Oops! The sound you now hear is millions and millions of cribs being pushed back down pearl-encrusted streets, away from heaven, to the asphalt streets of limbo, but at least they're not on the rhinestone streets of hell (or maybe they are)

Juli Kearns Everyday Stories 4 Comments

Well, concerning my previous post on all those millions and millions of babies (plus my sibling twins) being released from Limbo, apparently there was someone scrambling around Technorati looking for blogs that brought the subject up because This is the Catholic Church, and its teachings on this issue haven’t changed for its entire existence, and they’re not changing now. Or so they insist on their blog and they left a comment letting me know that the progressive media dogs were wrong, wrong, wrong. In other words, if those millions and millions of unbaptized babes in Limbo were watching CNN and said, “Wow, look, we’re not supposed to be here after all! Let’s roooooooll to Heaven!” they were soon disappointed by Faithful Rebel heading them off at the pass and kicking them back down to exactly where they belong, and it ain’t with God, so there!

I guess. I mean, even though I never said in my post that the media had announced that Limbo didn’t exist (as far as I know, Moses and Abraham et all are still playing dice in the Limbo of the Fathers), Faithful Rebel came scrambling over to let me know it most certainly does!

As for those babes, Faithful Rebel notes on their blog:

Either way, it is Catholic teaching that those who die with original sin (only) at the time of death DO NOT enter heaven. And the Pope or the ITC has not said that God removes the original sin of infants. We simply don’t know what God does, but we do know that if the original sin is not remitted, there is only one option, and that is that the child does not share in the beatific vision. When and if that happens, there are only two options, either the baby suffers pain of sense or does not suffer pain of sense. Under St. Thomas’s teaching on Limbo, there is no suffering of pain of sense on the part of those only with original sin. When they die, they enter into a perfect state of natural happiness. That is because their souls have not been reborn in baptism and enabled to share in the height of supernatural happiness, the vision of God Himself. So they are, of course, limited to the joy proportionate to their nature.

All that the ITC has done is to issue a non-magisterial document advising the Pope on Limbo and saying that there are serious reasons to “hope” for the salvation of unbaptized children, which would have to mean that God may have erased their original sins in an extraordinary way. The Pope has accepted the report. That doesn’t mean that any “teaching” has changed or that Limbo is false. The examples that I have given of horrible coverage of the Church in the media still stand, and are even more strikingly apparent in this latest fiasco.

SOOOO, there you have it. The Church still teaches apparently that those with Original Sin don’t enter Heaven, and the Church never changes its teachings, but there is now a non-magisterial document advising reasons to hope for unbaptized children and maybe god erases their original sin in an extraordinary way. Or not! Whatever, the Church has never ever changed its teachings, not one bit, never changed at all, and the nonmagisterials (should I hyphenate that or not, I can’t make up my mind) are just trying to reconcile teachings that cannot change such as the Council of Florence’s 1439 instruction that “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.”

And aren’t we all glad we got that CLEARED UP! The kiddos go straight down to HELL (or Limbo) and that can’t be changed because the Church doesn’t change its teachings, but there may be some nonmagisterial reason to believe the kiddos might have been supernaturally sprinkled and are in Heaven, except, y’know, the Church is Fast and Firm and never changes (being the Rock that it is) and as the babes weren’t sprinkled they probably do not share in the Beatific Vision because they simply aren’t capable of that joy. Which, I take it, means, in other words, that as Faithful Rebel was Sprinkled and those kids were not, Faithful Rebel doesn’t want to look down and see them in their cribs next to Faithful Rebel’s seat in the great auditorium that is Heaven. Not even in the Nose Bleed Section does Faithful Rebel want them in Heaven if it would toy with the Council of Florence’s 1439 instruction. Because Faithful Rebel paid the FULL TICKET PRICE LEGITIMATELY and those of you who didn’t can go to, y’know, Hell, or Limbo, or wherever your ability to parse joy lands you. But it shouldn’t be next to Faithful Rebel, I guess. I say, I guess, because based on Faithful Rebel’s post on how the Church doesn’t change, you go to hell or you don’t, but you most certainly do, or to Limbo, but the nonmagisterials say maybe not but they have no authority…well, I’m just sitting here blowing my nose with not a clue of what’s up or where all those cribs belong.

