LIMBO
I Catholic doctrine.
II. Sufferings of Limbo.
III. Who go to Limbo: disputed points.
(1) Virtuous pagans;
(2) Duration of Limbo.
I. CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
The Gospels seem to exclude any middle state in the next world, between Heaven and Purgatory on the one hand, and Hell on the other.
But it is easy to see that the dogmatic passages concerning the future life, have also an undeniable moral connotation. They refer only to the future state of men capable of moral action and able to choose between good and evil.
They do not treat of unbaptized children, incapable of committing actual sin, or of those adults who must be classed with children.
That Scripture is silent as to the future destiny of those whom theology consigns to Limbo need not astonish us. Limbo is mentioned, under the name of“Abraham’s bosom,” only as the dwelling-place of the just who died before the coming of Christ, but as far as unbaptized infants are concerned, the only scriptural justification for Limbo is the general teaching as to God’s eternal justice.
It is then to Tradition that we must appeal for the dogmatic development of this principle of divine justice into the assertion that there is a future state which is neither that of the blessed in Heaven, nor that of the damned tormented in Hell.
Some of the Greek Fathers of the fourth century, notably St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. Gregory of Nyssa, hint at such a state.
Among the Latins Fathers, St. Augustine clearly admitted it for unbaptized infants, before the rise of Pelagianism, but owing to the exigencies of controversy, he afterwards was led to postulate the existence of some light, but positive punishment for unbaptized infants, in order to safeguard the doctrine of the Fall.
And the XVI Council of Carthage promulgated the rigorous doctrine that children dying without baptism will find no place of salvation and rest, even outside of the kingdom of Heaven. But it is to be observed that what St. Augustine and the council condemned was the Pelagian conception of a middle state, which implied that infants were exempt from original sin and from the punishment due to it; a wholly heretical idea, denying the necessity of baptism for eternal life.
Afterwards, although the traditional teaching, that unbaptized infants are exempt from neither guilt nor penalty, was consistently upheld, it came to be recognized that they could not be classed with adults guilty of actual sins.
Theologians asked themselves what the consequences of original sin would be in the next world, having regard to the claims of God’s justice.
Pope Innocent III, writing to the archbishop of Arles (France), laid it down that actual sin will be punished by the torments of Hell, but that the penalty of original sin will be merely the deprivation of the beatific vision.
St. Thomas, starting from the principle that there must be an exact proportion between the nature of the sin and its punishment, draws the logical conclusion from his conception of original sin by teaching that for infants dying unbaptized there will be a special place in the next world, where they will not enjoy eternal life in union with God seen face to face. But, he adds, they will undergo no positive punishment and will be united with God in so far as they will enjoy their share of natural possessions.
Pope John XXII in his letter Nequaquam sine dolore (1321) to the Armenians makes explicit mention of the “special place” for souls stained with original sin alone.
But we have to wait until the end of the XVIII century for the first declaration of the existence of Limbo in any document emanating from ecclesiastical authority.
The Jansenist synod of Pistoia had said that belief in Limbo was “a Pelagian fable.” This gave Pope Pius VI the opportunity of expounding clearly the mind of the Church as to those who die in a state of original sin only.
He declares to be:
“False, temerarious, and insulting to Catholic theology the proposition which rejects as a Pelagian fable that part of Hell, commonly known as the Limbo of infants, in which the souls of those dying in original sin only are punished by the pain of loss, without the pain of fire, and which regards this teaching as a repetition of the Pelagian error that there is a middle state and place between the kingdom of Heaven and eternal damnation.”
Hence we must conclude that belief in Limbo is an orthodox belief, the certainty of which is sufficiently guaranteed by the now unanimous agreement of theologians.
So we find that the theologians at the [First] Vatican Council had prepared a dogmatic pronouncement on the penalty due to original sin alone:
“All those who die in a state of actual mortal sin are shut out from the kingdom of God and will suffer eternally the torments of Hell, without hope of redemption, and even those who die in original sin alone will be deprived of the beatific vision of God.”
This, though not an explicit affirmation of the doctrine of Limbo, lays down the dogmatic principle whence that doctrine necessarily follows, and it must, therefore, be regarded as theologically certain.
II. THE SUFFERINGS OF LIMBO
Theological speculation concerning the sufferings of the souls in Limbo is divided into two currents of opinion, represented by St. Augustine and St. Thomas.
1. According to St. Augustine, as we have seen, unbaptized infants are not only deprived of the beatific vision, but have to undergo a positive, though very light,punishment.
It has been asserted that this doctrine is implied in the profession of faith of Michael Paleologus, at the II Council of Lyons (1267) and in the decree of the Council of Florence, which repeats the formula of Lyons: “The souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin, or a state of original sin alone, go down at once into Hell, to suffer, however, dissimilar punishments, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas.”
