Limbo, revisited

I know a lot of you are very concerned over the Catholic Church’s position on Limbo. I have found the recent report issued by the International Theological Commission, and if anyone is actually interested in reading it, it can be found here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

A couple of brief observations: Contrary to media insinuations, the report does not do away with Limbo. The report explicitly states, actually, that Limbo remains a valid theological opinion. (Sorry Ken, looks like I was right about that.) It is a good thing that Limbo remains a valid theological opinion, because contrary to its claims, the report does not include any serious theological reasons to hope that unbaptized infants go to Heaven. From what I can tell, the authors do their level best to confuse their own wishes with “serious theological reasons.” They are left to argue such absurdities that perhaps when an infant smiles at his mother, it voluntarily accepts God, and is therefore saved. It doesn’t wash. Theologically, the report is a joke. In addition to totally ignoring principles of Catholic thought, it abuses Scripture, largely by misusing something referred to as the “hierarchy of truth.” The quotes, tellingly, are not mine- they belong to the report. (It might be that there’s a hierarchy of truth within Scripture, in that some truths of the Bible are more essential than others. It might be said that it’s more important that there is only one true God than it is that God created the angels, for example. It is not the case, however, that a truth “higher” in that hierarchy is “more” true than one lower on the list. They are both equally true. Obviously. The authors of the report don’t work that way: They assume a hierarchy of truths, assert that some of them are in conflict with each other, determine which truth is higher in the hierarchy, and then conclude that the lower truth is not so true, or at least, is of no consequence.) It’s perhaps fortunate that the report is so patently ridiculous in its reasoning, because if its conclusions were to be accepted as true, it would render Christianity itself meaningless.

I am baffled as to why Pope Benedict allowed the report to be published. I can’t even understand how any Catholic theologian would be willing to sign his name to a report like this. Basically, what they say is, “We are so full of pride that we think every last one of us *deserves *Heaven, and God is obligated to give it to us. If He doesn’t, He’s mean. We don’t want to think He’s mean, so He must let everyone into Heaven.” Stunning.

**"We are so full of pride that we think every last one of us deserves Heaven, and God is obligated to give it to us. If He doesn’t, He’s mean. We don’t want to think He’s mean, so He must let everyone into Heaven."


Seems the Atheists have infiltrated the highest ranks of the Church. Maybe they should have consulted with Ken first.

:wink:

and then conclude that the lower truth is not so true, or at least, is of no consequence


Significant difference between those designations. Which truth specifically did they sacrifice for which other?

So in other words, they’ve left the whole issue in, uh, … well, limbo.

That whole hierarchy of truths seems to be about God’s universal salvific will (one truth) taking precedence over the need for Baptism to attain salvation (another truth). To me, that seems a cowardly way of not having to say “the only way to salvation is through Christ…except for one or more other ways” or that “God ain’t universally salvific, so some people aren’t going to be saved (specifically unbaptized children) even though you might think they should be”. Neither would go over well with the flocks.

Seems the Atheists have infiltrated the highest ranks of the Church.


Maybe. Thanks be to God for His protection against them.

Significant difference between those designations. Which truth specifically did they sacrifice for which other?

Well, not really. Maybe I phrased it poorly. What they’re saying, in effect, is that one of the truths is not actually true. They’ve sacrificed truth of the necessity of Baptism to the truth of God’s salvific will. (Having misinterpreted- grossly- that latter truth.) Their “logic” goes like this: God has revealed to us that He wants everyone to be saved. He has also revealed to us that to be saved, a person has to be baptised. These two truths seem to us to be in conflict, because we know that not everyone is baptised. We think it’s more important that God wants everyone to be saved than it is that He said baptism is necessary for that salvation. Therefore, infants can be saved without baptism.
**