Interested I'm not trying to be difficult or back anyone into a corner. It is a legitimate thought process where the Church seems to side-step the issue. I fail to see how they can be so rigorous on items such as contraception, yet have no ability (yet) to have a firm position on someone in that limbo description. Particularily when the Church is so against it from happening in the first place.

C Stanley I guess I really don't understand your point, interested. It seems to me that the Church on the issue of limbo is doing exactly what secular people usually want the Church to do: to admit that there are some things that are unknowable. You seem to be saying that they've brushed it off and refused to consider it, which isn't true at all; for a long time the concept of 'limbo' was common teaching but it never rose to the level of dogma because there isn't really any evidence for it one way or another (evidence in this sense being different than scientific evidence; I'm talking about when Church theologians examine scripture and historical writings, dealing with what we believe is revealed truth). The concept of limbo was formulated to explain what some people believe must happen, because it isn't in keeping with the nature of God as we know Him to punish individuals for things that are beyond their control. So, the idea of limbo came about to posit that perhaps aborted and miscarried babies, along with unbaptized infants, would go to a different place besides heaven but one in which they would also have eternal happiness, not punishment. More recently though, this concept has been questioned because the only reason they were thought to be unable to go to heaven was that we believe that baptism is necessary; thus many theologians came to an alternate conclusion based on the idea that God instituted the sacraments as a means to salvation but that doesn't mean that He's bound to them. He could suspend this 'law' as He sees fit, and that's what we now think is most likely. I guess your reaction strikes me as similar to liberals who want conservatives to apologize or admit mistakes, but then as soon as they do it is seized upon as a weakness. I don't think you are intentionally doing that, but do you see how you really are boxing the Church into a corner? In effect, I think you're saying that it's not acceptable to say that we just don't know the answer to this question. But I don't see why that shouldn't be acceptable because it isn't the same as saying that it's not an important question or that the salvation of souls isn't an issue here. It's not IMO as you phrased it "having no apparent formulated thought as to what happens to this person in 'limbo'"; it's more like saying that possibly these souls are being damned or restricted from going to heaven, or possibly not- we really don't know, so we shouldn't take any chances by causing it. And I still also contend that the more important issue of the sin itself is the arrogance of man trying to play God by deciding who lives and who dies. I think you are minimizing the importance of that concept, which we believe is the essence of original sin and all sin.

C Stanley FWIW, here's Ratziger on the issue of limbo (incidentally, the two book length interviews of Ratzinger by Peter Seewald are excellent; this is from God and the World, the other is called Salt of the Earth.)

In the book God and the World, a conversion between Peter Seewald (a "re-vert" thanks to talking to the Pope extensively) asks the then-Cardinal (pages 401, 402): In canon 849 of Church canon law it says: "Baptism is necessary to salvation in fact or at least in intention." But what happens to the millions of children who are killed in their mothers' wombs ? The question of what it means to say that baptism is necessary for salvation has become ever more hotly debated in modern times. The Second Vatican Council said on this point that men who are seeking for God and who are inwardly striving toward that which constitutes baptism will also receive salvation. That is to say that a seeking after God already represents an inward participation in baptism, in the Church, in Christ. To that extent, the question concerning the necessity of baptism for salvation seems to have been answered, but the question about children who could not be baptized because they were aborted then presses upon us that much more urgently. Earlier ages had devised a teaching that seems to me rather unenlightened. They said that baptism endows us, by means of sanctifying grace, with the capacity to gaze upon God. Now, certainly, the state of original sin, from which we are freed by baptism, consists in a lack of sanctifying grace. Children who die in this way are indeed without any personal sin, so they cannot be sent to hell, but, on the other hand, they lack sanctifying grace and thus the potential for beholding God that this bestows. They will simply enjoy a state of natural blessedness, in which they will be happy. This state people called limbo. In the course of our century, that has gradually come to seem problematic to us. This was one way in which people sought to justify the necessity of baptizing infants as early as possible, but the solution is itself questionable. Finally, the Pope [John Paul II] made a decisive turn in the [1995] encyclical Evangelium Vitae, a change already anticipated by the [1992] Catechism of the Catholic Church, when he expressed the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament.

mvdg

the simple hope that God is powerful enough to draw to himself all those who were unable to receive the sacrament.

Somehow I think that the God who created everything will be able to do that.

C Stanley Exactly, Michael. It's been an evolution of our understanding of God, I think, because we've gone from a childlike fear of God (which led to ideas that we all HAVE to be baptized, to follow the rules, so to speak) to now understanding that God is greater than that. He may ask certain things of us but it doesn't seem consistent to think that He'd be so unreasonable as to punish an innocent unbaptized child (born or unborn). I think the tricky part is to convey this without it seeming like the 'rules' don't matter. In other words, baptism and other sacraments are still important, but it's only in these cases where they aren't possible to the person that God would make exceptions.

mvdg

I think the tricky part is to convey this without it seeming like the 'rules' don't matter. In other words, baptism and other sacraments are still important, but it's only in these cases where they aren't possible to the person that God would make exceptions.

