|
Published: April 4, 2008
“Just a theological opinion”
Fresno bishop issues pastoral message about Limbo
 “Babies That Die Without Baptism” is the subject of Fresno Bishop John Steinbock’s pastoral message for April. Referencing the millions of unborn children who “are killed by abortion” as well as the estimated “one in five pregnancies [that] end in a miscarriage,” Bishop Steinbock says that “older Catholics remember from the days of their catechism that baptism is necessary for salvation, and that Limbo was a place where unbaptized children would go after death.” However, Steinbock says, “many Catholics may not realize it but Limbo was just a theological opinion, and was never part of the official teaching of the Church.”
Steinbock cites the conclusions of the International Theological Commission’s Vatican-initiated study, The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized, which, last April, concluded: “There are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation.”
This document, says Steinbock, urges people to confide children who have died without baptism “to the superabundant mercy of God.” The bishop notes that the International Theological Commission’s document “quotes Pope John Paul II in his Encyclical ‘The Gospel of Life’ where he speaks words of compassion and love for women who have had an abortion.” The passage that Steinbock says the commission’s study quotes is the following: “The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.”
The passage, which appears in Paragraph 99 of the 1995 English translation of the pope’s encyclical, appears neither in the English translation nor the Latin typical edition found on the Holy See’s web site.
Nor does the International Theological Commission’s study quote this passage, except in a footnote. There the commission says that the editio typica of The Gospel of Life “has replaced paragraph 99 which read: ‘You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord’ (a phrasing which was susceptible to a faulty interpretation), by this definitive text: ‘Infantem autem vestrum potestis Eidem Patri Eiusque misericordiae cum spe committere’ (cf. AAS 87 (1995), 515), which may be translated as follows: ‘You can entrust your child to the same Father and to his mercy with hope.’”
Steinbock concludes his letter, saying God “can give the grace of Baptism to someone who is unable to receive it. Catholic parents should do everything possible to ensure that their children are baptized as soon as possible after birth, but if an unborn child or young child dies without baptism, parents should find comfort from the teaching of the Church, entrusting with hope their unbaptized children to the merciful love of our God.”
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 6:29 AM By Central Valley
Our smiling bishop in Fresno only has a few years left until mandatory retirement. As he travels the diocese for confirations it is clear time and age are taking their toll on the good bishop. He is not the healthiest man so perhaps he will be retiring before he turns 75. He already has retirment home which he purchased with his brother, so why not retire a little early and make the faithful of the Fresno diocese happy. This reflects the typical sloppy pastoral lettters he is known for. During his reign, Fresno has more priestless parishes than when he arrived in Fresno. Look at this letter and others, look at priest moral, look at the moral of the traditional faithful in the diocese and it is clear, Steinbock needs to retire to the golf course and live happily ever after. Holy Father please send us a faithful sheperd to lead the Fresno diocese.....soon.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 6:49 AM By Joseph
The bishop is absolutely correct! Limbo is one of those (bad) theologumena (theological opinions) that is: 1. not necessary for salvation, 2. just a thought and 3. has no scriptural foundation or foundation in Holy Tradition to substantiate it's existence or teaching.
I remember being taught as a child that Limbo is a place where unbaptized children enjoy "natural paradise," but lack the "beatific vision" or "fullness of communion with God." Huh? How can knowing that God exists "just on the other side," but not having full access to Him could ever be paradise? I think it would be more like hell! It's like going to the beach on an overcast day, knowing that the sun is there, but you just can't see it or feel it because it's hidden by clouds. That would not be pleasant. Now, think of it as God being on the "other side." You can see all those in heaven enjoying God, but you are denied that same privilege. Paradise or torture?
The theology of Limbo betrays the super-abundant mercy of God and His limitless-ness to save those He wishes to save. God has given the Church the Holy Sacraments for our spiritual health and salvation, but in no way is God bound to His own Sacraments! If so, we'd have to throw out the theological opinion on: Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood, neither of which are Sacramental, but spiritual. And, Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood were taught by the holy and venerable Church Fathers and are accepted as being truths. Limbo is not.
I think the Church's recent teaching, "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized," is something that was needed to reveal the truth about God's mercy and His desire for all to be saved.
Joseph W.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 7:26 AM By BobM
Not often that I can write in with an endors3ement, but my all merciful God could not possibly deny His eternal presence (the reason for our life, after all) to anyone that died before "qualifying" with no choice in the matter. Their qualifications are established at the moment of conception. Bishop John Steinbock gets my vote as a Bishop I'd like to have as my shepherd, if all his proclamations are like this one. (You have to understand that I disagree with MOST Bishops I've come in contact with, as pompous, self-absorbed, haughty narcissists, full of little more than themselves ... so for me, to endorse any Bishop is a BIG deal). God bless you Bishop Steinbock for promoting the truth.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 9:44 AM By Willi
While belief in Limbo is not a dogma (which MUST be believed by the faithful to be a Catholic), I fear this study will be perverted to allow an out for pro-abortion "Catholics" ("...after all, all babies go to heaven!"), the way the DOGMA that all must be Catholic, and subject to the Holy See to achieve salvation has been diluted to all believing (heretical/ schismatic) Christians will be saved...then the Jews...then the Muslims...then the Buddhists...then the Hindus...all the way down to Wiccans and Satan worshipers. Well who needs the a true Faith after all! I think traditionalist Catholics know the answer.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 9:49 AM By John F. Maguire
The fact that the existence of limbo for infants who die unbaptized is not something that is taught *de fide* (the highest of theological notes) does not mean that childrens' limbo must not be acknowledged by way of a logical inference that is compelling beyond cavil. Since the infants in question have committed no personal sin, their
state is one of a happiness whereby their souls are united to God, by way of knowledge and love of God proportionate to their liminal state, not however by way of the beatific vision. The Catholic teaching has always been that the beatific vision is correlated with the necessity of baptism. In this context, Francisco Suarez's thesis is worth studying: namely, that the general resurrection, which does not exclude the resurrection of unbaptized infants, will occasion their decision for or against the grace of salvation. On this view, the second coming of Christ will parallel, at least in some way, his descent on Holy Saturday to the holy souls of the ancient dispensation.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 10:41 AM By Lisa
I guess you know this bishop better than I do and I agree with BobM that the bishops I have known seemed to be interested mostly in covering their own rear ends. I read this message eagerly because I have a daughter who died from an abortion and I always wonder about her. I didn't know that she was pregnant although I knew that she was veru much in love and that day she and her boyfriend shook out all the money that she had in her piggy bank and counted it over carefully. I knew they were up to something but had no idea what. Why didn't I say something? Why didn't I ask them why they were sitting there counting their money? Maybe they were just thinking of running away. I guess I'll never know.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 10:42 AM By dave carlin
On the one hand, I'm happy to hear that the unbaptized babies will go to heaven. On the other hand, what happens to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Virgil, et al -- the vituous but unbaptized pagans who, according to Dante, are to be found in Limbo?
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 10:45 AM By BobM
As a child (too many eons ago) I learned, and still believe, that God created us to know Him, Love Him and serve Him. To deny that of an innocent is perhaps human (and a choice of the killer's free will), but certainly NOT divine. Sorry John, but I don't buy the concept of an acceptable lower-level of happiness as you (and many, many priests and nuns before you) suggest to me. To deny those unbaptized children the beatific vision is simply unfathomable to me. The God I believe in COULDN'T (and certainly WOULDN'T) do that.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 12:11 PM By Fr. M.P.
The Vatican document says in #41 "Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture: the creation of the human being in Christ and his vocation to communion with God; the universal salvific will of God; the transmission and the consequences of original sin; the necessity of grace in order to enter into the Kingdom of God and attain the vision of God; the uniqueness and universality of the saving mediation of Christ Jesus; and the necessity of Baptism for salvation." The practical bottom line is that we should baptize children as early as possible and continue the fight against abortion so as to minimize the debate over limbo and what happens to unbaptized aborted babies. BobM, there are degrees of beatitude, so the holier souls will see God more clearly in Heaven than those less holy. Eternal happiness is given to the degree that each person can accept it. Each person has a certain capacity for Grace based on their love of God on earth.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 12:30 PM By BobM
Dave, just one man's opinion (and conviction), but if indeed as you suggest, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, et al were "virtuous" pagans (I'm really old, but I don't go back quite THAT far), then I fully expect to see them in Heaven ... assuming that I make it, that is.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 1:19 PM By Daniel A.
This is not a bad statement. Limbo is a theological opinion. I do worry, however, that many people will think it is a FORBIDDEN theological opinion. In the minds of most people, the Church is always FORBIDDING or MANDATING things: the common person doesn't understand the freedom Catholic have to hold their own opinions on matters not defined by the Church.
Furthermore, remember that all we can do with these infants is "entrust them to the mercy of God." We cannot be certain of their salvation unless they are canonized. So, whether we believe that God shows His mercy by providing Limbo for them or by letting them into Heaven is not the main issue: the main issue is trusting God to take care of those he has created.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 2:59 PM By John F. Maguire
In commenting on my defense of limbo, BobM seems not to have read my brief summary of Francisco Suarez's theory as to how infants in limbo may yet, upon their resurrection, attain, in God's divine plan, the glory of salvation. The irony is that Suarez's affirmative position on limbo is a theological opinion and no more; whereas, contrary to Bishop Steinbock and BobM, limbo has a sturdier theological foundation than is suggested by the Second Vatican Council.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 3:52 PM By BobM
Well, John, after your last message, I went back and re-read your earlier one, including Suarez's thoughts ... three times, in fact. Way too deep for this humble man's capacity for understanding. KISS applies ... keep it straight and simple ... or some of us mere mortals just can't grasp it. I'll leave the debate to those of you with superior capacity. Thank God I have my faith ... most of the time it's a great alternative to intellect; especially when one is called upon to defend a concept or precept. Most of you have talents I would give a lot to have ... but I work with what God gave me, and life ain't so bad ... actually, it's wonderful.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 3:54 PM By John L. Sillasen
Jesus says "Let the little children come to Me". So, who is going to prevent them from doing so?
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 4:15 PM By Guadalupe Guard
Amazing! The audacity of modern man thinking we deserve salvation. Most comments herein so how far we have strayed from Catholic sensibilities.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 4:28 PM By CCT
OAKLAND (CA)
Contra Costa Times
The Contra Costa Times is asking the public four questions in wake of the Media News series on clergy sexual abuse in Northern California. This links to the poll http://www.contracostatimes.com/dioceseofoakland
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 4:44 PM By Innocent III
John Maguire: Thank you for the articulate comments. It's disappointing to hear Bishop Steinbock say that limbo "was" a theological opinion. It still IS, but I think that in light of recent documents and discussions, too many Catholics are now all too eager to forget it entirely. My wife and I lost a baby due to miscarriage last year, and you know what? I have no problem with the thought of my precious child being in a state of perfect natural happiness, if that is what God has decided. The counsel I received from a very good traditional priest was: "You have done your job, fulfilled your duty, accomplished God's will, as parents. Nothing more could be expected of you by God or anyone else. And your child is still your child and will be forever. You can be assured that God has taken care of that little one, whom He created lovingly, in whatever way is best." Amen.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 5:51 PM By Jim
Limbo. Isn't that where the bishop sends the faithful priests?
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 8:02 PM By John L. Sillasen
Man is created in the image of God, Who is Father. When man rejects fatherness, then he rejects God. Rejecting a baby, born or unborn, is rejecting fatherness (whether the rejection is by a man or a woman), and thus is rejecting God. Rejecting fatherness is rejecting or preventing or hindering little children from coming to Jesus ... again this is a rejection of God. Anyone who cannot see God in the face of a baby has a severe problem of conscience. Evidently there are scores if not hundreds of millions of men and women who have this problem of having rejected God by rejecting babies.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 9:51 PM By Jimmimac
Surely the great majority of mankind has, until modern medicine, consisted of human beings who died before reaching the age of reason, many within the womb, without the possibility of baptism. This may well be true today. We’re not talking about some new problem induced by abortion, we’re talking about the history of the human race.
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 10:20 PM By Patrick
We can speculate to high heaven and still we do not know where unbaptized babies, in fact all unbaptized persons, are sent by God.
|
Posted Saturday, April 05, 2008 12:32 AM By AnnCA
I have always compared the unborn babies who died to the Holy Innocents. I am no fan of Bishop Steinbock but he is pretty okay on the pro-life issue. Now as for Summorum Pontificum.................
|
Posted Saturday, April 05, 2008 7:19 AM By John L. Sillasen
"Time is on our side", not the other side.
|
Posted Saturday, April 05, 2008 9:10 AM By Dan Knudsen
Jesus said this about baptism being essential: “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) When I posted my previous comment, only three comments came up, and the rest came up a few minutes later. Having read the rest of the comments, I wanted to make a comment relative to the question about “...what happens to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Homer, Virgil, et al -- the virtuous but unbaptized pagan...” The only scripture I’ve seen that offers a potential solution to this problem is Paul’s much-debated statement: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?” (1 Corinthians 15:29)
|
Posted Saturday, April 05, 2008 1:27 PM By ED
This is what the late Father Leonard Feeney called "sentimental theology" The babies have the stain of ORIGINAL SIN on them ,they go to HELL(LIMBO) ,they are denied the beatific vision but are not tortured because they committed no sins of their own. That is why SATAN and his knowing or unknowing dupes on earth promote abortion. Every abortion SATAN encourages stops another human from praising GOD for all eternity,that is the real (but unseen) reason abortion is truly horrible!!!!!!
|
Posted Saturday, April 05, 2008 7:42 PM By John L. Sillasen
Jesus also says that someone who follows Him brings his whole family with him ... and, He says that with God all things are possible. ED, your argument is weak. There is also a passage in the Old Testament, maybe Daniel or Maccabees, which refers to eternal reward for those who believe God. Abraham believed God, and that faith counts for righteousness. Jesus appeared with Moses and Elijah in the Transfiguration. Enoch was taken directly to Heaven without dying, as were Moses and Elijah, not to forget Blessed Mary Ever Virgin. Was she baptized? St Peter was released from jail by an angel, and the jailer was so astounded that he chose then to follow Christ ... that act of faith saved his family. God has arranged each sacrament in such a way that no man can gain control over it.
|
Posted Saturday, April 05, 2008 11:11 PM By John L. Sillasen
Brings to mind the question of the initial act of faith ... can a baby believe God?
|
Posted Sunday, April 06, 2008 12:48 AM By Kenneth M. Fisher
I was taught in Catholic schools when they were really Catholic, and I was taught that babies who die without Baptism go to Limbo, but I was also taught that at the end of time there will only be two places left, Heaven and Hell. Do any of you believe that innocent persons with no mortal sins on their souls will at the end of time go to Hell?
I have no problem believing in Limbo, and my big brother died without baptism; besides the Vatican document did not preclude the possibility of Limbo!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
www.crcoa.com
|
Posted Sunday, April 06, 2008 7:19 AM By Grisha
Kenneth ~ The Catholic schools today are"really Catholic."
|
Posted Sunday, April 06, 2008 9:14 AM By LL
Rev. Luis Ladaria, the secretary general of the International Theological Commission, is quoted as saying, "We can say we have many reasons to hope that there is salvation for these babies This new stance of the Church means that perhaps these babies do go to heaven. However, "perhaps" is the important word to note. The Church is not saying that they positively go to heaven, but that there is a possibility that they do enjoy eternal salvation after all. The International Theological Commission was urged to do extensive research on this question because of the ever growing number of babies who die without the chance to be baptized. Due to the high incidence of abortion, in addition to baby deaths due to disease and war, it has become more urgent for the Church to research and clarify their official opinion on this matter. Pope Benedict XVI was a strong proponent of this research, and approved the findings of the commission as the new official stance of the Catholic Church.
|
Posted Sunday, April 06, 2008 1:20 PM By John F. Maguire
Again the matter is speculative, but if Francisco Suarez is right that limbo perdures yet does not perdure beyond the general resurrection of the flesh, whereupon God himself will resolve the matter of the liminal state of unbaptized children (how He does so, again, is a matter of speculation); if Suarez then is right, certainly John Sillasen's question "Can a baby believe in God" can be answered as it has been traditionally answered. The ressurection of the flesh is the resurrection of the integrally developed "body of incorruption"
--that is, one's very same body but neither infantile nor senile. In this connection, the relevant reference would be to the exemplary-33 tradition, according to Christ's body at age 33 (the age of His death and resurrection) is the exemplary cause of the form of everyone's unique and ownmost body as perfected body come the general resurrection. A baby that died as a baby is not resurrected as one.
