Worthy Discussion
Following the ITC’s 2007 document, “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized,” most Catholics threw the entire idea of Limbo out the window as a barbaric offense to God’s mercy. Speaking about Limbo in most Catholic circles would probably draw more ire than promulgating an actual heresy. I can understand why this is so: no one wants to dwell on baby damnation, and this line of inquiry can be plainly repugnant to couples who have miscarried. That said, let’s not pretend Limbo is the only Catholic doctrine which could offend people! Fear of offense should not triumph over theology. Should we cease to talk of Hell? Should we cease to speak about sins against the sixth commandment because it may offend people? No; rather, we should speak of difficult things with charity and anticipate their prayerful reception.
But we must demonstrate that Limbo is actually worthy of discussion. Speaking of such things aimlessly would be pure cruelty, after all. Why is Limbo a worthy topic? Didn’t the ITC declare that it doesn’t exist and we can all just take a step back from it? No, and Limbo is important for three reasons. First, it is real. Second, there is a reason so many Fathers and Theologians were interested in it: a proper understanding of Limbo assists the mind in understanding predestination, justification, divine justice, Original Sin, damnation, and salvation. Third, much like ignoring Purgatory, ignoring Limbo could deny our prayers to those who need them. With that, let us discuss these three topics.
What is Limbo?
The word “Limbo” comes from the Latin limbus, which means “border,” referring to the border of Hell. There are two Limbos, one of which is a clearly defined doctrine of the Church, and the other a little less clearly. The former is the “Limbo of the Fathers,” which is where the righteous went before Christ opened the gates to Heaven. Following the Harrowing of Hell, this place is empty and will remain empty forever, so I will discuss it no further.
The other Limbo is commonly referred to as “the Limbo of the Infants,” the destination for those who were both unbaptized and incapable of the use of reason required to make an act of faith, such as an infant. This began with Augustine and was affirmed with practical unanimity by the Fathers and Theologians over the centuries. The Council of Florence formally defines Limbo as doctrine: “The souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in Original Sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains. We also define…” (emphases mine). Now, two important points. This does not define anything specific about Limbo beyond that it is in Hell and would obviously be the least painful locale therein. While they did not affirm the actual word Limbo, this definition describes its essentials.
Before moving forward, let us explore the phrase unequal pains. St. Augustine was the first to affirm Limbo (more on that shortly) in his arguments against the Pelagians. He taught that infants damned to Limbo suffered, but most certainly suffered least of anyone. Many agreed up to the scholastic era, adding that those in Limbo suffered only the pain of loss (knowing they will never see God), and nothing else. St. Thomas found strong reasons to disagree with this. Firstly, the pain of loss is the greatest pain, and is the interior pain of having willfully resisted God, which those in Limbo did not do. Second, though Original Sin turns man away from God as his last end, it does not deprive him of his natural powers, rights, and glory as a rational animal in imago Dei in this life, and so could neither do so in the afterlife.
St. Thomas and virtually every theologian following him instead proposed that Limbo is a place of perfect natural happiness, like the Garden of Eden. It is not a mere place of immunity from suffering; rather, it is a place of positive happiness, enjoying the natural goods proper to mankind and even a natural knowledge of God and His goodness. Basically, if you close your eyes and imagine Heaven, you’re actually imagining Limbo. The souls there “suffer” the loss of the beatific vision as an objective penalty, but not as subjectively conscious torment. Again, this is because they did not stain their consciences by actually rejecting God. Further, due to lacking any will to sin, they could not cause themselves pain, such as by envying the saints; rather, they would be in a natural state of loving resignation to God.
But isn’t it nonetheless unfair that they never got a shot? No. Adam lost original justice before God – if your great grandfather were a king, but lost his position due to bad rulership, you could not complain that it is unfair you yourself aren’t royalty. The royal state is gratuitous. Likewise, a supernatural state above human nature (Heaven, indwelling) is purely gratuitous. God gives sufficient grace for salvation to all; for the infants, the sufficient grace remains external and fails to come to fruition by no fault of their own. Yes, this does seem unfair, but let’s look at it from another perspective: God creates an infant, and, without demanding anything from them, gives them all the powers and honors due to them by nature to enjoy in unending happiness. Who could call this unfair? Is any dimension of this not perfectly fitting, even merciful?
What can Limbo teach us?
This is where we will discuss predestination, justification, divine justice, Original Sin, damnation, and salvation. As I mentioned previously, the idea of Limbo began with Augustine amidst his arguments against the Pelagians. In brief, the Pelagians believed man capable of saving himself by simply choosing grace of his own volition. Augustine attacked this in two ways: first, arguing that it is God who saves and justifies us, being that there is nothing we can do to earn salvation. Second, that we are born turned away from Him, such that it is only by grace that grace appeals to us – as St. Paul says, “it is God who works in you, both to will and to accomplish” (Philippians 2:13). These are the first two ideas crucial for understanding Limbo: predestination and Original Sin.
Regarding predestination: as aforementioned, it is God alone who saves. It is God alone who provides man the graces necessary for him to see, come to, and love the truth. Likewise, it is God who permits man to resist grace, sin, and, consequentially, suffer damnation. This is the basic logical conclusion of sovereignty over creation. No, this is not Calvinism. St. Thomas explicitly affirms this in Q23 of the Summa. If this is confusing, you can read my page on predestination here. Now, why is this particularly important? Because insofar as no one can save themselves, the infants’ situation is not so different from ours. Every single one of us is utterly incapable of meriting salvation on his own terms. Every single one of us – infant or not – is completely and totally dependent on God for salvation. Let this profound awareness humble us before God and one another.
