Aren’t the rest of your points just arguments for why we should have catholic divorce? A lot of people might have that view but I aways thought the catholic “no we really mean forever” made it more special then the other marriages out their. It would feel funny if Henry VIII turned out to be right after all these years.

Don’t you remember when limbo of the Infants was abolished 10 years ago? Same thing was said.

Many Catholics would see the abandonment of limbo as a good thing - there is little doubt that some interpretations of the teaching may have caused untold misery to the millions of parents whose children have died without being baptised.

But there are those who argue that it is not simply a “hypothesis” that can just be swept aside; that the notion that unbaptised children do not go to heaven has been a fundamental part of Church teaching for hundreds of years.

Then, of course, there is the argument that if this can be abolished, what else is disposable?

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5406552.stm

Here is even a thread from CAF from someone angered by the Churchs decision to abandon Limbo as the slippery slope for the end of the necessity of Baptism…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=115582

So while many stubbornly demanded that Limbo was an integral unchangable part of the doctrine of Baptism and original sin the Church has persisted with this innovation…

Father Kelly said turning away from the idea of limbo was part of “the development of the theological virtue of hope” and reflected “a different sense of God, focusing on his infinite love.”

The Redemptorist said people should not think the changed focus is a lightweight embrace of warm, fuzzy feelings.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm

 

[Ender]

I do not see how reform is watering down. There is nothing sacred about any set amount of time. The only goal is to arrive at the understanding of the state of the marriage, whether it was valid or not, not the amount of time it takes. The bishop does not need a personal role for this to happen.

The bishop has no role in the process, and the determination of validity is not a trivial judgment which anyone is competent to make. This is why ministers of the tribunal must be degreed canon lawyers (cc. 1420 §4, 1421 §3, and 1435)

Pro bono? Hmm. I can see where there could be a role for the laity to do work (secretarial) for free to make this doable, especially those laity who have availed themselves of the services. However, anything beyond would require specialized training, yet if it were very specialized, it might not need as much training.

How much are we willing to trivialize this proceeding? There may indeed be valid ways of streamlining the process, but what is being considered is not pruning the limbs but laying an axe to the roots.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Those who having lived through a marriage, divorce and remarriage… have experienced a conversion to true faith evidenced by their relationship with the Church. They live the life of faith regardless of whether their new marriage can be regularised or not.

The local bishops won’t be faced with every divorced remarried couple in their area of which of course there will be many. This issue is only regarding the some who have been living their conversion to faith already.

The fact that they are living their faith admirably now is irrelevant to the question of whether their first marriage was valid. It may make their situation more poignant, but it changes nothing. If the first marriage was valid, then if they are having conjugal relations, they are committing adultery…and how exactly does the repeated, unrepentant commission of a grave sin constitute “living their conversion to faith”?

It is these particular people than can show everyone by their life experience, the real difference between the marital love that fully appreciates the meaning of the sacrament of marriage… and the marriage that whilst being full of feeling and conducted by a Priest, is not worthy of sacramental ordination.

Your solution apparently is to let each individual decide for himself which of his marriages he chooses to consider valid.

The question is, what special esteem can we give these marriages that gives value to the real good in them. That can highlight for young people how true godly love manifests in a marriage.

How do we esteem their present marriage if it requires us to ignore the fact that it is an adulterous relationship?

The reality is that the attitude that we often have towards these people is that they are irredeemable adulterers.

The church believes that no one is irredeemable. They church also teaches that they are by definition adulterers.

That they deserved their fate since they weren’t as holy and perfect as us.

If you believe the doctrines are wrong don’t hint at it, just say so.

Ender

 

[_Abyssinia]

Don’t you remember when limbo of the Infants was abolished 10 years ago? Same thing was said.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5406552.stm

Here is even a thread from CAF from someone angered by the Churchs decision to abandon Limbo as the slippery slope for the end of the necessity of Baptism…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=115582

So while many stubbornly demanded that Limbo was an integral unchangable part of the doctrine of Baptism and original sin the Church has persisted with this innovation…

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm

The Limbo of Infants was not a Church doctrine, as I think has been said on one of these Catholic news forum threads before.

