Father Cantalamessa on Limbo and the Unbaptized

ROME, JAN. 24, 2006 (Zenit.org).- A commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, published Jan. 6 in ZENIT, prompted questions about the status of unbaptized children who die.

The topic has been under the consideration by the International Theological Commission, at the urging of Pope John Paul II (see ZENIT, Oct. 7, 2004).

Father Cantalamessa, the preacher to the Pontifical Household, offered these further reflections on the topic.

* * *

Some readers have said that they are perplexed by my affirmation that unbaptized children will not go to limbo but to heaven, which I expressed in my recent commentary on the Gospel of the feast of Christ's Baptism, published by ZENIT News. This gives me the opportunity to clarify the reasons for my affirmation.

Jesus instituted the sacraments as ordinary means to salvation. They are ordinarily necessary and people who can receive them and refuse are accountable before God. But God didn't bind himself to these means. Also of the Eucharist Jesus says: "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man you shall not have life" (John 6:53), but this doesn't mean that anyone who has never received the Eucharist is not saved.

Baptism of desire and the feast of the Holy Innocents are confirmations of this. Some may counter that Jesus is involved in the death of Innocents who died because of him, which is not always the case of unbaptized babies. True, but also of what is done to the least of his brothers Jesus says: "You have done it to me" (Matthew 25:40).

The doctrine of limbo has never been defined as dogma by the Church; it was a theological hypothesis mostly depending on St. Augustine's doctrine of original sin and was abandoned in practice long ago and theology too now dismisses it.

We should take seriously the truth of God's universal will for salvation ("God wants everybody to be saved," 1 Timothy 2:4), and also the truth that "Jesus died for all." The following text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to hold exactly the same position:

"As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,' allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism" (CCC, 1261).

I don't think that to affirm that unbaptized babies are saved will encourage abortion. People who neglect Church doctrine on abortion are scarcely concerned about other doctrines of the same Church. Even if there were grounds for such a fear, the abuse of a doctrine should never prevent us from holding it.

I must confess that the mere idea of a God eternally depriving an innocent creature of his vision simply because another person has sinned, or because of an accidental miscarriage, makes me shudder … and I am sure would make any unbeliever happy to stay away from the Christian faith. If hell consists essentially in the deprivation of God, limbo is hell!

Well, you left out a fourth possible interpretation, which is that David was just wrong (not that I'm saying that).

As I understand it (but I'm no biblical scholar), the Israelites at the time 2 Samuel was written did not have a clear understanding of either a future place of reward or a future place of punishment: all the dead were conceived of as going to "sheol," usually translated hell in the Douay-Rheims, a sort of limbo-like state. So David's probably not referring to the eternal salvation of the child anyway.

Even if he was, the child may have been circumcised (the text is unclear) or justified by whatever other remedy was given to the Israelites by God; I know many of the medieval writers thought that some other must have been given for the sake of the female children.

The children referred to in the passages of the Gospel were, in all likelihood, Jews. If boys, they would have been circumcised, if girls, then they were justified in some other way. Before the law of baptism was put into effect "after the promulgation of the Gospel" (as Trent says) other means of salvation were available for children. So these children aren't at all analogous to the case of those dying without having ever partaken in the divinely-instituted means of salvation. Besides, it's not clear to me that infants are those under discussion in the passages; they certainly could be children of five or six years at least, by which time they have probably the natural use of free-will and can make acts of faith, hope, and charity through grace; these are not analogous to those dying before the age of reason. This is especially true because in St. Matthew 18:3 Christ seems to be referring to the trust that children place in their parents, and this is an act of the free-will. 19:13-14 seems to be connected with the idea of 18:3.

What is certain, based on the teaching of the Church, is that Adam lost his original holiness and justice for all men so that he transfused into the whole human race sin, which is the death of the soul. Unless a man is healed by Christ's redeeming grace, he can't be saved (cf. St. John 3:3-8 and 6:54; these texts of our Lord are absolute and admit no exceptions). Under the economy of the New Covenant, that is accomplished through the sacrament of Baptism, or at least a desire for it.

Therefore, in the ordinary course of things, little children who aren't baptized by others aren't saved. To count on some miracle, such as a miraculous baptism or an enlightenment of the child so that he could make an act of perfect charity, would be testing God. We know that the Church urges, in her canon law, catechisms, and ordinary teaching, the necessity of the quick baptism of infants, and teaching doctrines that reduce that necessity to a nullity in practice is, at the very best, imprudent. Some of these proposals stray even farther into doctrinal error or even heresy, by contradicting Catholic dogma on the necessity of baptism or on original sin.