Further still, we must understand that God saves us by giving us the gift of faith, which justifies us (Rom 5:1). But the gift of faith can only be given one of two ways: by desire, or ex opere operato through baptism or martyrdom (Trent). One who does not have the use of reason is obviously incapable of rational desire, and thus unbaptized infants are excluded from these ordinary means of justification. But this too leads to a broader point: what is the object of justifying faith? Does it actually require rational desire, or only implicit desire? For example, some have suggested that the unbaptized infant’s orientation towards natural human goods or natural love of God may constitute salvific faith, similar to the idea that pre-Christian pagan’s orientation towards natural human goods or natural love of God could be salvific. Are either of these true?
Bluntly: no. These are heretical. Only divine revelation from God suffices to inspire a supernatural act of faith. St. Paul says the minimum articles one must put faith in to receive justification are that God exists and supernaturally rewards those who seek Him (Heb. 11:6), and the Church confirms this. But again, we speak of a supernatural act of faith inspired by God, not a mere act of natural reasoning. When we say that the invincibly ignorant may be saved, we mean to say that God will surely condescend and reveal Himself to one whom He Himself has already morally prepared to receive divine revelation – not that by merely following their conscience the ignorant directly merit Heaven. He may reveal Himself through Christian preaching (ordinarily), divine inspiration, or even an angel. Again, let this emphasize that, insofar as all are helpless and naked before God, all are infants.
All this to say: Limbo thrusts upon us a more mature understanding of soteriology. Limbo is commonly disparaged by those who believe, at least implicitly, that salvation resides in man. They believe that Hell and Heaven are both consequences of human origination, and Limbo would constitute an unfair shake. But as we have seen, this is wholly incorrect and reflects a Pelagian, human-centric attitude towards salvation. The mature Christian recognizes only two categories: they to whom God reveals Himself, and they to whom He does not. In this mode of thinking, we see how Limbo does no violence to justice. Who, as a matter of justice, could demand God to reveal His inner life to all? What sense does it make that one willingly accept that some suffer eternal torment because God passes over them, but reject as barbaric that some enjoy eternal natural happiness because God passes over them?
Hope of Salvation
We must affirm that those who die in Original Sin cannot enter Heaven, per Florence. However, some suggest that God may simply confer baptism to unbaptized infants through extraordinary means such that Limbo – though extant – is empty. Indeed, none can deny this possibility. On the one hand, God could confer the effects of Baptism ex opere operato at will. On the other, God could infuse reason and revelation into any little one (as He did to Jeremiah in the womb) such that they could make an explicit act of supernatural faith. However, just because this can and almost certainly does happen does not mean it always happens. To assume this would be plain presumption. Further, it offends good sense: considering the fact that the majority of human deaths are unbaptized infants, the universal extraordinary salvation of unbaptized infants would be “more ordinary” than Baptism, which would be unfitting.
Let us, then, focus on Catholics. Cardinal Cajetan suggested that it is possible the parental desire to Baptize works as if it were the infant’s own. This was roundly rejected, with critics citing St. Thomas saying that such an idea does violence to desire’s immanent nature. Pope Pius V had it stricken from Cajetan’s works. To preserve good sense, we must indeed reject the insane idea that mere parental desire works sacramentally, ex opere operato. However, we do know with certainty that parental faith, prayers, sacrifices and supplications can cause God to congruously respond. For example, look no further than St. Monica’s prayers converting St. Augustine. If God routinely miraculously overcomes a child’s actual sin on a parent’s behalf, surely He would likewise overcome Original Sin! Even further still, the Church offers her prayers for the unbaptized, and this may as well suffice to save many.
Again, there is no salvation outside of God’s sovereign choice and efficacious help. But God may sometimes choose to manifest this divine help through the fervent prayer of parents or the Church. Though the ITC document approaches this problem much differently than I have, we essentially reach this same conclusion.
Emergency Baptism
Of course, it is always preferable that one is able to Baptize their baby, which makes salvation absolutely certain. First, emergency Baptism is not a triviality. The right to Baptize belongs to the Church, and to deny her that right for any reason beside imminent danger of death is a grave sin. Second, one may Baptize someone who could be dead, so long as they are not certainly dead. The Catholic definition of death is when the body irreversibly ceases all vital function, which is often a rather long window. Third, one cannot emergency Baptize someone who would not consent. For example, one should not Baptize their unconscious devout Muslim friend after a car accident. Fourth, anyone with proper intention, form, and matter can Baptize. You cannot Baptize your Muslim friend, but your Muslim friend can validly Baptize someone else.
All this out of the way, this is how to Baptize: pour water upon the exposed skin of the recipient, while saying “I Baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” These are the absolute, barest necessities. Anything departing in any way from the previous sentence does not constitute a valid Baptism. Of course, the closer to the licit Rite (holy water, three pours, a minister) the better, but in case of an emergency, the nonessentials are not important. The faithful should practice emergency Baptisms. If you ever need it, you will need to be able to act reflexively.
Conclusion
Far from being arcane musings or cruelty disguised as wisdom, the doctrine of Limbo is wise and glorious. It assures us that the majority of human beings enjoy eternal bliss – naturally, if not supernaturally. It helps us to understand our own complete, infantile dependence upon God, which is the bedrock of humility. Finally, it encourages us to aid the salvation of others through fervent prayer while nevertheless reinforcing the importance of Baptism. Wherever you fall on the issue, none can deny that these are great spiritual fruits.