Charity IN ALL THINGS, people. And yes, I know that it’s possible to charitably correct a brother in Christ — but in blog comments? Come on, lets all get some perspective.

They in this case being the Doctors, Fathers, and Saints all in unison on this issue.

What will it take to satisfy YOU?

Pope Sixtus V
Vicar of Christ

23. But this is not enough. Once the integrity of the faith has been safeguarded, then it is time to guard the proper way of expressing it, lest our careless use of words give rise, God forbid, to false opinions regarding faith in the most sublime things. St. Augustine gives a stern warning about this when he takes up the matter of the different ways of speaking that are employed by the philosophers on the one hand and that ought to be used by Christians on the other. “The philosophers,” he says, “use words freely, and they have no fear of offending religious listeners in dealing with subjects that are difficult to understand. But we have to speak in accordance with a fixed rule, so that a lack of restraint in speech on our part may not give rise to some irreverent opinion about the things represented by the words.” (l0)

24. And so the rule of language which the Church has established through the long labor of centuries, with the help of the Holy Spirit, and which she has confirmed with the authority of the Councils, and which has more than once been the watchword and banner of orthodox faith, is to be religiously preserved, and no one may presume to change it at his own pleasure or under the pretext of new knowledge. ….

Pope Paul VI
Vicar of Christ

To use your language, “it’s rather galling, I might add, that you think you’re in a position to” tell God what is or is not fitting for him.

You tiptoe around heresy and then you have the gall to say things like “I think you are perfectly free to believe that ensoulment happens at conception,” or “you’re free to believe Limbo.”

Well, thank you for permission to believe the Catholic Faith!

What’s up with this term “ensoulment” anyway? Are you aware that the Catholic Faith also demands we speak using traditional terms and phrases - this concept has been universally upheld as late as by Paul VI.

Frankly, the word ensoulment sounds like something from Scientology or, dare I say, Mormonism. Come to think about it, your whole belief system in baptisms after death, the soul not “ensouled” until well after conception, God being too merciful to send babies to Hell, all comes straight from Mormonism.

Discipule: yes. So really, we would not be talking about unbaptized babies at all, but rather babies baptized in ways unbeknownst to us, in the providence of God. Failing this baptism, Limbo (the edge of Hell) or even Hell itself await those children.

It has long been a recognized rule: “That is the Faith which has always and everywhere been held by all.” The Theological Commission which studied the question of possibility for salvation of unbaptized infants was a novel and novus thing to do. Even they stated: “Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century.” # 26.

Raindear, that is a real problem, but it is still there even in the case of baptized babies and baptized retarded people who die without ever having become rational. They go to Heaven, apparently without ever knowing what temptation is.

While the notion that God employs extraordinary means to redeem babies befits His mercy, it raises a problem of justice in my mind - rational creatures achieving Heaven without the need to persevere in grace, as those living in the world must. On the other hand, who are we to doubt that God possesses other means of testing souls? One also recalls the parable of Matthew 20. We who enjoy unmerited the benefit of the Lord’s gracious mercy have no grounds for resentment if He bestows His gifts more bountifully elsewhere: “Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst thou not agree with me for a penny? Take what is thine, and go thy way: I will also give to this last even as to thee. Or, is it not lawful for me to do what I will? is thy eye evil, because I am good?”

Although JSP made his arguments with his customary ungracious vehemence and a generous helping of unfounded accusations, I understand his concern. Perhaps it will clear the air if we clarify one point under discussion.

The claim that God OWES unborn babies an opportunity to achieve heaven through extraordinary means implies that He owes every man the grace to achieve heaven, a position undoubtedly false. However, Clara made no such claim. Rather, she indicated that it seems unfitting for babies to lose, by a death they could not escape, the opportunity for heaven which all of us unworthily received from the merciful God. God owes no man grace, but if He gives it to one undeserving creature, why must we assume that He will deny it to another? That argument makes perfect sense to me.

I myself prefer to believe in the doctrine of Limbo and St. Thomas’ explanation of natural happiness because, if our end was so utterly beyond our reach as to make us miserable without it, I don’t understand how God could justly deny us the means to achieve it.

If people are actually up for another limbo debate, that’s fine by me, but perhaps somebody (Iosephus, if he likes) should make it into another post. It’s silly to tack it onto the end of a thread that most people won’t be reading anymore… I also don’t consider it optimal for theological debates to be begun by my being falsely accused of heresy.

“Clara and McBrien want to force God’s hand. They are making this a matter of justice — as if consigning an unbaptized baby to hell is some sort of divine innjustice. I believe Clara has said as much. This is a direct violation of the 2nd doctrine of heaven as sheer gift.”

I just thought it important to point out that I definitely DIDN’T say this; in fact, I explicitly denied it in one my earlier comments.

To repeat Ambrosius’ arguments, are the normal means of salvation open to them? No. Should we put any great confidence in extraordinary means? No. Are we responsible to provide ordinary means and are we guilty if we fail? Yes. But why God could never, ever take away the impediments that an infant has on account of being an infant, why God could not miraculously supply for what is lacking (and I completely agree that it is lacking), I don’t see. Think of it this way: an unbaptized baby goes to Limbo. But perhaps God in his Providence has a way to provide Baptism in a way unknownst to us, a way not dependent upon our own agency. If this has happened even once, it provides *some* hope that any given child has avoided Limbo (here, I agree with the Doctor: what is perfect natural happiness for a person with a supernatural destiny which has been thwarted? I don’t say it is a “Pelagian fable,” but I neither am I persuaded by it). Ven. Mary of Agreda said that God revealed to her how the Holy Innocents slain at Bethlehem were permitted to be conscious, willing martyrs despite the apparent impediments to this imposed by their age, ignorance, and (possibly) original sin.

A relative of mine committed suicide, and he died (apparently) outside the Church. Do I hope that a heretical suicide got to Heaven? No, but I entertain the barest of hopes that through God’s grace he did not die until after obtaining forgiveness. No one should hope that unbaptized babies escapted Limbo, but they may, I think, hope that unbeknownst to them their baby did indeed attain the grace of baptism. Not that their confidence should be strong — neither is my hope for my relative strong. But I don’t despair, either.

Maybe this is like the Immaculate Conception, which is a dogma. In that case, the Church permitted debate. From the debate arose the necessary stipulation that the Immaculate Conception is thanks to the redemption wrought by Christ. Maybe the Church will someday solemnly define Limbo to be a dogma, and the necessary arguments about salvific will and providence will have been worked out due to the debate which the pastors of the Church currently tolerate.

There are two revealed doctrines at stake.

The first is that baptism of water or desire is necessary to enter Heaven.

The second is that heaven is a sheer gift of divine providence.

Both of these are revealed doctrines — and like every single aspect of our Catholic faith are absolutely essential to our salvation, otherwise God wouldn’t have revealed them.

We all seem to recognize that Clara and Fr. McBrien’s speculation weakens potentially the first doctrine. McBrien desires this effect. Clara hopes it away, by saying that people will hold onto the first doctrine regardless of the inconsistency and contrary nature of the speculation.

But we don’t give enough thought to the 2nd revealed doctrine - that Heaven is a sheer gift of divine providence.

Clara and McBrien want to force God’s hand. They are making this a matter of justice — as if consigning an unbaptized baby to hell is some sort of divine innjustice. I believe Clara has said as much. This is a direct violation of the 2nd doctrine of heaven as sheer gift.

I’m not threatening damnation; I’m warning about damnation — this is an act of charity toward one’s neighbor. Don’t you realize this?

The Church teaches that formal heretics will burn in Hell. This is de fide.

Now, some might speculate that God will offer some special grace of conversion in the moments between this life and the heretic’s personal Judgment, but this is not the Church’s job, or ours as laymen, to speculate on. The Church’s job is to make public to the world what has been revealed by God: The formal heretic cannot be saved, less he abjures of his heresy and asks God with a contrite heart for forgiveness.

JSP, I understand your concern, but the non-existence of ordinary means by which unbaptized infants can be saved does not exclude the existence of extraordinary means.

The doctors, the Doctor, Clara, you, and I all agree that there is no way to firmly claim that unbaptized infants are saved, since the only means available to human will to explicitly cooperate with God and save souls is through the sacraments. If we wish to put a baby in the way of Grace, we are given the sacrament of baptism to do so, and you’re right that this is the ordinary way in which souls are saved.

However, it is unambiguously true that God is not limited to the sacraments, and He can save souls without them. Each of us can cooperate directly with His grace outside of the Sacraments if He wills it. Hence it is POSSIBLE , though not ORDINARY, for baptism of desire, perfect acts of contrition, etc. The idea, then, is that we do not know what God does about babies who have no sin imputed to them personally, but who carry only the mark of original sin. God has nowhere in revelation given us a firm reason to believe that these babies are saved, but neither has He confirmed authoritatively that He is not making use of an EXTRAordinary means to save them. This is where the debate centers: what do we *expect* God does, given that He hasn’t told us?

There are then two avenues open: we can say, we have no ordinary means, ergo, we make the conclusion — as you have — that He would have told us if He were going to be using extraordinary means in this special case. However, we are not certain on this point, because although the teachings of the Church, as you have so generously repeately reiterated, are clear regarding ordinary means, they are nowhere able to exclude God’s extraordinary individual actions.

Make more sense now?

Limbo is not a distinct place — it’s part of Hell.

The question is not whether or not Limbo exists, because Hell exists, and I think we all agree that people are punished to varying degrees in Hell. Limbo would be the area of Hell with the least amount of punishment.

So the DOGMA at hand is not the existence of Limbo, but whether or not the unbaptized soul of a baby can enter Heaven. The Church has dogmatically proclaimed that the unbaptized babies HAVE NO MEANS AVAILABLE TO THEM to enter Heaven. The Council of Florence says this. The Council of Trent says this. ALL, let me say that again, ALL of the Fathers said this. Heck, more recently even Pope Pius XII says this.

So the Church need not make some dogmatic declaration on “Limbo.” It doesn’t have to. If you want to eliminate Limbo from the Catholic lexicon that’s fine with me. The doctrine at hand still stands: Unbaptized babies cannot get to Heaven.

You’ve cleverly turned the tables and made it “theological speculation” to state what the Church has maintained at all times and in all places.

Rather to say that the souls of unbaptized babies can go to Heaven is, in fact, theological speculation and it’s groundless speculation that heretically contradicts 2000 years of Church teaching.

And call me crazy but I don’t think a cardinal, bishop, or even priests should be giving “personal opinions” and giving such speculations. If I were to see the Holy Father I’d tell him this directly to his face. I don’t think clergy should be blogging – especially bishops. Everything that a bishop says publicly should be prayerfully measured and thought out – not typed up in a café over a cup of espresso and launched in cyberspace.

The pope shouldn’t even give public press conferences or talk to reporters.

Why not?

Because we are all human beings, even the pope. If his every word or fleeting thought were made public, I’m sure we’d be exposed to a lot of scandal and heresy.

Do you understand the doctrine of Papal Infallibility correctly?

You do realize that previous popes have held heretical beliefs privately?