[mike182d]

since Innnocent III, has openly taught that infants are not condemned to hell by original sin;

Could that be because their Baptism by desire, while not of water or blood, cleanses them? I think the Church's point is that because of the Sacrifice of Christ, Original Sin in itself no longer condemns anyone to hell while if had God not sacrificed His only Son it would have. Otherwise, Christ's Sacrifice wasn't necessary and a man could gain entrance into heaven by his own volition by abstaining from mortal sins of his own choosing. It seems there was more to our redemption than giving us the power to make better choices - a real, authentic cleansing of something took place and continues to take place in the Sacrament of Baptism. If Original Sin does not condemn us to Hell, what did Christ need to redeem? If Original Sin no longer affects our Salvation, what needs to be cleansed?

Just curious...

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

Innocent was indeed including the idea of baptism of desire. I didn't say that concluding that original sin is not actual sin and does not condemn to hell makes the redemptive sacrifice of Christ unneeded. For adults who commit actual sin, Christ's sacrifice cannot redeem without their acceptance of him. For infants saddled only with original sin it redeems without their consent. Either way, they don't go to hell.

So, if you want to formulate it that original sin apart from Christ's redemption condemns to hell, fine. But Christ's redemption is an accomplished fact so original sin alone, in infants before the age of reason and before actual sin, does not condemn to hell because Christ's redemptive sacrifice saves them from it and they don't/can't accept or reject his redemptive sacrifice. After the age of reason, actual sin condemns to hell unless the sinner chooses to accept Christ's redemptive sacrifice. It comes out the same in the end but yes, your formulation is more precise.