|
Posted Sunday, April 06, 2008 8:09 PM By John L. Sillasen
St John the Baptist lept in the womb upon his mother meeting God's pregnant mother. But this is an atypical "case", because later on Jesus said something to the effect that John the Baptist "was" Elijah, whose return the Jews had been waiting for. This area gets intriguing the more I reflect on it. It would be helpful to be able to put it into some simple phrase that can be readily understood by anyone in a conversation ... so as to stir the conscience of an opponent of life in the womb. "Sound bite" is the idea I'm driving at ... since the public largely responds mentally to soundbites rather than reasoned arguments. One liners are needed to get through the culture of death propaganda hype. I think this would apply as well to highly educated pro-death minds ... since they do not, as we've witnessed on this site, actually reason, but instead put forth an imitation composed of a jumble of ideas, which move emotionally towards the position of rationalizing hostility to life.
|
Posted Monday, April 07, 2008 6:47 PM By Kenneth M. Fisher
Grisha,
Judging by many of your comments, you don't know what "Catholic" even means. By the way, did you come to the REC?
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founder & Chairman
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
www.crcoa.com
|
Posted Monday, April 07, 2008 8:40 PM By Grisha
Dear Ken: Both my mother and the nuns taught me that if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all. Nope .. too busy with work to get down to Anaheim.
|
Posted Wednesday, April 09, 2008 1:23 PM By Eugene R. De Lalla
The Apostles Creed reads: ...He descended into ["]hell["]... Did our Lord descend into the hell of the damned? No. He descended into the "hell" of the Just (of Abraham, sometimes called the bosom of Abraham), where they were waiting for our Lord's Ascension when He took all the Just of the Old Testament to Heaven with Him. This is where the "good thief" went -- to the bosom of Abraham -- IF he wasn't baptized. As our Lord said that this day you will be with Me in paradise -- not Heaven! Again, He descended into "hell" on THAT day... As for the rule set by Christ that one must be baptized with WATER and the Holy Ghost, He made that rule, not me or any other man. The CCC says that man is bound by the Sacrament (THAT SAYS IT ALL RIGHT THERE!), but that God is not bound. BUT!! HE is bound by His WORD! Further, He will not require man to keep a commandment if it is not possible to keep! That would make God a teaser (and a liar?). This whole "debate" is just another example of the scourge of abortion -- the killing of the pre-born. I can't help to think that we are in for a chastisement beyond our wildest dreams! May God have mercy on us all.
|
Posted Wednesday, April 09, 2008 9:40 PM By John L. Sillasen
Eugene, how can the Father be bound by the Son, as you claim?
|
Posted Thursday, April 10, 2008 9:08 AM By Eugene R. De Lalla
John, what a STRANGE question. Christ is the Word Incarnate. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are ONE. No attempt to get around what Christ TAUGHT will succeed. Either we believe and follow what He taught, or we stop claiming to be Catholic.
|
Posted Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:48 PM By John L. Sillasen
But, Eugene, you don't think the Trinity is "bound" together, do you? Maybe it's just semantics. "Bound" seems different from "love", as in the Trinity is One because of their perfect love, rather than "bound", which reminds me of something less. If it's just semantics, here, then I'll have to find some other aspect of your argument that Christ did not descend into Hell and "set the captives free" to attack. Having grown up in thought traditions other than Latin, I find all the time that the Latin Christian world loves to spin stuff a bit too far sometimes. I'll even lay odds on this one that it was the work of the Irish among us. And I'm not set against the Irish at all, for it was largely "Irish eyes upon" me that maneuvered me into the Church. They just have a way with words and tales that brings out the Lepracauns on occasion.
|
Posted Friday, April 11, 2008 5:41 AM By Eugene R. De Lalla
Hello John... (I work nights so my responses come when I have the time after I sleep!). I see that you are having a problem with the word "bound." Why? Perhaps as you say it is "semantics." The following may help you, these are two DOGMAS of the over 100 dogmas of the Catholic Faith: 1) There are Three Divine Persons, but only ONE God, only ONE Divine ESSENCE and BEING: the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. (The Blessed Trinity.) 2) In the Holy Trinity, the Three Persons are in ONE ANOTHER - a reciprocal INDWELLING. Do I understand it all? No, but I believe it as the Church has DEFINED it. I believe in order to understand, not the other way around. Think about it... If Christ told the Apostles that whatever THEY bind on earth it would also be bound in Heaven, and whatever THEY loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven. So then Christ -- in Heaven -- is BOUND to what the Apostles do/did on earth (and that pertains to their successors!), then how much "more" is the Father bound by what His Son taught. Christ tells us in the Bible that He and the Father are one (part of the Trinity). That is not "spin". Take care.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|