November 2007 Print

^{Fr. Patrick de la Rocque}

Some days ago, the front page headlines were announcing: "The Catholic Church closes down Limbo." That was how the press reported the document published by the International Theological Commission [hereafter ITC] dealing with the question of Limbo. Commenting upon this document on the airwaves of France Info, Cardinal Poupard expounded: "The merciful love of the saving God extends to all, even to the infants who die without being baptized." On his part, the Roman Press Agency, Zenit, run by the Legionaries of Christ, commented in its French edition: "A 41-page document entitled The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, prepared by the International Theological Commission and approved by Benedict XVI, confirms that infants who die without being baptized are destined for heaven" (Zenit, April 23, 2007).

Even before we consider the contents of the text, let us note the disinformation surrounding it. First, it is inexact to say that the Church is speaking or making a pronouncement through this document. As a matter of fact, the ITC is in no way a magisterial organ. Instituted by Pope Paul VI in 1969, it is merely a group of theologians in charge of advising the pope and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Consequently, it is only an instrument of theological research. At the request of John Paul II, a sub-commission of this group had been working for several years on the issue of Limbo, and the text is merely the document summarizing the work of this sub-commission. On April 19, Cardinal Levada presented this document to Benedict XVI, who gave an oral permission to publish it. Although this acknowledgment is not without value, Zenit's statement that Benedict XVI signed the document confers undue authority upon it. This is disinformation; it is an attempt to impose upon everybody a text which, from a juridical point of view, is only the thesis of a theological school.

Nonetheless, the contents of the document raise serious problems. The major thesis of the text is summed up in the conclusion:

The many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision.¹

We must be aware of what the Church teaches–or does not teach–about Limbo, and also realize how this subject is closely connected with several truths of our faith, if we wish to appreciate the full significance of this new thesis.

Reminders of Catholic Doctrine

Firstly we will briefly recall the teaching of Catholic doctrine concerning original sin, baptism, and Limbo. It is important to distinguish between what the Church declares as being of faith (de fide), what she presents as a common doctrine, and finally what she leaves to the free investigation of theologians. Indeed, by refusing an affirmation under the first category, we would lose the Catholic Faith. If we ventured without serious reason outside the common doctrine it would be dangerous for our faith. As for investigating the field left to free theological speculation, even this cannot be done without a thorough knowledge of the question and a deep humility.

Since we are speaking of Christ our Savior, who "came to seek what was lost," we must first know why we had to be saved, hence it is logical to begin with the doctrine of original sin. The next step is to study the remedy of our ill and the conditions of its application. Consequently, we will deal with baptism, which is the first means by which Redemption is applied to us. Lastly, we will consider how the Catholic doctrine on original sin and baptism throws light on the fate of children who die without baptism, and on this whole question of Limbo.

The Teaching of the Church Concerning Original Sin

It is a dogma of faith that every man is born with the stain of original sin. The only two exceptions are the Blessed Virgin, because of the privilege of her Immaculate Conception, and, of course, Our Lord Himself. The Council of Trent stated that original sin "transmitted to all is in each one as his own by propagation, not by imitation."² What is this stain which is in every man by the very fact that he is Adam's descendant? It is a state of privation: man is deprived of the supernatural friendship with God; and connected to this, there is in man a disposition to evil, a disposition to concupiscence. Original sin is not a personal sin, but a state inherited from Adam. Pope Innocent III asserted:

A distinction must be made, that sin is twofold: namely, original and actual: original, which is contracted without consent; and actual, which is committed with consent.³

Already long before, in 530, the 2nd Council of Orange⁴ had explained–and condemned!–:

If anyone asserts that Adam's transgression injured him alone and not his descendants, or declares that certainly death of the body only, which is the punishment of sin, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he will do an injustice to God, contradicting the Apostle who says: "Through one man sin entered in the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed to all men, in whom all have sinned."⁵

This teaching was taken up by the Council of Trent⁶ which anathematized the following proposition:

If anyone asserts that Adam's transgression injured him alone and not his descendants, or declares that certainly death of the body only, which is the punishment of sin, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he will do an injustice to God, contradicting the Apostle who says: "Through one man sin entered in the world, and through sin death, and thus death passed to all men, in whom all have sinned."⁷

Anyone who denies one single truth from this teaching on original sin is anathema; he no longer has the Catholic Faith.

