A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

Commenter question – what is this “Limbo” thing? March 20, 2014

A commenter asked about the Church’s understanding of Limbo, and pointed out that the post-VII Catechism does not discuss that subject. They also pointed out that the current Catechism seems to point towards hope for the salvation of unbaptized souls, even infants completely ignorant of God and Jesus Christ.  I respond below, while bearing in mind that belief in Limbo is not dogmatic – you can hope all unbaptized babies are saved and remain a faithful Catholic, although I think there are very good reasons not to do so.

I modified the comment I made to clear up a few matters:

<sigh> – First of all, the Catechism is not a dogmatic document. It is a compendium of belief, but does not define dogma.

Secondly, there are a number of problems with the 1990s Catechisms, the first version was very soft on homosexuality and a revised version (1997) had to be released that was more in line with Tradition on that subject. There are both some definitions that are a bit on the problematic side, as well as some rather glaring omissions. It is a solid guide in most areas, but Catholics need to be careful not to take it as the be-all source of knowledge or answers for the Faith. A much better source would be the Catechism of the Council of Trent or Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum.

There is a long history of thought regarding where unbaptized but perfectly innocent children go when they die. St. Augustine argued passionately – and I mean passionately – that anyone, regardless of innocence, is damned without baptism. He believed that all unbaptized babies went to hell. His belief was the dominant accepted view from the 4th to the 14th century. Augustine’s view was grounded in Scripture and Christ’s own claim in John 3 that in order to have eternal life one must be born again through water. However, there are three accepted kinds of baptism based on other elements of Scripture: the usual baptism by water, but also baptism by desire and blood.

St. Thomas Aquinas, however, looking at other bits of Tradition and Scripture, argued that Our Blessed Lord, being infinitely merciful but also infinitely just, would not condemn the souls of the perfectly innocent to eternal suffering. They are still damned, in a sense, but to a place of perfect natural happiness where there is no suffering of any kind. Because they lack baptism (of water, desire, or blood), these infants are denied the Beatific Vision for all eternity, but they do not suffer at all. Limbo is technically a part of hell – again, with no suffering – because there are only three destinations in the after-life, and only two of those are permanent. You are either in hell or in Heaven, once we complete our time in Purgatory (which is where most of us will go for varying lengths of time).

However, I must state, neither Augustine’s view nor Aquinas’ is dogmatic. Catholics do not have to give the assent of faith to this belief regarding Limbo.

Now, in the 20th century, as modernism crept more and more into the Church, a modernism which explicitly rejected Scholasticism and the constant Tradition of belief in the Church, there grew up increasing numbers of theologians who posited that since God was so merciful, He surely would not damn anyone, and certainly would welcome all innocent souls into Heaven. Hans Urs von Baltasar and others posited the idea of universal salvation, that Catholics could reasonably hope that all souls would be saved. Unfortunately, those views – defined as an error by Pope JPII – have become very widespread, and I think some of that has crept into the catechism, where the dominant past beliefs regarding Limbo have been omitted, and verbiage is in place that – while certainly not proclaiming unbaptized souls are saved – strongly hints at such and certainly encourages prayer along those lines, the last being always our solemn duty for all the departed. The “old” views on Limbo are seen by many in the Church over the past several decades as too “hard,” “unforgiving,” and “uncharitable,” and are ranked as part of the “negative ecclesiology” that Vatican II – to its progressive interpreters – was supposed to do away with.

Fortunately, there is a backlash building against universal salvation and the indifferentism that underlies it. Dr. Ralph Martin of Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit has written a book – Will Many Be Saved? – that explores these topics in depth and will probably provide all the answers you seek. As Dr. Martin shows, universal salvation and rejection of hell and Limbo are ideas in stark contrast to the constant belief and practice of the Church. They are really novel and ultimately completely unsupportable. In point of fact, both Scriptural typology and the guidance of innumerable Saints shows us that, in fact, the vast majority are not saved. But I’m getting a bit off topic now.

The belief regarding Limbo has never been dogmatically defined. You do not have to accept it to be a faithful Catholic. As I said, the vast majority of the great Saints and theologians in the history of the Church accepted either Augustine’s or Aquinas’ understanding of what happens to unbaptized infants, but it is not a dogma.

Having said that, I would be exceedingly careful with proclaiming beliefs that unbaptized children – especially aborted children – go to Heaven. I can attest from personal experience that many women use this assumption to justify their “choice” of abortion – they say, my baby will be spared any suffering in this life (aside from being ripped limb from limb in the womb) and go straight to Heaven, isn’t that a good thing? This belief is blasphemous in a sense, as it turns abortion into a Sacrament. Women convinced of such are almost completely impossible to dissuade from abortion.

I would also caution that arguing that abortion constitutes a baptism by blood is a great reach, as these souls are not being killed for their faith. Baptism by desire of some of the faithful (not the aborted nor the infant, as they have no conscious desires) is about the only argument I have read that might hold some merit, but I have never explored it in depth and I am dubious as to how valid it is.  I tend to stick with the dominant Tradition, which is that such souls go to Limbo.

Of course we can hope and pray for any departed souls – and we must. We don’t know with certainty the eternal destiny of any souls save for canonized Saints. But the Church adopted infant baptism as soon as possible as the default practice for a very, very good reason: objectively speaking, the vast preponderance of the evidence from Scripture and Tradition argues that unbaptized souls are not saved, and trying to assign “desire” for salvation to the unborn or very young children is problematic, at best.  Thus, parents were encouraged for centuries to get their children baptized as soon as possible, often, on the day of their birth.

There is more discussion here if this hasn’t covered it enough.  And, the sermon below discusses the same matter: