September-December 2007 |
Volume
12, Number 2 |
|---|
John Young* evaluates a recent, much-publicised theological report which seems indifferent to standard Catholic teaching on the subject of limbo.
A study released by the Church’s International Theological Commission in April 2007 did not aim, as Catholics might suppose, at a balanced consideration of the question: What happens to infants who die unbaptised?
Not a bit of it. The ITC study had another objective: to give the best case for their salvation. This is indicated in the title of the document: The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised. That orientation is reflected throughout the document. As a consequence the case in favour of the children going to heaven is overstated, while the case against is understated – to put it mildly.
Church Fathers’ thinking
Stress is placed on the truth that God wills the salvation of all. Recent theological thought is invoked, as is the sensus fidelium. Salvation through the faith of others is considered. Other substitutes for baptism are suggested, including a votum on the part of the infant. The case of the Holy Innocents is said to favour the proposition that all unbaptised infants are saved; however it is not noted, against this, that there was no baptism then, but circumcision foreshadowed baptism, and the Holy Innocents would have been circumcised.
The document sketches the thinking of the Church Fathers of the early centuries, the thought of later theologians and pronouncements of the magisterium. Let us look at the main points in the statement.
There is an historical survey, particularly of the thinking of the Church Fathers in the fourth and fifth centuries. A point emphasised here is that the Fathers were not in agreement as to what happens to unbaptised children, but what is not emphasised is that not a single Father can be cited who thought these infants go to heaven. This is a strong argument for their non-salvation because it strongly suggests this is the teaching of Tradition. But the ITC document doesn’t mention that.
Coming to later theologians, not one before the twentieth century is cited by the commission as claiming these children are saved. Again, no stress is placed on the absence of advocates for their salvation, whereas it should be seen as extremely strong evidence against the thesis the commission is promoting.
Just think of it. Not a single Father, not a single Doctor of the Church and not a single Catholic theologian until recent times has thought heaven is the destiny of unbaptised children. In the sixteenth century the great theologian Cardinal Cajetan, following St Bernard, gave his opinion that some such children may be saved, not that all are. And Pope St Pius V ordered that this opinion be deleted from Cajetan’s writings (which doesn’t necessarily mean it is wrong, for it could be objected to as being rash).
The ITC study is very weak in its treatment of Church pronouncements related to this question. The Church’s magisterium is the only authentic interpreter of Divine Revelation, as Vatican II reminds us (Dei Verbum, n. 10), so we should look closely at the magisterium’s statements relating to the matter.
In 1201 Pope Innocent III stated, in a letter to the Bishop of Arles, that “ The penalty for original sin is the deprivation of the sight of God, but the penalty for actual sin is the torment of hell” (DS 780). The ITC document, n. 36, makes the vague comment that this affirmation “pertains to the faith”. But the commission thinks the Pope’s affirmation does not necessarily imply unbaptised children are lost. Yet that is the obvious conclusion, especially when the Pope’s affirmation is seen in the light of the constant teaching of Fathers and theologians. Later, in n. 83, the commission declares: “There is no question of denying Innocent’s teaching that those who die in original sin are deprived of the beatific vision. What we may ask and are asking is whether infants who die without baptism necessarily die in original sin, without a divine remedy.” [Is Innocent then talking about a class with no members?]
A crucial definition was given by the Second Council of Lyons in 1274, and repeated by the Council of Florence in 1439. “But the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin or just in original sin go down immediately to hell, to be punished however by very different punishments” (DS 858). The word hell here has a wide meaning, signifying the abode of the dead apart from heaven.
The commission shows bias in its exegesis of the passage. It places the emphasis on the word immediately, pointing out that the passage teaches that souls reach their eternal destiny at once after death. The commission does not face up to the fact that the passage also teaches that those who die in original sin go to hell (in the wide sense).
This is a vitally important pronouncement, a profession of faith by an Ecumenical Council. It is infallible. The commission does not question its truth, but its interpretation is extremely weak. It sees the profession of faith as merely stating the Church’s common teaching, but without endorsing it infallibly. That would be a very odd Profession of Faith – a Clayton’s Profession of Faith: the Profession of Faith you have when you’re not having a Profession of Faith!
ITC arguments
The ITC document doesn’t mention the statement of the Council of Florence that baptism must not be put off for as long as forty days, giving the reason, “The danger of death, which can often happen, for there is no other remedy available to these infants except the sacrament of baptism” (DS 1349). Nor does the ITC mention the teaching of the Catechism of the Council of Trent that “…infant children have no other means of salvation except baptism…” (McHugh and Callan translation, p. 178).
The document appeals to Scripture texts such as “God wills all men to be saved…” But it has always been recognised that these texts are to be taken conditionally; otherwise no one could go to hell. Nor does the commission give due weight to the truth that heaven is a gift to which no one is entitled and which God need not have offered to anyone. His goodness in no way requires that He offer this gift.
Appeal is made to the fact that there is now a funeral Mass for unbaptised children who die, and to the statement of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that we can hope there is a way of salvation for these children.
But the funeral Mass does not imply they are saved. As for the Catechism, the statement can be taken to mean either that we can hope all unbaptised children are saved, or we can hope some are. Now, to take it is the first sense is to go against the overwhelming authority to the contrary; and for this reason it is bad theology, since magisterial statements should be understood in conformity with earlier statements. To say we can hope some are saved is legitimate, since God may intervene in special cases – but we have no good reason to suppose He does.
The document appeals to recent theological thought and to an alleged sensus fidelium on the part of the faithful. Well, recent theological thought is hardly something we can have much confidence in. As for the sensus fidelium, that argument has been offered – in recent theological thought – for opposing the Church’s teaching on contraception. Many of the faithful are very confused today, and one must be extremely cautious about attributing opinions to the sensus fidelium.
The study suggests that children may be saved through the faith of others, but can offer no firm grounds for this. It suggests substitutes for baptism, such as the suffering the child may experience when dying. Again, this is guesswork, and wouldn’t account for children who die without suffering.
It is speculated that “infants may be capable of exercising some kind of rudimentary votum by analogy with that of unbaptised adults” (n. 127). I find this suggestion bizarre, and a sign of the strong wish of the commission’s members to find some way of salvation, no matter how farfetched.
And after all their study, what conclusion do they reach? That we don’t know one way or the other whether unbaptised children go to limbo. “What we do know of God, Christ and the church gives us grounds to hope for their salvation” (N. 79). There are “strong grounds for hope that God will save infants” when we have been unable to baptise them (n. 103).
Instead of that conclusion, the ITC should have concluded, on a balanced reading of the sources, that unbaptised children, at least in general, are not saved. Instead of holding out hope for these children reaching heaven, we should speak of the wonderful happiness of limbo.
* John Young, who lives in Melbourne, has lectured in philosophy at four seminaries. His numerous publications on philosophical and theological topics include the books The Natural Economy, Catholic Thinking, and Reasoning Things Out.
Return
to Oriens contents page