To this doctrine is connected a second teaching, which is not directly of faith, but is a common opinion held by the Church, the Church Fathers, and theologians, and consequently it would be extremely rash to deny it. It was summarized by Innocent III:

The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell.⁸

The two pains specific to hell are here distinguished: the pain of loss, which is the privation of the beatific vision, and the pain of sense, which constitutes the torment and bodily tortures of the reprobates. The common opinion declares that this pain of sense is only the punishment of actual sin and not of original sin. This element will be important for us later on.

The Church's Teaching Concerning the Necessity of Baptism

We must now consider the Catholic doctrine on baptism. No one can be saved except by the Blood of Jesus Christ. Our Lord is the only Savior, and there is no salvation outside of Him; the New Testament repeats this again and again. This teaching was recalled by the councils, especially the Council of Arles in France, in 483, of which one of the aims was to bring a heretical priest back to the Faith. The pope made him sign a profession of faith in which we read:

I declare further that...from the beginning of the world, they were not set free from the original slavery except by the intercession of the sacred Blood.⁹

No one can be saved without the shedding of the Blood of Our Lord. And the Council of Trent reiterated this teaching in reverse order in a canon which condemned:

...If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam...is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by any remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ: let him be anathema.

Yet this Sacred Blood can save us only inasmuch as it is applied to us. The mere fact that Christ died for our sins does not suffice to save all men automatically. Without a personal application of the Blood of Christ, we cannot be saved. To the act of Christ, who died for our Redemption (objective Redemption), must consequently be added another act, by which this Redemption is applied to individuals (subjective Redemption). Let us quote, for instance, the Council of Quiercy¹⁰:

There is, there has been, and there will be no man for whom Christ did not suffer, although all are nevertheless not saved by the mystery of His Passion. That all are not saved by the mystery of His Passion has nothing to do with the grandeur nor the abundance of the redemption, but with the part of the infidels and of those who do not believe with the faith "that worketh by charity,"¹¹ for the cup of the salvation of mankind, made up of our weakness and of divine power, does contain what is useful for all; yet if we do not drink from it we shall not be healed.¹²

What is the act by which Redemption is applied to individuals? In his address to Nicodemus,¹³ Our Lord is adamant: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Jesus Christ Himself revealed that the application of the fruits of Redemption is only made by baptism. The Church expounded the teaching of her Spouse, specifying that there are three kinds of baptism:

 

l Sacramental baptism received at the baptismal font; it is an act of Christ and the Church, freely given to an individual, without even any moral act on his part when the individual is an infant.

l Baptism of desire: it is still an act which associates the individual to the Redemption of Christ, but this act no longer comes firstly from the Church and from Christ; it comes from the individual who, with God's grace, unites himself to Jesus Christ through faith and desire. Such is the case with the catechumen who prepares for baptism and begins to reform his life. He has the baptism of desire, and the fruits of grace already begin to be applied to him. This baptism of desire includes the desire of sacramental baptism at least implicitly; hence it is ordained to sacramental baptism, and is understood in the word of Christ: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...."

l Lastly, there is the baptism of blood. The example of the first persecutions is well known: while the pagan executioners were putting the first Christians to death, it happened that they converted seeing the heroic virtues of their victims. They forthwith declared themselves Christians, and were immediately put to death. Their blood was shed out of hatred for Christ and for the Faith; they are martyrs in the strict sense of the term, thus benefiting from what we call the baptism of blood. The Holy Innocents also benefited from this baptism of blood: they were put to death out of direct hatred for Christ, out of hatred for the Messianic faith.

 

Thus there are three forms of one baptism, ordained one to the other, and all are contained in the sentence of Our Lord: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...." If there is not an application of the Redemption through one form or another of baptism, there is no kingdom of heaven. Such is the teaching of the Catholic Faith.

In 1442, the Council of Florence declared:

Concerning infants, by reason of the danger of death to which they are often exposed, since it is not possible to help them by any other remedy than by the sacrament of baptism, by which they are taken from the domination of the devil and are adopted as children of God, the Church warns that baptism must not be deferred.

Let us note the significant words: "since it is not possible to help them by any other remedy than by the sacrament of baptism." Since these infants do not have the age of reason they are consequently unable to perform personal moral acts, and can only be united to Christ in a purely passive manner, by the reception of sacramental baptism. This is what the Church teaches concerning baptism and its necessity. This teaching of the Church on baptism and its necessity is a dogma of faith. Baptism of blood alone is not of faith. But if no dogmatic definition declares its efficacy, it is nonetheless a constant tradition in the Church.

The Situation of Infants Who Die Without Baptism

Now that we have recalled the teaching of the Catholic Faith concerning original sin and baptism, we can tackle the specific question: Limbo and the destiny of children who die without baptism.

First of all, it is very important to emphasize that the Church has NEVER considered that those infants might enjoy the beatific vision. Such a supposition was declared¹⁴ by Pope Innocent I to be "most absurd" and besides, contrary to the faith of the Church:

That infants may enjoy the rewards of eternal life even without the grace of baptism is most absurd. Indeed, if they do not eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, they shall not have life in them.¹⁵

It seems to us that those who hold that these children will have this life without being born again seek to make void baptism itself, by preaching that these children have what the Faith says can be conferred upon them only by baptism.¹⁶

In this text, which echoes all of the patristic tradition, Innocent I engaged the faith of the Church. No Church Father ever considered that infants who died without being baptized could enjoy the beatific vision; on the contrary, the whole debate consisted in knowing what their hell would be like. The Church Fathers and early theologians may well seem very harsh to us if we judge them according to standards of our modern sensitiveness.

The quarrel arose when St. Augustine opposed the Pelagian heresy. Like most of the Fathers, the Bishop of Hippo thought initially that if these infants did not enjoy the beatific vision, they did not on that account suffer the pain of sense. However his position changed when he confronted the Pelagian heresy; and he came to suppose that these children suffered only the "lightest punishment of all," hence divergences among the subsequent Fathers. We must note that the debate was not concerned with knowing whether these children were or not in heaven, but whether they were in hell or in a middle place, a "bordering" place–etymologically the word Limbo comes from border. In this domain, the Church never made any pronouncement. Many councils and professions of faith employed very generic terms, which must be translated correctly. Concerning infants who die without being baptized, it is said that they go down to a lower place (in infernum), but this cannot be translated univocally as "hell"! The word merely indicates a lower place, in opposition to Heaven where they cannot go. Such a profession of faith was imposed upon Emperor Michael Paleologus by Pope Clement IV in 1267. The same formula was later taken up by the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274,¹⁷ and by the Council of Florence in 1439.¹⁸

Only one single theologian ever thought that these children might go to Heaven: the eminent Cajetan, the greatest commentator of St. Thomas of Aquinas. His thesis caused such a surprise that for a time the Council of Trent considered condemning it, but refrained from doing so out of respect for the august theologian. Pope St. Pius V merely ordered that all allusions to this thesis be removed from the works of Cajetan. In nineteen centuries, this was the only instance of a theologian who put forth the hypothesis that infants who died without being baptized were in Heaven, and you can see how strongly the Church reacted.

So far, let us recall that the Church only affirms one point, and this in a negative manner: infants who die without baptism do not enjoy the beatific vision. She does not go any further in her pronouncements. The rest is entrusted to the care of theologians; hence it does not belong to what has been revealed, and does not engage the Catholic Faith. From the 12th century onward especially, theologians sought to explain the exact state of children who died without baptism. First they repeated that these children do not suffer the pain of sense, supporting their opinion on the text of Innocent I that I have already quoted and on many other texts of the Church Fathers. For instance, concerning these infants, St. Gregory of Nazianzus said that

they would have neither heavenly glory, nor torments. The one who does not deserve punishment is not thereby worthy of praise, and the one who does not deserve praise is not thereby deserving of punishment.

And the eminent Church Father went on to explain that a bad or faulty disposition can be punished only by the privation of some advantage, which is the legitimate consequence of the subject's inaptitude--thus, for instance, ignorance is an obstacle to the reception of the priesthood. Now original sin is only a disposition to concupiscence, a disposition which adults alone cause to pass from potency to act. Hence, according to the common thesis on Limbo, children do not suffer the pain of sense.

The second point asserted by theology is that even though the privation of the beatific vision is objectively a pain inasmuch as the supernatural destiny is not attained, nevertheless these infants do not suffer from it. The reason is that faith alone reveals to us our supernatural destiny, hence without the Faith, we cannot know that grace makes us capable of the beatific vision. Now these children do not have the Faith, consequently they cannot know the supernatural destiny which they have failed to reach. Even though this destiny is not achieved in them, they are not aware of having missed any supernatural end, and hence they do not suffer. On the contrary, the damned know that they are damned because of their own personal sins. They have received graces of conversion, and know that they were made for God, who had given them the means of salvation; they know that they are in hell because of their own fault, and the privation of the beatific vision is their most cruel torment.

Theology also adds that children who die without being baptized enjoy a real happiness in their whole being. St. Thomas Aquinas said:

Although separated from God from a supernatural viewpoint [they do not have the beatific vision, they do not know God as God knows Himself, for such is the beatific vision], they remain united with Him through the natural goods they possess, and this is sufficient to enjoy God through natural knowledge and love. They have their lives, their light, their joy, and their happiness in God.

They know God like man can know him, and this is already a real happiness. In other words, these children do have their lives, their happiness and their joy in God, but in a natural manner, i.e., through the shadows of their thoughts, reasoning, and human meditations.

To summarize: the common teaching of the Church concerning Limbo is that children who die without being baptized have no personal sins and hence do not suffer the pain of sense, they are condemned to the pain of loss, but without suffering from it, and finally they enjoy a natural happiness in God. This is common doctrine, not a dogma of the faith.

Considering this doctrine of Limbo to be a revival of the Pelagian heresy, the Jansenists wanted to send all these children to the depths of hell. Pope Pius VI intervened to express the deep respect of the Church for this common teaching of theologians:

The doctrine which rejects as a Pelagian fable, that place of the lower regions (which the faithful generally designate by the name of the limbo of children) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, exclusive of the punishment of fire, just as if, by this very fact, that these who remove the punishment of fire introduced that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, such as that about which the Pelagians idly talk,–false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools.¹⁹

The pope did not say that the doctrine of Limbo was a dogma of faith, yet he considered it false and injurious to Catholic schools to sweep it aside. Lastly, the First Vatican Council had planned to engage the faith of the Church by asserting that

those who die with original sin only will be forever deprived of the beatific vision, whereas those who die with one actual grave sin will suffer besides the torments of hell.

However, this definition was never declared, because the Council was interrupted before its completion. And so the doctrine of Limbo remains today what we call a common doctrine of the Church. It would be rash to deviate from it, yet to do so would not question our adhesion to the faith of the Church, provided however that the affirmations concerning original sin and baptism listed above be safeguarded.

The Document of the International Theological Commission

A Fundamental Presupposition: A False Conception of Universal Redemption

The doctrine on Limbo which we have expounded above is the common doctrine of the Church from which it would be "rash and injurious" to deviate, yet it is quite simply denied by the ITC:

"The idea of Limbo has no clear foundation in revelation" and "the notion that infants who die without baptism are deprived of the beatific vision gives rise to numerous pastoral problems"²⁰; "we consider such a solution [Limbo] problematic.²¹

In what respect does the doctrine raise difficulties for our new theologians? Let them answer for themselves: Because the theory of Limbo represents "an unduly restrictive view of salvation." They could not state more clearly the problem which is at the root of the document: the theory of Limbo does not fit in with the theory of universal redemption according to which all men are saved. Since there is an incompatibility between the two theses, the former must be swept aside, or even reformed. Such was the mission entrusted to the members of the ITC.

Now comes to light what is really at stake in the document. By tampering with the doctrine of Limbo which, it is true, is not of faith, these theologians question or "sweep under the carpet" two other points of doctrine which do belong to revealed doctrine, namely the doctrine of original sin and of the necessity of baptism. And they set to the task with relish.

Original Sin Forgotten

With regard to original sin, the description given by the document of the evil in the world is symptomatic:

From the moment the human race began to increase on the earth, God had to reckon with the sinfulness of humankind.²²

A description of the flood follows. The great absentee is obviously Adam's sin, committed even before the human race increased, and which became the source of all sins. No mention is made here of this sin. It is merely said that when humankind began to increase, God had to reckon with sinfulness. The first fault, a central event in the history of salvation, is swept aside. A few paragraphs above,²³ the universal salvific will of God is said to be "sincere on the part of God but at times is resisted by human beings." Such a statement is once again deceiving with respect to original sin. To say that humans resist at times is to admit the possibility of actual sin, and this is correct. But the text omits to say that it is in Adam that all men are in fact established in a state of resistance to the salvific will of God, and that this state can be overcome only through a special grace from God. On this point, the document is absolutely silent, just as it had passed over the event of original sin. Now, the document says elsewhere, "infants, for their part, do not place any personal obstacle in the way of redemptive grace,"²⁴ so these theologians conclude:

It can be asked whether the infant who dies without baptism...can be deprived of the vision of God even without his or her cooperation."²⁵

The reasoning is elementary: God wants to save everybody, and the only obstacle is personal sin; but infants do not have any personal sins, and so these infants are in heaven. Their logic is simple, yet it is false, because the major premise of the syllogism is false. It ignores original sin. This is the whole problem with the document.

Magisterium and Tradition Relativized

If the thesis is simple, the methodology used by these theologians is more subtle, and it comprises a significant proportion of the document. They have indeed 19 centuries against them, something that is a nuisance for them and that they somehow have to explain away. Or rather, they have to "enervate" the Magisterium and Tradition in order to remove all their constraining power. The tone is set already in §4: "The first task of theology is therefore to listen to the word of God." Simple as this statement may sound, it is surprising in what it omits: God does not speak only through Scriptures, but also through the unanimous Tradition and Magisterium. But for these theologians the Magisterium and Tradition are not sources of sure truth, they belong to mere human history. Thus the document asserts with surprising candor: "The tradition and the documents of the magisterium which have reaffirmed this necessity [of baptism] need to be interpreted."²⁶ So all these documents will be reread in order to be re-interpreted. Indeed, continues §10,

a hermeneutical (i.e., interpretative) reflection is needed as to how the witnesses of tradition (it is no longer Tradition, but merely witnesses!) (Church Fathers, the Magisterium, theologians) read and used biblical texts.

In other words, all those people, Church Fathers, the Magisterium, theologians and so forth, read Holy Scripture in a certain manner. Was it the correct one? In all simplicity and humility, the members of the ITC believe themselves capable of a better interpretation!

Let us take a few instances of this rereading. Above, we saw that the Council of Florence asserted:

It is not possible to help them [infants] by any other remedy than by the sacrament of baptism, by which they are taken from the domination of the devil and are adopted as children of God.

Our modern theologians comment:

The Church does not know of any other means which would certainly give little children access to eternal life.²⁷

Impossibility is replaced by ignorance. The Church of that time did not know any other means, but our modern theologians know them and will tell us all about them, as we will see later on.

In his beautiful address to Italian midwives, Pope Pius XII declared:

The state of grace is absolutely necessary for salvation: without it supernatural happiness, the beatific vision of God, cannot be attained. In an adult an act of love may suffice to obtain this sanctifying grace and thus supply for baptism; but for the unborn child or the infant, such a way is not open.

What are they to do with such a text? The response of the ITC is baffling in its levity: Far from prohibiting the theological search for "other ways of salvation," Pope Pius XII

rather recalled the limits within which the debate must take place and reasserted firmly the moral obligation to provide baptism to infants in danger of death.²⁸

Numbers 26 and 27 alone sum up the attitude of these theologians with regard to the Magisterium and Tradition:

Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century....In the 20th century, however, theologians sought the right to imagine new solutions, including the possibility that Christ's full salvation reaches these infants.

They could not have said it more clearly!

The Bible Re-Interpreted

The second step in the method used by the ITC is the re-interpretation of the Bible. Indeed, the Church Fathers and the Magisterium were not the only problems for the new theories; on certain points, the Scriptures themselves seem to contradict our modern theologians; hence the need for a re-interpretation. The major text on this issue is obviously Chapter 5, verse 12 of the Epistle to the Romans: "By one man sin entered into this world, in whom all have sinned." This fundamental point explains that in Adam all men have sinned, not personally, but inasmuch as they were incorporated in Adam, the father of mankind. Such an assertion must be re-interpreted, hence a new translation, which passes over in silence the key expression: "in whom all have sinned." This is the revised version: "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because [Gr. Eph'ho; other possible translations: "on the basis of which" or "with the result that"] all men sinned." Instead of saying that "all have sinned in Adam," it is merely said: "all have sinned." Original sin is thus swept under the carpet, so that only the universal existence of personal sin is affirmed. And a footnote (note 82) explains: "Eph'ho, then, would mean that Paul is expressing a result, the sequel to Adam's baleful influence on humanity by the ratification of his sin in the sins of all individuals." This explanation is directly condemned by the Church, because it amounts to saying that original sin is not transmitted by generation but only by imitation. But such a condemnation does not seem to bother our modern theologians, since they care so little about the Magisterium.

Here is another instance, quite typical of progressivist methodology:

The numerous baptismal statements in the New Testament (e.g., "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost...") in their variety articulate the different dimensions of the significance of baptism as understood by the early Christian community.²⁹

The Gospels are no longer considered as the inerrant word of God, but simply as a testimony of the early Christian community which explains how it considered Christ. On such a basis, it is possible to relativize. To the quote from St. John (3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" is added the following comment which relativizes it: "from which we understand the need of sacramental baptism"³⁰; suggesting: from this sentence the Church understood the need of sacramental baptism--but did she not understand incorrectly?

Hierarchy of Truths and Change of Perspective

Thus they have done away with the common doctrine of the Church concerning Limbo. It remains to be discovered how these theologians elaborate their thesis. They explicitly invoke the principle of the hierarchy of truths.³¹ I will present this complex thesis in a somewhat simplistic fashion; and indeed it is used in a simplistic way by the ITC. It distinguishes the fundamental revealed truths from those of secondary importance. The fundamental truths have priority over the truths considered as secondary in cases where there is an apparent contradiction. Rather than showing that the contradiction is merely apparent, they overestimate it, and consequently pass over in silence the truths classified as secondary. In such a case, it is said that these secondary truths remained to be discovered. We can illustrate this with §91 of the document: "Where sin abounded, grace superabounded! That is the emphatic teaching of Scripture; but the idea of limbo seems to constrain that superabundance." In a word, they focus on one passage from the Bible, chosen according to the need of their thesis, in order to interpret all the rest of Holy Scripture in the light of this one passage. The argument then becomes simplistic: where sin abounded, grace superabounded; now, limbo seems to constrain grace because the souls in Limbo do not benefit from grace. Consequently, Limbo is swept under the carpet.

This same method is used in paragraph after paragraph:

When reflecting theologically on the salvation of infants who die without baptism, the Church respects the hierarchy of truths and therefore begins by clearly reaffirming the primacy of Christ and his grace, which has priority over Adam and sin.³²

The lack of logic of this order is passed over in silence; although we cannot understand the salvation brought by Christ without a prior knowledge of the evil from which He delivered mankind, the document merely affirms here what it considers as a must: the priority of universal salvation over original sin. Hence we read these inconsequent propositions: "Christian hope is that the living God, the Savior of all humanity (cf. I Tim. 4:10), will share his glory with all people."³³ Such a hope cannot be Christian: because it will not be accomplished, and certitude is a characteristic feature of Christian hope. Christian hope has for its object God Himself, and God is certain. For instance, we hope for the second coming of Christ in glory, because we know that this Parousia is certain, we know it will take place. But to say that Christian hope is that the living God will share His glory with all people is an assertion which is manifestly false: it is certain that there are souls in hell, it is certain that hell is not empty; consequently, it is certain that God does not share His glory with all people.

