This post continues a short series with examples of how even religion is adjusting and improving due to the challenge to keep/gain believers over competing faiths and world views (see previous here and here).
Last week, I discovered in the BBC News that religious experts at the Vatican are expected to recommend a change in church doctrine which would no longer assign the fate of unbaptized children to "limbo". This belief has lasted for more than 2,000 years, yet the Roman Catholic church, under continuing pressure to modernize, appears ready to make this important change.
The idea of limbo for unbaptized babies is a fascinating, but tragic concept. In the Roman Catholic religion, the unbaptized are unable to enter Heaven. At the dawn of the faith, this meant that these babies would actually be doomed to Hell; since all men and women inherited the original sin of Adam and Eve, even innocent children would pay the price.
But in the 13th Century dissatisfaction with the idea of babies sent to Hell led to a theory by Peter Abelard, a French scholastic philosopher. He first suggested that babies who had no personal sin did not deserve punishment. So instead, they would go to "limbo", a state of existence "where unbaptized babies, and those unfortunate enough to have been born before Jesus, would not experience pain but neither would they experience the Beatific Vision of God."
Today, 800 years later, the Roman Catholic church seems ready to adjust, and I would argue improve, further. The pressure from believers is very strong. Millions of parents have suffered untold misery knowing that their children - taken so horribly soon after birth - would not be reunited in the afterlife. My father and his brothers experienced this first hand; growing up in a strict Catholic home, his mother suffered two miscarriages. She would remind them to, "Don't forget about your unborn siblings wandering in limbo, while you have the grace to be alive."
Some suggest the move to abolish limbo is an effort to remain competitive with other faiths. Scholars suggest that limbo is interfering with the growth of Catholicism in Africa and Asia, where infant mortality is high and "growth potential" of converts is strong. Interestingly, Islam teaches that all babies in the world are born innocent.
While many seem ready to applaud the Vatican, other believers recoil at the idea that doctrine thousands of years old can be easily swept aside. These are people who have most embraced the faith, and all of its less appetizing aspects. For them, a quick change of ancient rules could weaken their belief system.
I applaud the Vatican for continuing to evolve its views, even if it comes late for millions of families stricken by the loss of a child. At the end of the day, religion should exist to serve the spiritual needs of people. These needs and society itself change over time, so adjustments to the present and improvements for the future will ensure that the positive effects of faith continue.
To a grieving family, it is certainly understandable that Limbo would be a difficult concept to consider. BUT, keep in mind that, as things stand now, those persons would be entirely within bounds as Catholics to ignore Limbo and instead rely simply on their faith in Divine Mercy.
1) Doctrine vs. Dogma
“Limbo is not a defined dogma. It is a theological speculation, and good Catholics may believe or not believe in it as the arguments move them. But if the Church were to define formally the existence or non-existence of limbo, everyone would be obliged in conscience to fall in line.”
These are the words of apologist Karl Keating, who explained it more succinctly than I could have in his “Pop Quiz” on Catholicism:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9903fea2.asp
2) Other Catholic teachings to consider:
"God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments" (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1257). i.e. God can make whatever exceptions He wishes regarding unbaptized infants.
2) Conforming to the World
“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind” (Romans 12:2)
It is interesting to place Catholicism in some sort of mental global marketplace of religion, and to posit that the Church would abandon her divine teaching authority in order to cater to those “shopping” for a religion. To consider this possibility, one would need to mentally step outside of trusting that the Church takes seriously her role as teaching authority.
If a more essential, required teaching were reversed or abandoned due to lack of popularity, then I agree with you. Non-Catholics might be slightly more interested in the religion. And many Catholics would likely be disappointed and possibly fall away. Not to protest the loss of a teaching, but because the Church would be lax in her role as teaching authority and, thus, no longer trustworthy.
However, this is all a side note since, regarding Limbo, we are dealing with a case of a theological construct, not dogma. Since positive belief in Limbo is not a requirement for being Catholic, it should be no obstacle for persons in Africa or any other continent who are seeking to become Catholic.
Besides, if the Church were seeking to toss out unpalatable theology in order to cater to the wishes of the masses, I would expect to see the teachings regarding marital contraception to be jettisoned first.
Posted by: | January 15, 2007 at 08:48 PM
Thanks so much for this very well-thought response! It is certainly an education for me.
You make a very strong case that Limbo should not be an obstacle to believers (whether current or prospective).
However, I wonder: how many people with less understanding - including people who cannot read - in developing nations, for example, would be able to get to such an insightful point? It seems that many people around the world DO believe it is dogma.
Perhaps the Church will work harder to clarify the position and better communicate it around the world. I'm glad to do my share by hosting your insightful comment for all to Google!
Posted by: BobG | January 17, 2007 at 01:26 PM