You and/or others may make an argument that a Communion change would not be a change of doctrine but as Bishop Morlino recently said, ‘doctrine is lived out in the discipline.’

 

[KSU]

I posted this:
Every knowledgeable Catholic learned long ago never to waste time with the dishonest spin by LA STAMPA or the HUFF POST (or their ilk, e.g., The National Catholic Reporter). The fish wrap media is no friend of the Church; it pushes its sensationalist propaganda to diminish peoples’ trust in the permanence of traditional (small t) teachings of the Church. Its message to unwary, orthodox Catholics is the opposite of “Be not afraid”, i.e., it’s message is “Be very afraid: ‘Conservative’ prelates are undermining the enlightened, progressive Pope and his enlightened, progressive supporters.”

The only thing new about Francis is his very Jesuit method of operation (which even he has acknowledged has its weaknesses). Liberals will come to rue the day Francis was elected.

To which you replied:

I see clearly that you did not read the article with the* heart* of Francis, but with the prejudice he opposes. Did you read the second article … from Zenit? This was not in any way sensationalist, but the gospel. Praise be to God that we have a pope who is willing to proclaim it, despite those who would silence him and demean his messages.

My friend, is judging someone like that comporting with the “heart of Francis”? Do you believe that Francis would approve of that characterization of my post as “the prejudice he opposes” and as an attempt to “silence him and demean him”?

Before you appoint yourself as his mind reader you really should get to know him. The Church-hating media of all stripes will come to rue the day Francis was elected. So will many misguided people.

Consider just one example:
Elton John called Pope Francis “my hero” for his compassion and push to accept gays in the Catholic church…He said Francis is pushing boundaries in the church and told the crowd: “Make this man a saint now, OK?”
“Ten years ago one of the biggest obstacles in the fight against AIDS was the Catholic Church. Today we have a pope that speaks out about it,” said John…
cbsnews.com/news/elton-john-pope-francis-is-my-hero/

How do you suppose people like Elton John, misled by liberals and the media, will feel when the inevitable happens and they realize that Francis is not pushing for homosexuality to be accepted by the Church, or for a change in any other teaching?

If “Francis is pushing boundaries in the church”, it’s not with an intent to reinterpret doctrine in order to change it. All he is doing in his great compassion is exploring the possibility of discovering sugars that will make the medicines go down easier.

Please quit deluding yourself; Francis is not an enemy of so-called conservatives (i.e., theologically orthodox Catholics) or vice versa.

 

[Sirach2]

I posted this:
Every knowledgeable Catholic learned long ago never to waste time with the dishonest spin by LA STAMPA or the HUFF POST (or their ilk, e.g., The National Catholic Reporter). The fish wrap media is no friend of the Church; it pushes its sensationalist propaganda to diminish peoples’ trust in the permanence of traditional (small t) teachings of the Church.

Yes indeed, you posted this unfortunate piece of chutzpah. LaStampa accurately reposted the same information as written by the Cardinal himself in his own blog.

 

[Tigg]

Pope Francis I imagine pays huge attention to the experiences of faith as being a true manifestation of God at work in peoples lives, since discernment of spirits in making life choices is a very important part of Ignatian spirituality.

It is these particular people than can show everyone by their life experience, the real difference between the marital love that fully appreciates the meaning of the sacrament of marriage… and the marriage that whilst being full of feeling and conducted by a Priest, is not worthy of sacramental ordination.

The question is, what special esteem can we give these marriages that gives value to the real good in them. That can highlight for young people how true godly love manifests in a marriage.

How is it possible that true faith and love of God can be separated from actions? If one has freely chosen to disassociate themselves from the sacramental Church, (albeit they may wish it could be otherwise) is it self-delusion to believe they have an active faith life, even while deliberately and continually choosing that which separates them from the reality? They have made a decision as to their way of life which precludes the remedy to remove the obstacle to full communion. The catechism states that to choose deliberately something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin which is that *action *which destroys the life of *faith *itself. Will the doctrine of mortal sin then have to change as well as the understanding of the indissolubility of marriage and the meaning of adultery?

 

[KSU]

I posted this:
Every knowledgeable Catholic learned long ago never to waste time with the dishonest spin by LA STAMPA or the HUFF POST (or their ilk, e.g., The National Catholic Reporter). The fish wrap media is no friend of the Church; it pushes its sensationalist propaganda to diminish peoples’ trust in the permanence of traditional (small t) teachings of the Church.