In spite of the errors it leads to, this priority choice in favor of universal salvation is constantly repeated throughout the document:

There is a fundamental unity and solidarity between Christ and the whole human race.³⁴

We wish to stress that humanity's solidarity with Christ (or, more properly, Christ's solidarity with all of humanity) must have priority over the solidarity of human beings with Adam and that the question of the destiny of unbaptized infants who die must be addressed in that light.³⁵

The traditional view is that it is only through sacramental baptism that infants have solidarity with Christ and hence access to the vision of God. Otherwise, solidarity with Adam has priority. We may ask, however, how that view might be changed if priority were restored to our solidarity with Christ.³⁶

Yet is this priority choice of universal salvation justified? The theologians of the ITC believe it is, since they rely upon the "signs of the times."

A Hackneyed Phrase: "To Read the Signs of the Times"

If our theologians believe they have a right to question the logical and chronological priority which the Church had always respected until recently, it is on account of "the signs of the times," those famous signs of the times which the Second Vatican Council had invited us to scrutinize and let ourselves be carried along by. In the present case, these signs of the times can be reduced to two: the feelings of the parents, and the contemporary mentality preoccupied with subjective right. §2 tells us:

Parents experience great grief...and people find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness, whether they are Christian or non-Christian.

Such are the signs of the times which should compel the Church to change her doctrine.

The reason adduced here forgets that every gift, and even more so the gift of supernatural grace, is gratuitous. The poverty of the argument becomes even more evident when applied to daily experience. Imagine siblings who on Christmas evening bring the bill for the presents they received, and complain of injustice because not all the presents cost exactly the same! Such children do not understand that liberality is not justice; nor do our modern theologians. God is not bound to give the same to each, and unless we fall into the crass conception of subjective right, we cannot consider unjust the fact that God grants to some a supernatural bliss and to others only a natural happiness.

Then they call upon feelings: "People everywhere are scandalized by the suffering of children and want to enable children to achieve their potential."³⁷ Some paragraphs above we read:

Christians are people of hope. They set their hope "on the living God, who is the savior of all, especially of those who believe. They ardently desire that all human beings, unbaptized children included, may share in God's glory and live with Christ....So Christians, even when they do not see how unbaptized children can be saved, nevertheless dare to hope that God will embrace them in his saving mercy.³⁸

The theological depth of such arguments leaves us dumbfounded.

Yet, quite seriously–and alas not without reason!–our theologians go on to show how these signs of the times have been taken into account by the Church for 40 years:

Thanks to the liturgical reform after the council, the Roman Missal now has a funeral Mass for a child who died before baptism...This liturgical prayer both reflects and shapes the sensus fidei of the Latin church regarding the fate of unbaptized children who die: lex orandi, lex credendi.³⁹

Moreover,

In its 1980 instruction on children's baptism the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed that "with regard to children who die without having received baptism, the church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as indeed she does in the funeral rite established for them." The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) adds that "the great mercy of God, who desires that all men should be saved [I Tim. 2:4] and Jesus' tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them" (Mt. 10:14), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism.⁴⁰

All these "go-ahead signals" that have been given for 40 years by the Conciliar Church represent so many encouragements for modern theologians to go forward with their thesis.

Propositions Which Do Not Lack Creativity

It remains to be seen how, according to our theologians, salvation is achieved for children who die without baptism. Here we reach the domain of pure suppositions which are at times quite surprising.

Thus with §85:

Broadly, we may discern in those infants who themselves suffer and die a saving conformity to Christ in his own death and a companionship with him. Christ himself on the cross bore the weight of all of humanity's sin and death, and all suffering and death thereafter is an engagement with his own enemy, a participation in his own battle, in the midst of which we can find him alongside us.