"This is a very monstrous opinion if you would step back and think about it. The eternal fate of infants is left not in the hands of God, but in their parents, so that infants cursed with careless parents are not the beneficiaries of divine miracles, while those blessed with merely misfortunate parents are. Why would a loving God be so capricious?"

One could say the same thing in differentiating between infants who are baptized, and those who aren't. In that no infant asks for baptism, nor can any refuse it, it is entirely the discretion of the parents that determines whether an infant has received the salvific gift of baptism.

There is much more than parental discretion at work in determining infant Baptism.

So, the infant baptized in the first days or weeks of life, who then dies, is saved, but the infant not baptized, whose parents didn't bother, were careless or too busy, or whatever, this unbaptized baby who then dies, is not saved. The eternal fate of each child was left in the hands of his parents. Why would a loving God be so capricious?

God is not capricious with regard to Baptism. Every child who is Baptised is justified, and everyone who is not, is not.

You are comparing a situation though where God withholds unseen miracles based on parental action or inaction to one where God follows His promises based on parental action or inaction. In the first case, God is simply follwing through on what he told us. In the second, God is discriminating when he could be giving the same thing to all. God cannot baptize, so He cannot be held to account for why some fail to be Baptized, but if He can miraculously grace some little infants without Baptism, He certainly would miraculously grace all of them, because God is not partial.

"...... if He can miraculously grace some little infants without Baptism, He certainly would miraculously grace all of them, because God is not partial."

That's a very interesting point. If it is possible that some infants can be saved without baptism, then it would seem to follow that all infants would be saved without baptism. The alternatives would be either a hard line predestination view, in which the grace was simply not given to some infants, but was given to others, or a view in which they faced a choice for God in the afterlife, which sounds entirely speculative. (Although the Shepherd of Hermas speaks of those who died before the founding of the Church being baptized in water in the afterlife, and St. Faustina speaks of the sinner being called by Christ at the hour of death.)

Personally, my main concern with non-Baptized infants not going to heaven, is that they do not have a chance to accept the Grace of God. For example, a stillborn baby would simply not have an opportunity to be justified, which would mean that God has not given that soul sufficient Grace. If I understand the point of limbo, however, it is that the unbaptized infant is not actually punished, but is deprived..

"In any case, Baptism only becomes a necessity when the Gospel is promulgated, and obviously the Gospel and Baptism were not promulgated in Israel while Christ was yet still on earth, but only at his Ascension and commissioning of his Apostles."

So the idea here is that what people do not know will not be held against them? It would seem that the Gospel has not been promulgated to a stillborn infant. Both it and the parents do not have the opportunity to reject Christ.

"The children Christ was referring to were little Hebrew children who would have been justified in infancy by the Sacraments of the Old Religion, such as Circumcision."

I'm going to expose my ignorance here, Hermann. Might we not say that the old Covenants are still valid, but that the point of Christianity is that we have a new and better Covenant?

"The clearest indicator on this is that hell is described as a state of punitive punishment, while purgatory is a state of purification. The two things could not be more different."

Thank you for pointing that out, that's a helpful distinction. I will pay attention to that distinction when reading Scripture in the future. The way I used to view this was that the punishment was purgative, and that the finite amount of evil that one had committed in life as a finite being would receive a finite punishment which would bring one to an acceptance of the truth, that every knee would ultimately bend to Jesus Christ. That view of course leads one to question the entire point of our existence here on earth, as everyone would ultimately end up in heaven. There is also the possibility that Hell is in fact anhillation, which would resolve the infinite punishment for finite crime delima, and make it simply a permanent punishment for an ultimate crime. (“Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28), and “For behold, the day comes, burning like an oven, when all the arrogant and all evildoers will be stubble; the day that comes shall burn them up, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root nor branch. And you shall tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet, on the day when I act, says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 4:1-3). )

I don't see that it follows by necessity that God is acting capriciously because He honors the desire for baptism on the part of a baby's parents. It may be unexplained to us, but that doesn't make it capricious.

It is capricious. In Baptism, God is responding in an objective manner to His promise to sanctify those baptized in His Name. In this rejected theory of parental Baptism of Desire, God is performing miracles outside of any human assistance and apart from the Sacraments based subjective inclinations of the parents. If God would act in those cases to forcibly orient the undeveloped will of the infant, why would a loving God not do it for all mankind? Why not make everyone immaculately conceived, and thus do away with sin and death by divine fiat?

In that the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, is both God and man, why could He not baptize? I know that it's been speculated here at FR that perhaps even angels can baptize. If an angel can baptize, why not God the Son?

Scripture says he did not.