But there is nothing really to justify the assertion. The word Hell in the conciliar decree is used with its vague and general meaning of “the lower regions,” without any exclusive reference to Hell properly so called. Also the phrase “poenis tamen disparibus” indicates a difference of kind rather than of degree, so that the usual translation, “unequal” is less exact than that now suggested, “dissimilar.”
Nevertheless many eminent theologians, such as Petavius, St. Robert Bellarmine, Estius, Bossuet and others have upheld the Augustinian interpretation of the decree.
We are by no means bound to accept their view, especially as the decree may be differently rendered in a way quite in agreement with the opinion of St. Thomas.
2. St Thomas holds, and most modern theologians hold with him, that the penalty of original sin is merely privative and nowise afflictive.
It must be granted that unbaptized infants will know that they are deprived of eternal life and why they are deprived of it, but on the other hand, this knowledge will not cause them to suffer.
In the Commentary on the Sentences, St. Thomas says that the deprivation of the beatific vision will not cause these infants to suffer, because they will understand that they possess no capacity for it.
And in De Malo he explains his reason more exactly:
“The souls of these infants will not lack the natural knowledge proper to separated souls, according to their natural exigency, but they will lack the supernatural knowledge which comes by faith, for in this life they neither made an act of faith nor received the sacrament of faith. Now it is natural for the soul to know that it is made for happiness and that this consists in the possession of the sovereign good. But that this supreme good is precisely the glory enjoyed by the saints is something surpassing natural knowledge.... Hence the souls of these infants will not know that they are deprived of so great a good, and cannot therefore suffer from its loss.” (q. 5, art. 3, and ad. 1)
Being in ignorance of their vocation to the beatific vision, its loss will cause them no pain. Yet though they do not feel it, the loss of the beatific vision is, in its elf, a very great punishment.
Cardinal Billot, in speaking of the state of these children, says:
“Hence we do not use the word ‘beatitude.’ It is true that their condition taken and considered in itself is one of happiness such as would have been man’s heritage if he had been left in a merely natural state, for, as St. Thomas puts it, though cut off from a participation in God’s glory, they are not separated from him as regards their participation in natural perfections. But man has been raised to the supernatural state and destined for a supernatural end and beatitude is the state of (supernatural) perfection... But unbaptized infants are in a state of guilt, a fallen state, and have failed to reach the end which, in the actual order of Providence, they were meant to attain. The word ‘beatitude’ then, cannot be applied to them in its proper meaning, and so we say simply, that their state is that of painless possession of their natural perfections” (Etudes, vol. 163, p. 32).
III. WHO GO TO LIMBO?
Theoretically the answer to this question is easy. All those go to Limbo who die with original sin only upon their souls.
But who these are it is not so easy to determine with accuracy.
Two points are certain:
- Children who die without baptism before reaching the age of reason are in a state of original sin alone. And with these must be classed those unbaptized adults who, from birth to death, have always been really and totally insane.
- But when we come to treat of adults who have enjoyed the use of reason, at least to a certain extent, we find ourselves in the region of theological controversy.
Two much discussed opinions have been put forward.
1. The first is the theory that virtuous pagans go to Limbo.
Claude Seyssel, archbishop of Turin, strongly upheld this opinion in the beginning of the XVI century, in his Traité sur la Providence divine, written under the influence of the ideas aroused by the recent discovery of America. He discriminates between several classes of infidels. Some are not wholly excusable, because they do not do all they can to find out the truth; they will be punished in proportion to their guilt, but less severely than bad Christians or the enemies of Christ. But in those places to which the truths of Christianity have not been able to penetrate, and where therefore, faith, which is the first step towards salvation, is impossible, we may admit the existence of unbelievers who, following the light of reason, recognize and adore God, Creator and Lord, who practise the precepts of the moral law engraved on men’s hearts, and who, if they sin, repent of their sins.
Among these unbelievers Seyssel distinguishes two classes. There are those who do their utmost to find and come to a knowledge of God, and they will certainly be called by grace and be enabled to save their souls. But others, though following the light of reason in the doing of their natural duties, are not so zealous in their efforts to discover the truth; and these, since God can neither admit them into Heaven nor send them to Hell, will go to a middle place, Limbo. There they will enjoy forever a natural happiness, greater than that of earth, though lower than that of the blessed in Heaven.
This theory is unacceptable because it implies what is false and contradictory.
It is false to suppose that any class of men can keep the precepts of the natural law or repent of their sins without supernatural help, which, by the very fact of being supernatural, directs the soul towards a supernatural end.
It is contradictory to distinguish two classes of virtuous unbelievers: those who, doing their best, find the truth, and those who, doing less than their best, yet keep the moral law, but know not God. For there is, in effect, no moral law without a knowledge of God, the Law-giver.
Nevertheless the leading ideas of this theory have been repeated under different forms during the XVIII and XIX centuries. The Abbé de Malleville, Mgr. de Pressy, Mgr. Duvoisin, Muzzarelli, Fraysinous, Bergier and others held that virtuous pagans will enjoy a natural happiness in Limbo. The theory is put forward in Migne’sRevision des Démonstrations Evangéliques (T. XVIII, col. 997), in the Catéchisme du concile de Trente annotated by the Abbé Doney, in the Traité de l’Origine et de la Réparation du mal by the Abbé Actorie, and in the Mélanges of Balmes. Echoes of it are to be found in the works of the Abbé Martinet, the Abbé Moigno, and even of de Broglie. So that the thesis maintained by “Un Professeur de Théologie” in the “Science et Religion” series, far from being a novelty, is but the re-assertion of a four hundred years old theory which, as it stands, cannot be accepted.
2. The theory recently propounded by Cardinal Billot in a series of articles on the Providence de Dieu in the Etudes is of a very different character.
The eminent theologian asks whether “in addition to unbaptized infants, we must not include a perhaps equally great number of adult unbelievers... adult, that is, in years, in physical development, and even, if you like, in mind as far as the understanding of temporal things is concerned, though not as regards the higher reason, and as regards awareness to the dictates of conscience.” These physical or material adults are lacking in the higher faculty of reason, that faculty which deals with things divine, transcendental and eternal, especially with God and his law as the binding rule of human conduct. Such adults are not idiots, but their minds are always absorbed in purely earthly things and cannot rise to the consideration of God and the true good. Hence they are not adults in the formal and theological meaning of the world. May there not be a large number of such men, adults in age but not in mind or conscience, who are quite incapable of committing formal sin, and who, therefore, cannot possibly be condemned to the torments of Hell? Cardinal Billot lays it down that, for the mass of mankind, the only means of coming to a definite knowledge of God as the Creator of the world, and of the moral law, is instruction. But instruction, though natural provision and preparation for it have been made, may be lacking owing to the use or misuse of human freedom. Instruction in divine truth may have disappeared from certain parts of the world owing to man’s fault, and so paved the way for invincible ignorance, which relieves man of responsibility.
The difference between this theory and Seyssel’s is clear. The latter consigns to Limbo formal adults, that is, those who are matured in mind as well as years, and even those who, according to Catholic principles are quite able to direct their lives towards God and supernatural happiness.
Cardinal Billot, faithful to the principles of tradition and St. Thomas, allows to formal adults only the alternatives of Heaven or Hell. But in addition to these, adults in the formal and theological sense, he recognizes a whole class of merely physical or material adults, whose higher reason is not sufficiently developed to give them real moral responsibility. They are innocents, with a wholly negative innocence, and not formally and theologically adults. Hence the teaching of the Fathers and theologians relative to adults is not applicable to them.
It would be hard to contest the validity of the principle on which this theory is based. But on the question of fact there may well be differences of opinion. Does there really exist such a class of physical adults, who because of their invincible ignorance of the true, living God, cannot be called adults in mind and conscience? From the eminent cardinal’s principles, “principles shown to be true by the clearest evidence of constant and universal experience,” it follows, he declares, that “the hypothesis of whole masses of men wallowing in invincible ignorance of God’s law and commandments, owing to the absolute lack of teaching and the contrary influence of pagan education, is by no means improbable in itself, and cannot a priori be looked upon as rash or inadmissible.”
There is, however, one serious objection that Cardinal Billot does not deal with, that of the universality of God’s call to salvation. Does God give or does he not give to each and all of those able to correspond, grace sufficient for salvation? We know that many modern theologians hold that God not only prepares graces sufficient to ensure the salvation of all men and of every individual, but that he actually gives these graces to each and all. The first part of this assertion is a matter of faith, because of the universality of God’s will to save all men, and of Christ’s redemptive death for all; but theologians are not unanimous on the second half of the proposition. The actual giving of sufficient grace depends on many causes besides God’s saving will and Christ’s redemptive death.
And Cardinal Billot’s answer to the objection brought against him would, no doubt, be cast in the mould of what he has written in his treatise De Deo Uno about the fate of unbaptized infants:
“God is prepared to give to all and each sufficient means of salvation; he actually gives such means unless prevented by some obstacle arising from the exercise of man’s free will, or from the course of natural events.”
In the case of material adults the obstacle to the actual giving of grace sufficient for salvation arises from the exercise of human liberty, through former generations forgetfulness of primitive revelation.
Whatever we may hold as to this, it is certain that they who go to Limbo will stay there for eternity. Catholic tradition is unanimous in excluding them definitely from Heaven. In fact the continuity of the Church’s teaching on Limbo, in spite of a fuller understanding of the penalty due to original sin, is engrafted upon this tradition of definite exclusion from Heaven. We must therefore reject, as certainly erroneous, the theory put forward in a manual of dogmatic theology lately published in Germany, that the souls of unbaptized infants may possibly, in time, come to enjoy eternal beatitude, “if good men would but offer up for them Christ’s merits and their own.”