Christ's enemy is no longer sin itself which Christ expiated on the cross, but rather death; consequently, the instinct to survive proper to any threatened living being is considered as "an engagement with his (Christ's) own enemy," a "participation in his own battle." A child would sum up the reasoning as follows: I fight against death, Christ fought against death, we are fighting against the same enemy; that means we are on the same side! I leave you to judge for yourselves the high theological level of the argument.

However, I think we reach the peak of ridicule with note 124,⁴¹ where they "imagine" the rudimentary votum which the infant without the use of reason could exercise in order to assimilate his case to that of baptism of desire: "Some theologians have understood the mother's smile to mediate the love of God to the infant and have therefore seen the infant's response to that smile as a response to God himself." We might as well say that when you feed your cat, you are mediating God's love for it, God's love which feeds the birds of the fields. Consequently, when your cat wags its tail, this could be its saving response to God! This is the kind of theological argument they dare to offer us! It seems to me more worthy of Polnareff (a French 1980's pop singer who sang a song entitled "We Will All Go to Paradise") than of a document from the International Theological Commission!

Conclusion

Reading these last "reflections" from the document of the ITC, I cannot help thinking of St. Paul's prophecy: "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine ["we consider such a solution (Limbo) problematic"]; but, according to their own desire [signs of the times proposed: nowadays people wish to see all men saved], they will heap to themselves teachers [150 theologians of the ITC], having itching ears: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth [we have seen how they swept aside the Magisterium, Tradition, and even Sacred Scripture], but will be turned unto fables [we see what kind of fables these theologians came up with]."⁴²

Benedict XVI did not sign the text, but he did authorize its publication by word of mouth, something which is not insignificant. All this is painful to learn.

Nevertheless, we know that God draws good out of evil. I believe that through this document God is reminding us that what is at stake in Tradition is not just the liturgy. Such a reminder proves very timely as the Latin Mass is being liberalized. Obviously, we desire the Mass of all times for everyone, but it is not the end of the fight for Tradition. It is a first victory, over which we are entitled to rejoice, but it does not mean that we can lay down our arms. There still remains another aspect of the crisis of the Church to resolve, an aspect which is even more fundamental: the doctrinal dimension. As long as Rome has not unequivocally resumed this fight, it will be the duty of each one of us not to behave like children who allow themselves to be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive,"⁴³ but on the contrary, "doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in him who is the head, even Christ."⁴⁴

 

Reprinted from Christendom (No. 11, May-June, 2007, pp. 4-13). Christendom is a publication of DICI, the press bureau of the Society of Saint Pius X (www.dici.org). This conference was given by Fr. Patrick de La Rocque shortly after the publication of the ITC's report, The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized.

 

¹ International Theological Commission (ITC), §102.

² Dz. 790, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, tr. Roy J. Deferrari from the 30th ed. of Henry Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum (1955; reprint by Loreto Publications, n.d.).

³ In the year 1201.

⁴ Dz. 175.

⁵ Rom. 5:12.

⁶ DS 789.

⁷ Rom. 5:12.

⁸ Dz. 410.

⁹ Dz. 160b.

¹⁰ In 853.

¹¹ Gal. 5:6.

¹² DS 624 (translation ours).

¹³ Jn. 3:13.

¹⁴ In the year 417.

¹⁵ See Jn 6:53.

¹⁶ DzH 219 (translation ours).

¹⁷ DzH 858.

¹⁸ DzH 1306.

¹⁹ DH 1526.

²⁰ ITC, §3.

²¹ ITC, §95.

²² ITC, §53.

²³ ITC, §46.

²⁴ ITC, §7.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Ibid.

²⁷ ITC, §29.

²⁸ ITC, §39.

²⁹ ITC, §62.

³⁰ ITC, §99.

³¹ ITC, §7.

³² Ibid.

³³ ITC, §9.

³⁴ ITC, §88.

³⁵ ITC, §91.

³⁶ ITC, §93.

³⁷ ITC, §75.

³⁸ ITC, §68.

³⁹ ITC, §100.

⁴⁰ ITC, §5.

⁴¹ ITC, §94.

⁴² II Tim. 4:3-4.

⁴³ Eph. 4:14.

44 Eph. 4:15.