When Jesus therefore understood that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus maketh more disciples, and baptizeth more than John, (Though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples,) (St. John 4.1-2)

Tradition is that the Lord baptised His Mother, St. Peter, and St. John the Baptist, and no one else, and that St. Peter, once baptized, baptized the other Apostles. The baptism of St. John by the Lord has long been seen as explicitly confirmed in the interpretation given the following text:

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan, unto John, to be baptized by him. But John stayed him, saying: I ought to be baptized by thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering, said to him: Suffer it to be so now. For so it becometh us to fulfill all justice. Then he suffered him. (St. Matthew 3.13-15)

Tradition completely rejects the notion of the Angels actually performing acts specific to Priests, such as celebrating the Sacraments.

Personally, my main concern with non-Baptized infants not going to heaven, is that they do not have a chance to accept the Grace of God.

Obviously this is the greatest scruple. But consider that the Angels, presented with once chance to obey or disobey, and 1/3 disobeyed. Is it better, from the perspective of God, that He enjoy some form of natural union with all these unfortunate souls, and lose none of them, or enjoy a perfect supernatural union with some of them, and lose the others to eternal rebellion and death? I'm not God, so I can't answer that. It is an assured thing though, that free human souls, presented with a single choice, will not all choose to love, honor, and obey the Lord God, sicne the Angels did not. Some will necessarily be lost of their own fault by such a mechanism. It is presumptuous in the extreme to assume all would choose the Lord.

If I understand the point of limbo, however, it is that the unbaptized infant is not actually punished, but is deprived.

They are deprived only of that which is beyond their nature. As St. Thomas says, they are deprived of supernatural life in the same manner that men on earth are deprived of the sensation of flapping their arms and flying like a bird - it is beyond anything that can be rationally expected.

So the idea here is that what people do not know will not be held against them? It would seem that the Gospel has not been promulgated to a stillborn infant. Both it and the parents do not have the opportunity to reject Christ.

Exactly to your first statement. People who have never heard of the Gospel are not held liable for being ignorant of it. And the same for infants. They are not punished for failing to be baptised, since it was outside of their control. They are personally innocent of sin, but they also are deprived of grace by their very nature as fallen human beings.

I'm going to expose my ignorance here, Hermann. Might we not say that the old Covenants are still valid, but that the point of Christianity is that we have a new and better Covenant?

The Old Covenant is no longer valid. The Council of Florence anathematizes those who still follow it since the promulgation of the Gospel.

There is also the possibility that Hell is in fact anhillation, which would resolve the infinite punishment for finite crime delima, and make it simply a permanent punishment for an ultimate crime. (“Fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28)

The soul is not immortal by nature, but is immortal only in union with God. Hell is eternal death.

That those in hell are not annhilated is because God loves even them. Hell consists of their inability to accept, reciprocate, and enjoy this love, because of their own twisted spiritual dementia. They hate God, therefore being around Him causes them torment. God's love is torturous to them because they are spiritually inequipped to accept it. All of their misery and despair comes from within themselves at the realization that their fate is all their fault.

This is why Scripture says that they are "tormented with fire and brimstone in the sight of the holy angels, and in the sight of the Lamb" (Revelations 14.10). And: "Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy face? ... if I descend into hell, thou art present" (Psalm 138.7,8b)

God brings them to Himself, and they are in agony because of their freely willed choice to hate God. The damned are tormented because God will not destroy them.

Limbo and the Hope of Salvation

by Dr. Jeff Mirus, special to CatholicCulture.org

May 12, 2005

In a recent website review, we were compelled to list the site’s views on limbo as a weakness. Some Catholics are under the impression that the Church has formally taught that unbaptized infants cannot be saved but must inevitably be consigned to a marginal abode known as limbo, where no supernatural happiness is possible. But this is not what the Church teaches.

The Questions Raised by Baptism

The Church does teach that the enjoyment of the presence of God in heaven is not ours by right. It is a free gift. With Scripture, the Church further teaches that we must be reborn by water and the Holy Spirit before we can enjoy the Beatific Vision, and that the means of this rebirth is ordinarily the sacrament of baptism. Thus, the Church formally taught at the Councils of Florence and Trent that those who die without sacramental baptism, and for whom the want of baptism has not been supplied in some other way, cannot enter heaven.

But we need to be careful about what this means. From the beginning, the Church’s very proper emphasis on baptism raised thorny questions about the possibility of salvation for certain persons—unbaptized through no fault of their own—who were otherwise thought to be saved. The most obvious case was that of catechumens who suffered martyrdom before they were baptized. Very early on, the Church recognized in these martyrs a different kind of baptism, that of blood.

Later, theologians began wondering about the case of men and women of good will who did their best to seek God but who never had an opportunity to be exposed (or effectively exposed) to the Gospel. The Catholic belief that it was possible for such a person to be saved was partially explained by Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi, which taught that one could be joined to the Church inscio quodam desiderio ac voto (“by a certain desire and wish of which he is not aware”), commonly called baptism of desire. This was further developed in Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, which clearly stated that even non-Christians who sincerely seek God “can attain eternal salvation”.

The Theory of Limbo

Perhaps the earliest case of all was that of the holy men and women of ancient Israel who died before the coming of Our Lord, including such critical figures in salvation history as Moses, David, Elijah and Ruth. Since the gates of heaven were closed when they died, Catholic theology generally holds that they went to a place on the border (limbus means the border or hem of a garment) between heaven and hell—an extension of the Hebrew concept of Sheol—where they awaited the coming of the Savior. The Creed’s statement that Christ “descended into hell” is traditionally held to refer to this limbo, from which He freed their souls and led them into Paradise.

It was a short conceptual jump from a temporary Limbo of the Fathers to a permanent Limbo of Infants. Clearly, the one thing the unbaptized groups we have discussed have in common is a desire to be with God. The presumption has generally been that infants cannot have this desire. Therefore, when the Council of Trent said that passing from our original state into “the state of grace and adoption as sons of God” cannot take place “without the water of regeneration or the desire for it”, it seemed to confirm a widespread medieval belief that limbo must be the final destination for unbaptized infants, who could not be damned because they had no personal sin.

Later, Pope Pius VI condemned the Jansenists as teaching something “false, rash and injurious to Catholic education” because they claimed that a place “which the faithful generally designate by the name limbo of children” was a Pelagian fable. Still later, Pius XII wrote that “an act of love can suffice for an adult to acquire sanctifying grace and supply for the lack of baptism; to the unborn or newly born infant this way is not open” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis, XLIII, 84). The theory of limbo was solidified within these strictures.

Problems with the Theory

But it remained a theory because the Church has never formally defined the existence of limbo for unbaptized infants. For the Church to condemn as rash those who call limbo a fable is simply for the Church to point out that the idea of limbo is not some fabulous creation of unschooled or heretical minds but a legitimate attempt to answer a very real and serious question. And for the Church to note that certain non-sacramental ways to salvation are not open to infants is simply for the Church to assert that unbaptized infants are not saved by these specific means.

On the other hand, we have the interesting case of the Holy Innocents. It has always been inconceivable to Christians that these infants, who were murdered because they might be the Son of God, could be denied the Beatific Vision by God the Father. One can argue that the Holy Innocents were not martyrs in the strict sense. They neither had an opportunity to practice the Faith nor to renounce it. They had no opportunity to perform an act of love, and no greater ability than other infants to express a desire for God. Yet they have always been included in the baptism of blood and the Church celebrates a feast in their honor.

In addition, we must never forget St. Paul’s great teaching that God desires all to be saved (Timothy 2:4). The very core of Catholic theology is that Christ died for the salvation of all. The Church teaches that we cannot earn our salvation, which is always a free gift, but we can either work with grace to grow in union with God or resist grace, turn our backs on God, and choose to live apart from Him. This leads to one of the most vexing theological questions of our own time: Is it reasonable to suppose that God refuses supernatural happiness to those who have no personal fault, who have not turned away? Is the theory of limbo adequate?

Countless Efforts at Resolution

Some of the most famous (and faithful) theologians have settled this question quite differently over the centuries. St. Augustine denied the concept of limbo (which was indeed held by the Pelagians) and taught that unbaptized children were consigned to hell but in a way that involved the least possible punishment. St. Thomas Aquinas argued that their souls lacked grace and the beatific vision but enjoyed a natural happiness in keeping with their capacity. St. Bernard and, later, Cardinal Cajetan (Aquinas’ greatest commentator) suggested that the prayer and desire of the child’s parents might supply a sort of baptism, just as it supplied the necessary assent to sacramental baptism.

Still later theologians have wondered whether the soul’s faculties of intellect and will, quite apart from neurological development, are not sufficient to express an interior desire for God. A similar question has been asked about how God “gets through” to those with Alzheimer’s disease or other forms of dementia, as He sometimes seems to do. The point is that the Church does not claim to have settled every question; moreover, she has specifically left the fate of unbaptized infants unsettled. At present, she freely admits in that she simply does not know.

The official Catechism of the Catholic Church, while not failing to stress the paramount importance of baptism amid all these uncertainties, teaches that, “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.” (1261)

This is a legitimate hope of salvation that must not be denied.

*Well, I just found this while googling St. Bernard + salvation for unBaptized.

I was happy to see my point about the properties of the soul (although he left out "memory") seems valid; at least to him.

So, If the Popes are heretics, if Fr. C, is a heretic, if I am a heretic (and we all aren't) then I am in good company :)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.