Whatever, there you have it. I feel like I’m at a soccer game and Faithful Rebel (a one time liberal who converted to political conservatism and became a Traditional Catholic and is attending Thomas Aquinas College as a third year theology and philosophy student) is down there guarding that Heavenly Goal and the babes are balls and he’s gonna guard the integrity of the Church and Heaven and God by making sure they don’t make it home!

One thing Faithful Rebel didn’t comment on was that BIG CAKE! The one I posted a picture of with the Pope smiling gleeful upon it. The one I said equaled lots and lots of cups of rice. And, certainly, if I was THAT concerned about the eternal damnation (or not) of unbaptized infants, as a Pope I might have said All That Fancy Cake Money should instead have gone into pediatric medicine.

Now, should I have ignored Literalist Faithful Rebel? Yes, of course, I should have ignored Literalist Faithful Rebel. I should not be making this post.

But I have had no fun at all this week and to me, at his moment, making this post is an enjoyable past time. I’m frolicking! I’ve got boxer shorts on my head and pencils are dangling from my nostrils. To top it off, I just put my hand in my armpit and made fart sounds.

Because that’s the kind of philosopher I am.

Comments 4

  1. Well, I’m glad we’ve gotten this all cleared up.

    FYI- I read this with pencils in my nose AND ears. I also attempted armpit farts (I still can’t do them). This greatly added to my ability to grasp the permanence that is Limbo.

  2. I am “A Faithful Rebel,” and I don’t understand the tone of your post. All that I stated is a fact, and in no way deserved an ad hominem attack. So I will not lower myself to the level of responding to that portion of your post.

    However, back to the facts… Limbo has never been considered an official teaching of the Catholic Church. Rather, it has always been considered as the best one of a very few ways to reconcile several revealed truths which are teachings of the Church. Now you may or may not believe in those revealed truths yourself, but if you did take them seriously, you would have the same problem. The Church, of course, does take them seriously.

    So do you wish the Church to be logically inconsistent and say 1) We believe the Words of Jesus Christ that baptism is necessary for salvation and 2) the words of Scripture which show that Baptism erases original sin, and then somehow magically say that children don’t have any need of Baptism? How is that different from stating that all children are born (or conceived) in a state of grace? If that is so, why did Christ even need to come.

    So if you wish to not believe, don’t believe. But please don’t criticize those who do for following the teachings of Jesus Christ to their logical conclusions.

  3. Listen, your comment was no more than spam. I don’t know how many blogs you pasted that comment on but I know at least several others. One of them was a foreign language blog so you had no idea what the individual who posted the story was remarking on it nor did you obviously care. Another was the blog of a person writing of the loss of their own child and how they had raced all over the hospital looking for a priest to baptize that child when it was realized that the child wouldn’t live, but a priest wasn’t found. Sir, your determination that correct instruction (you may call it revelation, I call it instruction) be boldly trumpeted from blog to blog has much less to do with an earnest defense of your faith and your church against the dastardly “progressive” press and buffoons such as myself, than the peculiar zeal of a miserly, compassionless heart for stirring the shit (as they say). Now, if you have any ounce of human decency in you, you will perhaps head straight over to that blog of the person who lost their child before finding a priest to baptize that child, and apologize for your contempt of their grief. You will perhaps say that the lord of their understanding is the same who said “suffer the little children to come unto me for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”, suffer here meaning to allow, and in this case you will not quibble over parables and notions of original sin but acknowledge your wisdom is as a grain of sand and that as a believer you must look to the above scripture for evidence of grace and the loving embrace of the Unknowable. If you’re going to stand on literalism then you may as well choose to stand on literalism where it promotes compassion, peace and love over the sword of disconsolate separation. At the very least, you will perhaps pretend, in this instance, to not be a base accounting book but have some measure of heart.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *