352. Limbo: reasons for its existence
352. LIMBO: REASONS FOR ITS EXISTENCE
The idea of a Limbo after death was believed by most Catholics in the Middle Ages, though never officially taught by the Church as dogma. But the majority of today’s theologians, even the faithful and orthodox ones, are usually of the opinion that it is not true. What did “Limbo” mean, what were the reasons for it, and what are the reasons against it?
Whether those souls which depart with original sin alone suffer from a bodily fire and are punished by fire?
Gregory Nazianzen . . . distinguishes three classes of unbaptized persons: namely, those who refuse to be baptized, those who through neglect have put off being baptized until the end of life and have been surprised by sudden death, and those who, like infants, have failed to receive it through no fault of theirs.
Of the first he says that they will be punished not only for their other sins but also for their contempt of Baptism.
Of the second, that they will be punished, though less severely than the first, for having neglected it. (Gregory does not specify whether this punishment is in Hell or in Purgatory.)
And of the last he says that a just and eternal Judge will consign them neither to heavenly glory not to the eternal pains of hell, for although they have not been signed with Baptism, they are without wickedness and malice, and have suffered rather than caused their loss of Baptism. He also gives the reason why, although they do not reach the glory of heaven, they do not therefore suffer the eternal punishment suffered by the damned: Because there is a mean between the two, since he who deserves not honor and glory is not for that reason worthy of punishment, and on the other hand he who is not deserving of punishment is not for that reason worthy of glory and honor. . . . Hence, as his guilt did not result from an action of his own, even so neither should he be punished by suffering himself, but only by losing that which his nature was unable to obtain. On the other hand, those who are under sentence for original sin (alone) will suffer no loss whatever in other kinds of perfection and goodness which are consequent upon human nature. . . (Appendix I,1,1).
Limbo was thought to be a kind of eternal Heavenly nursery, where the souls of the unbaptized who died in infancy go to be happy forever but without the Beatific Vision of “full Heaven”.
The reason for believing it was this dilemma: No one can enter Heaven without faith and Baptism (at least implicitly, the desire for Baptism, or “the Baptism of desire”). But infants cannot exercise the act of faith, and some of them die unbaptized, so they cannot enter Heaven. On the other hand, no one is sent to Hell for Original Sin but only for his or her own personal “actual sins”; but infants are as incapable of choosing sin as they are of choosing faith. So if they can’t go to either Heaven or Hell, yet their souls are immortal, there must be a third place after death. Thus Limbo.
The basic premise of the argument is that God is just. That is a certain premise. Whether the conclusion of Limbo necessarily follows from this premise is not as certain. God has not told us how He solves this dilemma, so we are free to speculate.
Most theologians today believe that since God’s love and mercy is as certain as His justice, and since God is incredibly clever, especially in arranging for what He wills most of all, namely, our salvation; therefore it is likely that God somehow gets these infants into Heaven. He is not limited to the “normal” ways; there may well be something like back doors to Heaven small enough for infants to squeeze through.
The bottom line is that no one knows. There may well be no Limbo. And there may well be one.