To which you further replied:

Yes indeed, you posted this unfortunate piece of chutzpah. LaStampa accurately reposted the same information as written by the Cardinal himself in his own blog.

Thank you for making my case. The LA STAMPA article you posted, “Cardinal Wuerl’s response to Burke (and dissenters)”, is an attempt to make it appear to ignorant Catholics that “conservatives” such as Cardinal Burke are enemies of Francis and his poor, beleaguered supporters. Cardinal Wuerl got the type of media attention he wanted.

But it appears I’m making headway with you. You have moved from labeling my post as being “the prejudice [Francis] opposes” and an attempt to “silence him and demean his messages” to mere “chutzpah.”

 

[LongingSoul]

The Limbo of Infants was not a Church doctrine, as I think has been said on one of these Catholic news forum threads before.

You and/or others may make an argument that a Communion change would not be a change of doctrine but as Bishop Morlino recently said, ‘doctrine is lived out in the discipline.’

I don’t know your age, but I am old enough to remember (as well as having a personal investment in the existence of Limbo), how this particular teaching was understood. It was not taught as an invention of the Church to appease mothers who were distressed by the idea of their unbaptised babies being barred from Gods presence. It was taught as a doctrinal reality. Of course it served the doctrine like one of its limbs and yes, ‘doctrine is lived out in the discipline’… But it is only in retrospect that Limbo can be seen as a ‘servant’ of the doctrine, not an integral, unchangable part of doctrine. That reality is only clear in retrospect and rightly so. This is how all the developments of doctrine have progressed.

The reality is that if 40 years ago the idea of examining the doctrine of original sin because of the wound that Limbo was causing in the Church, had been raised by a foreign Bishop and invited into a synod discussion… we would be seeing the same concern and objections raised by the same people who believed that the traditional teaching was unchangeable.

The Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and theologians are highly educated in matters of Church doctrine and the history of the laws. If there was indeed absolutely no room for examination of this issue of divorce/remarriage, don’t you think it would be properly dogmatised by now? How do you explain Pope Francis invitation to have it examined for a deeper understanding?

 

[LongingSoul]

How is it possible that true faith and love of God can be separated from actions? If one has freely chosen to disassociate themselves from the sacramental Church, (albeit they may wish it could be otherwise) is it self-delusion to believe they have an active faith life, even while deliberately and continually choosing that which separates them from the reality? They have made a decision as to their way of life which precludes the remedy to remove the obstacle to full communion. The catechism states that to choose deliberately something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin which is that *action *which destroys the life of *faith *itself. Will the doctrine of mortal sin then have to change as well as the understanding of the indissolubility of marriage and the meaning of adultery?

Why not just wait and see what transpires out of the current examination of the issue and be open to truths that may be hidden from you at this time? I keep wondering why in a country which processes 80% of worldwide annulments… wouldn’t the citizens be glad of finding better ways of conveying the meaning of sacramental marriage. And yet the US seems to have the loudest collective resistance to any examination of the issue at all!

 

[JimG]

I don’t know your age, but I am old enough to remember (as well as having a personal investment in the existence of Limbo), how this particular teaching was understood. It was not taught as an invention of the Church to appease mothers who were distressed by the idea of their unbaptised babies being barred from Gods presence. It was taught as a doctrinal reality. Of course it served the doctrine like one of its limbs and yes, ‘doctrine is lived out in the discipline’… But it is only in retrospect that Limbo can be seen as a ‘servant’ of the doctrine, not an integral, unchangable part of doctrine. That reality is only clear in retrospect and rightly so. This is how all the developments of doctrine have progressed.

The reality is that if 40 years ago the idea of examining the doctrine of original sin because of the wound that Limbo was causing in the Church, had been raised by a foreign Bishop and invited into a synod discussion… we would be seeing the same concern and objections raised by the same people who believed that the traditional teaching was unchangeable.

The Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and theologians are highly educated in matters of Church doctrine and the history of the laws. If there was indeed absolutely no room for examination of this issue of divorce/remarriage, don’t you think it would be properly dogmatised by now? How do you explain Pope Francis invitation to have it examined for a deeper understanding?

Personally, I found the idea of Limbo rather comforting. It was posited as a place of perfect natural happiness, but lacking the Beatific Vision. Actually both those “in” Limbo and those “in” heaven could be in the very same place; one cannot distinguish who has he Beatific Vision by observing externalities.

And I don’t think that it is prohibited to maintain the theological opinion of Limbo. One has to get baptized somehow, in order to be freed of original sin and be in direct contact with the Beatific Vision. It could be by Baptism of Desire, or even by some special provision made by God that is unknown to us. I’m not sure that the current formulation is any more theologically or personally satisfying than the opinion of Limbo.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I don’t know your age, but I am old enough to remember (as well as having a personal investment in the existence of Limbo), how this particular teaching was understood. It was not taught as an invention of the Church to appease mothers who were distressed by the idea of their unbaptised babies being barred from Gods presence. It was taught as a doctrinal reality. Of course it served the doctrine like one of its limbs and yes, ‘doctrine is lived out in the discipline’… But it is only in retrospect that Limbo can be seen as a ‘servant’ of the doctrine, not an integral, unchangable part of doctrine. That reality is only clear in retrospect and rightly so. This is how all the developments of doctrine have progressed.

The reality is that if 40 years ago the idea of examining the doctrine of original sin because of the wound that Limbo was causing in the Church, had been raised by a foreign Bishop and invited into a synod discussion… we would be seeing the same concern and objections raised by the same people who believed that the traditional teaching was unchangeable.

The Pope, Cardinals, Bishops and theologians are highly educated in matters of Church doctrine and the history of the laws. If there was indeed absolutely no room for examination of this issue of divorce/remarriage, don’t you think it would be properly dogmatised by now? How do you explain Pope Francis invitation to have it examined for a deeper understanding?

What do you mean it was taught as ‘doctrinal reality?’ It was not doctrine.

I can not speak for Pope Francis, I don’t know the reason why he allowed the paragraphs that did not get 2/3rd majority to be included. Perhaps he felt that there should be more pastoral attention to homosexual people, which one of the paragraphs regarded, but felt he couldn’t just have that one included so included all three of the paragraphs. I don’t know. Perhaps he wanted the Communion paragraph to be included because he does want the issue looked at but that doesn’t necessarily mean he thinks anything can be done to change things in regards to Communion or change it expansively, but wants the issue looked at.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Regarding the development of doctrine, check this out:

Newman’s seven tests are as follows:

1. Preservation of the type or identity happens when a doctrine or belief retains its type from start to end. Newman gives as an example the external development of Christianity into the Roman Catholic Church. Throughout the ages it has maintained its identity as “a religious communion claiming divine commission,” a well organized and disciplined body" which faithful to its founder is considered as fanatical, superstitious and ignorant by its persecutors. The Church remains true to its type in the view of the world, and this unity of type serves as a guarantee of its development.

1. By continuity of principles, Newman explained: “A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started.” He enumerates various Catholic principles such as: dogmas as irrevocable supernatural truths, the principle of faith, the sacramental principle derived from the doctrine of the Incarnation, the mystical interpretation of Scripture also derived from the doctrine of the Incarnation, and the principle of grace (325-326).

1. Assimilative Power refers to interpenetration of doctrines. "A living idea becomes many, yet remains one” (186). Newman referred to doctrines and rites, which were assimilated slowly and carefully and with much difficulty over time.

1. Logical Consequence does not refer to a syllogism, but to a gradual growth that, although unintentional, has a logical character, and an “evident naturalness” (191).

1. Anticipation of its future means that there are “early intimations of tendencies which afterwards are fully realized (…) in accordance with the original idea” (196).

1. Conservative Action requires new doctrines to protect earlier doctrines. In the words of St. Vincent quoted by Newman, it is profectus fidei non permutatio (progress in faith not its change into something else). He gives as an example devotion to St. Mary that, far from corrupting doctrine about Christ’s unique mediation, “subserves, illustrates, protects the doctrine of our Lord’s loving kindness and mediation” (202).

