Dear bornacatholic,
Uh... I'll take... what's behind... Door #3!!
Seriously, I don't know.
I accept what the Catechism says - we entrust these souls to the mercy of God, Who is good.
Hermann's explication of "limbo" (or whatever one might wish to call it) seems reasonable enough, but it's just a theological speculation. Objections that state that it doesn't make sense that the unbaptized are placed at a disadvantage to those who are baptized seem reasonable enough. But frankly, the same complaint could be made vis a vis baptized babies versus persons permitted to come to and grow past the age of reason.
The objection is this: "If one believes that an unborn child who dies without the benefit of baptism goes to Heaven, then aborting the unborn guarantees them the Beatific Vision, and is a great gift. That cannot be."
Okay, I got that. But if that's the objection, that it puts the unbaptized unborn child at greater advantage to the born and baptized, then why not this objection:
"If one believes that a baptized baby, should he die prematurely in infancy, is assured of salvation, then infanticide of baptized babies guarantees them the Beatific Vision, and is a great gift. That cannot be."
None of us hold that infanticide is a good thing, yet all of us believe that, God forbid, if a baby were to die immediately following baptism, he would obtain the Beatific Vision. Look even at how I write that! "...yet all of us believe that, GOD FORBID"!! It's a horror to think! Yet it flows as logically as the previous statement to which the analogy is offered.
Certainly, in a human way of thinking, the baptized baby who is murdered is at an advantage to the human person who grows to maturity.
Which is why I think that God hasn't told us what happens to unbaptized babies. Because although it will all make sense when we are permitted to behold Him, because it will all make sense once we see clearly, rather than in the mirror darkly, it cannot make sense to us now, limited as we are by time and space, our intellects and souls still attached to sin and darkened by it, our lack of union with God.
My own belief is as follows: it may very well be that somehow God has some way of saving unbaptized babies, of providing them with sanctifying grace to overcome original sin. Yet, it is also advantageous to be baptized, and thus, we should be eager to baptize.
Or, perhaps, we're asking the wrong questions from the wrong perspectives, and we'd do better if we asked the right questions. But perhaps we might not even know the right questions in this life. I kinda suspect that those of us who get to Heaven will say, "Oh my! How obvious! Why didn't I think of that?? My way of thinking about the whole thing was really quite convoluted!!"
As to just what we will know then, well,..., uh..., just what is behind Door #3?
sitetest
I just can't get my mind around the idea of Limbo as I understand it to have been conceived. To my way of thinking it just didn't seem just. I still think that way, while acknowledging I have no clue as to God's ways, and so I was sorta happy to learn that, maybe, it will be the subject of a more definitive decision.
In reading Fr. C. I don't think he is suggesting we don't Baptize children or that we cease evangelization. Just the other day I posted a letter from Pope Siricius, 385 ad, which references infant Baptism, for example.
I do understand that Fr. C, was/is a "Baptism in the spirit" Charismatic and some of the things he has written is open to both orthodox and unorthodox interpretations. In any event, thanks, brother.