The practice has arisen in some places of delaying the conferring of Baptism for so-called reasons of convenience or of a liturgical nature, a practice favored by some opinions, lacking solid foundation, concerning the eternal salvation of infants who die without Baptism. Therefore this Supreme Congregation, with the approval of the Holy Father, warns the faithful that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible [. . .].
I dealt with this in # 40. This is the same as the Council of Trent--it has to do with parents insouciantly delaying baptism, which would indicate a lack of a desire for their salvation so that, should the infant die because the parents delayed, the "baptism de voto" or "baptism of intent" loophole--that otherwise would have benefited their children--would be closed off. These are not unbaptized infants in the "normal" way the question has been posed--infants who die suddenly before opportunity for baptism--their fate is the difficult one to resolve theologically and the one JPII and Ratzinger wanted examined.
Instead, these infants would be victims of their parents' lack of faith, lack of love for their children. Even so, the Church does not tell the parents, get those darn children baptized or they will burn in the fires of hell for ever or be "naturally blissful" in the lobby of hell. No, even in this quote the Church tells the parents that you will burn in hell for not caring enough about your children to get them baptized when you had the chance.
Okay, so I'm using a bit of poetic license. But that is the import of this ruling, is it not? It certainl forbids a "highway to heaven" approach to unbaptized infants but it says nothing one way or another about limbo or the Full Monty Hell or whatever. It's aimed at the parents.
Well, firstly, the "highway to heaven" approach to unbaptized infants is exactly what's under discussion here, as Fr. Cantalamessa has proposed precisely that. He has not grounded the salvation of unbaptized infants in some desire of the parents, but solely upon the universal salvific will of God:
"The fate of children who are not baptized is no different from that of the Holy Innocents, which we celebrated just after Christmas. The reason is that God is love and 'wants all to be saved,' and Christ also died for them!"
Secondly, the decree says that the opinions being circulated about the eternal salvation of unbaptized infants such as to permit a delay in the baptism of the children, for reasons ostensibly liturgical or grounded in convenience, are "lacking solid foundation." This certainly includes an opinion such as that of Fr. Cantalamessa, which equates all unbaptized children with the Holy Innocents, and it is not only dealing with the matter of whether children should be baptized, but also with why they should be baptized quickly: because the opinions allowing them heaven although they be unbaptized lack solid foundation, and this for those born to Catholic parents!
As regards the passage in the Tridentine Decretum de peccato originali, it clearly rejects the opinion that infants "derive nothing of original sin from Adam which must be expiated by the laver of regeneration for the attainment of eternal life." Therefore, without the laver of regeneration (at least in desire), infants cannot attain eternal life, and anyone dying in original sin does not attain eternal life. The same can be drawn from cap. iv. of the Decretum de justificatione, as I pointed out, and likewise from canon 3 of the 16th Council of Carthage: "baptism, without which [infants] cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven, which is life eternal." Innocent III testifies to the same thing.
The sacraments are absolutely necessary for salvation, in re aut saltem in voto. Fr. Cantalamessa is simply wrong to dismiss them as only "ordinary means" necessary only by a necessity of precept ("They are ordinarily necessary and people who can receive them and refuse are accountable before God.") His opinion is at variance with the CCC, which says that Baptism is the only means of salvation known to the Church, and that there is a great urgency to baptize little children.
"The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than 'salvation,' and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than 'life.' Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. For wherein does their opinion, who designate baptism by the term salvation, differ from what is written: 'He saved us by the washing of regeneration?' or from Peter's statement: 'The like figure where-unto even baptism doth also now save us?' And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord's Supper life, than that which is written: 'I am the living bread which came down from heaven;' and 'The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world;' and 'Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you?' If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord's body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them." (St. Augustine, On the Just Desserts and Forgiveness of Sins, and Infant Baptism, I, chap. 34)