Yeah... This one person, perhaps you've heard of him, Peter, wrote some great letters on that subject. ;)

WTF "It's not birth control, it's natural birth regulation." Hilarious.

C Stanley Ah, well, remember that I'm a Catholic so that book that contains those letters isn't as familiar to me as it is to you Protestants LOL

domajot Since the origin of the post concerns Catholic thought, I read the comments as an outsider, with interest but no compelling need to resolve. I become interested when Catholic (or any religion's )thought and advocacy enters the public square and touches on everyone's lives. I become resentful when the public debate has to expend so much energy on a religious arbitrary yardstick of when life begins, what is God's authority, and so forth. As I respect any religious group to hold its own council on these matters, I would expect them to honor others' independence of them, I repeat what I said earlier: Hold your own council, keep to your beliefs in your lives, but don't try to impose those beliefs on others. Bluntly put, law should never be based on religious tenets.

domajot CStanley- As you referred to me directly in commenting, I am forced to reply personally. Whether on purpose or not, throughout your commentary, you insert bits of underhanded advocacy. You allude to dark forces pushing abortion on unwitting women. =The most prominent pro-choice group is Planned Parenthood, which offers a full spectrum of choices. =If abortion clinics have a financial interest, so have dental clinics, hospitals and all doctors. =It made me angry when you called me naive and unrepresentative of pro-choice women. I am extremely representative. 'Naive' is a facile label to throw at anyone who disagrees with you, and it does not apply to me. I was very tempted to bring up the dark side of pro-life advocacy and propoganda. But I try to keep away from tit-for-tat.

mvdg Yes, please keep it civil and respectful. I'm not an enemy of passionate debate, but I'm not a friend of ad hominem attacks. Anyway, Doma: I'm quite sure that Christine wasn't out to insult you. Why not? Because I never saw her do any such a thing.

C Stanley Domajot, I assume you have taken offense to the statement in my comment #20 where I said that I believe your position is a naive one. I apologize for bringing you into that personally; I was referencing the belief that there are not a significant number of people in the abortion industry who actually promote abortion rather than having a belief that it is a necessary evil. I can't change my opinion on that because I've actually had an experience that is too personal for me to share here, which proved to me that some abortion clinics truly do push women to make that decision. I never said that you are unrepresentative of the pro-choice movement as a whole, but I do disagree with you on the extent to which there are people in the movement who do have darker motives. I would wholeheartedly agree with you that there is a darker side to the prolife movement as well, and of course I do not identify with those people at all. I'm sorry that my comment has upset you but it was not meant as an attack on you in any way. We will obviously have to agree to disagree on this point as well as many others, but you might also note that in comment #17 I began by saying that I appreciated the thoughtful and noncombative tone of your commentary and then added this:

You represent a more thoughtful contingency of the pro-choice movement because you do wish to educate, consult, and prevent as many abortions as possible.

I stand by those statements and I don't wish to imply anything further about your beliefs or motives, so I hope you will accept my apology for offending you.

mvdg One thing I wanted to say, as I told Christine in an e-mail, this discussion / conversation is one of the most interesting and civil i've seen on this issue for quite a while.

domajot CStanley- You have your personal experiences, and I have mine. Obviously, they were quite different. This should cauttion against broad conclusions drawn from separate experiences. Your reference to the pro-choice 'movement', I think zeroes in on the problem. None of the people I know and communicate with belong to a 'movement' of any sort. When an issue comes up for public debate, we take sides, but our views are informed by many sources and are not the products of or expressions of loyalty to a 'movement'. If I am representative of anything, I suspect it is of the vast majority of people on any issue at all. Putting a opposing view in the pigeon hole of a movement, group, or political party does great disservice. If an idea is valid, it should be valid no matter who proposes it.

C Stanley That's fine, domajot, but when I referenced the "movement", I wasn't talking about you. I've supported a few pro-life organizations (ones that seek to educate, not to force views on anyone) and have personally adopted a child as well as supporting adoption and pregnancy crisis centers in other ways. That's the extent that I've been involved in the 'pro-life movement', so I don't necessarily consider myself a political activist either. You may be even less so on your side of the issue, and that is fine. I'm not trying to overgeneralize, and my comments about the 'movement' thus don't apply to you, at all. The point I was making is that I believe that there are people with impure motives on the prochoice side, just as there are some extremists on the prolife side. Those statements aren't meant to imply that these are the majority, just that they exist in numbers significant enough to have an effect.

Interested and at 63 Comments - well now 64. C.S. lol first time I think I've ever had the words liberal and me in the same sentence.

but do you see how you really are boxing the Church into a corner? In effect, I think you’re saying that it’s not acceptable to say that we just don’t know the answer to this question.

No, I don't. Mainly as the Church and those of it's faith, are very willing to ask - well in fact you did yourself. How can I not support abortion for a fetus I father vs. a fetus someone else fathers. And many are very willing to have those who are a part of an abortion to be held up for punishment here on Earth as they feel it is murder. Your question to me was a very valid and appropriate one. How could I be so protective of something that would be my own, yet not on another child. My question back - which was another equally valid and appropriate question was - if the Church can state with certainly that their belief is life begins at the moment of conception. How can they not know what happens to someone that is miscarried or stillborn or even aborted. I don't mean the person doing the aborting - I mean the fetus itself. until a couple posts ago, you seemed to say - well I shouldn't have to explain my beliefs, and you did qualify it by saying that it's nearly impossible to do so. But that is almost exactly what the Church says itself. Don't question, just believe. That bit doesn't hold water with me, how can on one hand a faith condemn something yet not even be able to define what it is they are trying to protect.

And I still also contend that the more important issue of the sin itself is the arrogance of man trying to play God by deciding who lives and who dies

This is where I think you have not really understood what I'm saying. I was not talking about the act of abortion itself, I was talking about the fetus that was aborted, or stillborn, or miscarried, etc. In essence, I was talking about the very person the Church seemed to be unable to account for. And to be blunt, I sat and thought, how could any God not go to an innocent child who had not the opportunity to be baptized. The earlier links were really quite going in circles on it, but finally - and it's most likely due to just understanding what each of us wrote. but finally you put it in a manner that I can understand. And also finally the text on the Pope's thoughts shed some light as well. Mainly this part.

He may ask certain things of us but it doesn’t seem consistent to think that He’d be so unreasonable as to punish an innocent unbaptized child (born or unborn).

That's exactly what I'd been asking the entire time. And I had said that I could see why the Church would hesitate to come out and say what happens to someone in limbo. As if they came out and said that person in limbo was still embraced, than it would make the act of aborting an okay thing. Which obviously the Church does not want to say that it's an okay thing when they do not feel it is. - Again I'm separating the act from the innocent. It would be hard for them to deal with one without affecting the other. Maybe the confusion lies in my thought process where I can see a separation of the soul and the body, which to me combine to make the person. maybe the Church only sees the person, I don't know.

mvdg Well, that's not true Interested... it wouldn't make abortion 'alright' - it would still be murder. Yes, the baby will go to heaven, but would be killed nonetheless... killed before he or she could live the life God planned for her or her.

Interested That's exactly what I'm saying Michael.

Which obviously the Church does not want to say that it’s an okay thing when they do not feel it is. - Again I’m separating the act from the innocent. It would be hard for them to deal with one without affecting the other.

mvdg Also - comment 66 you mean. :D

mvdg I misinterpreted your comment then I'm afraid... I thought that you meant that abortion would be alright with many believers if the Church would admit / teach that the unborn are saved and that, therefore, the Church doesn't want to say it. (edited this comment)

Interested lol took me a bit to write it.

domajot CStanley- I appreciate your response. I hope you understand that when I defend myself, I am speaking for many, many people. If that were not so, I wouldn't bother. PS I think I scared MVG, he may have seen a cat fight in the offing.

mvdg

PS I think I scared MVG, he may have seen a cat fight in the offing

Well... Yeah.

domajot MVG= I'regret having scared you. I don't regret having aired my reaction to some of the arguments. If that's not acceptable, let me know.

mvdg :D of course it is acceptable. Nothing happened really... No four letter words involved so...

C Stanley LOL, yes, we both kept the claws in, didn't we? Nice to be able to have a debate without ill feelings toward the people that we're engaged with (at least from my perspective, and I hope I didn't trigger ill feelings from others). Interested: Interesting that you brought up the distinction between body and soul because I've recently been reading an exposition of JPII's philosophy and theology that covers that topic. It's been debated through the ages and current Catholic theology says that they are one, that it's not that a soul slips in and out of a body, but the two things both make up the person. Obviously the body goes through stages of development, so at conception there is nothing like a complete body. I find the various thoughts on this to be difficult to wrap my mind around, but fascinating.

Interested Yes, I've been meaning to say it too, For years I mostly avoided the subject just to avoid the normal arguments, it's a passionate subject for many. To go more into depth of what I was saying much earlier in the thread. - just as a side note - lol nothing else. My Grandmother, and my mom I think. (my mom's mother in law), Believed that someone, a person, however the term is phrased is kept in this world until they solve whatever it is they need to solve. Sort of like a child that grows and matures, she sort of felt that a soul would grow and mature, except through many lifetimes. That you would meet up with the same people in lifetime after lifetime, solving differences, or generally maturing with that other individual. Does not necessarily mean an intimate relationship, could be friends, co-workers, enemies. But the general idea being that those relationships grow over time as well. And then when you have done whatever you needed to do, completed whatever you needed to complete. That is when you move - well basically to heaven. It's an interesting perspective really. It sort of lends an explanation to those people that just don't quite seem to have it pulled together, why others are at such an ease with the world, why others are struggling every step of the way. I do not claim to say it's the way others should think, or that the Church ought to promote it. I just find the thought process very compelling.