1. Lastly, chronic Vigor (or vigorous action from first to last) refers to the duration of ideas whereas something corrupt cannot be long standing.

catholicworldreport.com/Item/3490/cardinal_newman_the_synod_and_the_kasper_proposal.aspx

 

[_Abyssinia]

The question of Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics

Having examined Newman’s tests, we now examine if they apply to the doctrine that Communion for divorced and remarried persons is an authentic development. In other words, what would Cardinal Newman have said in his intervention at the Synod for Families?

First, however, we should reaffirm, as Pope John Paul II did in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, that divorced and remarried Catholics remain part of the Church. As members of the Church, they should be accepted and helped to live the faith. They should be encouraged to pray and to seek a path of reconciliation with God. Those who have a just cause should be helped to obtain a declaration of nullity of the previous bond and helped to receive the sacrament of marriage. All should be understood and supported with prayer and friendship.

It should also be mentioned that in the Church’s history there have been doctrinal developments in matters regarding marriage. A notable one is the doctrine on the canonical form of marriage. The Council of Trent mandated that a sacramental marriage should have as witness a qualified representative of the Church, normally the pastor of the parish church.

Although marriage situations vary, the following is an application of Newman’s tests to the general consideration of the proposed doctrine of Communion of divorced and remarried persons.

1. Acceptance of Communion for divorced and remarried persons does not preserve the type of marriage, which entails indissolubility. The type of marriage with Christ’s permanent love for the Church, his bride, is broken.

1. This new doctrine establishes a new principle, namely that in some cases marriage is dissoluble; marriage is not permanent. There is thus a discontinuity with earlier doctrine.

1. The proposed doctrine seems to assimilate the Christian practice of mercy and forgiveness, but it contradicts others such as justice with regard to the obligations that derive from the nature of marriage. It is doubtful that it can pass the test of assimilative power.

1. Communion in these circumstances does not follow the penitential practice present since the early Church by which a person in a state of sin must leave the situation of sin and follow a path of conversion before being reconciled to the Church, thus coming into Communion.

1. Christ’s teaching about the permanence of marriage and the sin of adultery does not anticipate in any way this new doctrine of divorce and remarriage, and less of Communion for those who are sadly in this situation.

1. Admission to Communion of divorced persons who have entered a second bond does not have a protective action on the practice of marriage in the Church. Instead of having a conservative action, it weakens marriage by removing one of the consequences to divorce and remarriage.

1. Newman would also argue that the proposed doctrine would not add vitality to the Christian reality of sacramental marriage. On the contrary, the practice of divorce and remarriage, and in some places of Communion for persons divorced and remarried, have become more accepted.

Given this analysis, it is very doubtful that the doctrine on Communion for divorced and remarried persons proposed by Cardinal Walter Kasper can be considered authentic development of doctrine. Fr. Juan José Perez Soba has pointed out the doctrinal errors of Cardinal Kasper’s position on the marriage bond (Zenit.org, March 25, 2014). It is in no way the doctrinal development that St. Vincent of Lérins and Blessed Cardinal Newman envisioned. At the Synod Newman would instead argue how Sacred Scripture and Church Tradition uphold the indissolubility of the marriage bond.

catholicworldreport.com/Item/3490/cardinal_newman_the_synod_and_the_kasper_proposal.aspx

 

[LongingSoul]

Personally, I found the idea of Limbo rather comforting. It was posited as a place of perfect natural happiness, but lacking the Beatific Vision. Actually both those “in” Limbo and those “in” heaven could be in the very same place; one cannot distinguish who has he Beatific Vision by observing externalities.

And I don’t think that it is prohibited to maintain the theological opinion of Limbo. One has to get baptized somehow, in order to be freed of original sin and be in direct contact with the Beatific Vision. It could be by Baptism of Desire, or even by some special provision made by God that is unknown to us. I’m not sure that the current formulation is any more theologically or personally satisfying than the opinion of Limbo.

As a mother I experienced this situation 26 years ago so I can attest to the distress and panic experienced when you realise that baptism is not possible. A place like heaven but without God there and separated from anyone you believed is already in heaven, is not appealing to a mother. That was before Limbo was abandoned by the Church but I was blessed with some immediate expert comfort as my uncle is a Priest and had ‘inside information’ on the situation.