The Religion Debate

[Big Magilla]

Catholic Church buries limbo after centuries
By Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Roman Catholic Church has effectively buried the concept of limbo, the place where centuries of tradition and teaching held that babies who die without baptism went.

In a long-awaited document, the Church's International Theological Commission said limbo reflected an "unduly restrictive view of salvation," according to the U.S.-based Catholic News Service, which obtained a copy on Friday.

The thumbs-down verdict on limbo had been expected for years and the document, called "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised," was seen as most likely to be final since limbo was never formally part of Church doctrine.

Pope Benedict authorized the publication of the document.

According to the CNS report, the 41-page document says the theologians advising the Pope concluded that since God is merciful he "wants all human beings to be saved."

It says grace has priority over sin, and the exclusion of innocent babies from heaven does not seem to reflect Christ's special love for children, CNS, which is owned by the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference, quoted the document as saying.

Limbo, which comes from the Latin word meaning "border" or "edge," was considered by medieval theologians to be a state or place reserved for the unbaptised dead, including good people who lived before the coming of Christ.

"Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered ... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision (of God)," the document said, according to CNS which is part of the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference.

The Church teaches that baptism removes original sin which stained all souls since the fall from grace in the Garden of Eden.

The commission has been working on the document for some time and members have said in the past that it would recommend that the concept of limbo be scrapped.

In writings before his election as Pope in 2005, the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger made it clear he believed the concept of limbo should be abandoned because it was "only a theological hypothesis" and "never a defined truth of faith."

The Catholic Church's official catechism, issued in 1992 after decades of work, dropped the mention of limbo.

In his Divine Comedy, Dante placed virtuous pagans and great classical philosophers, including Plato and Socrates, in limbo.

[criddic3]

Cool. You might want to hop in a time machine, go back to about last week and tell yourself that.

He's stuck in the 1950s. Don't send him any further back in time than he already is!

Usually people who tell me that are referring to my preference for Sinatra music and classic films. Not my stance on homosexuality or on religion.

[Big Magilla]

Most Christians think that only evildoers go to Hell, that non-Christians, including atheists, who do good deeds do not. Where they think they go varies - some believe there is no distinction, others that there is a place called Limbo where you have the same benefits of those who dwell in Heaven except that you can never see the face of God. Still others think that after doing penance in Purgatory an atheist can enter Heaven the same as anyone else.

I'm convinced that most people are neither true believers nor atheists, but agnostics, whether they admit it or not, some believing but doubting, others skeptical but not ready to completley abandon hope of an afterlife. Anyway we all have to believe in something to keep us going even if it's just the hope that our favorite player will win the next big award.

[dws1982]

If you were to ask a Christian (and I have done so several times, including family members and former friends) if they believe I'm going to hell because I don't believe in God, they would answer "yes."

Not all would say that. Some would--most probably--but not all.

[Okri]

This is one of the silliest things I've ever heard. You don't agree with something so you decide not to even acknowledge it? This is completely not healthy. It is less healthy to not discuss issues than to confront what you perceive to be an injustice or a falsehood. Personally religion is not to blame for the unhealthy intolerance, but certain people's perception of their religious duties. No religion that I know of preaches intolerance or hatred, but some fanatics do believe that they must exclude those who disagree with their faith rather than embracing people with their values. People don't change their hearts and minds through the demand of ignorant people telling them they are inferior. They only change through compassion and self-discovery.

I acknowledge it exists, but I'm sorry criddic, it's just not simply a difference of opinion. If you were to ask a Christian (and I have done so several times, including family members and former friends) if they believe I'm going to hell because I don't believe in God, they would answer "yes." So tell me how it is healthy to continue any serious relationship with them?

Believing in God is the result of faith and faith is something that comes from personal experiences and a discovery of what is in one's heart. I don't believe in shoving one's beliefs down other people's throats, but also do not believe that someone should remain silent about their beliefs if they are real and if they do not aim to harm. Generally speaking, those who have faith are peaceful people. Like everything else, though, there are some people whose interpretation is more fanatical than the norm.

I don't mind that. I didn't see Hudson's comment at the oscars, nor have I seen her performance etc. I'm not entirely sure I believe that religion should be something private (I have a grudging respect for the way Jehovah's Witnesses etc go door to door and try to explain to people why they should believe what they do, unless I'm busy anyway) - though I do think that citing it in acceptance speeches tends to be a bit eye rolling (cause I don't see how "Thank GOD I won" is any different than "Thank GOD you all lost." - with the exception of tone. At least Elaine Stritch had the balls to be upfront about it when she won the emmy).

[Big Magilla]

Criddic, I hate to disillusion you, but your guy still drinks.

[Johnny Guitar]

Eric, I think Criddic is stuck a century prior, in the 1850s--being all "Auntie Tom," of course.

This & the gays-in-the-military thread have made for great reading. I think Criddic has caused my jaw to drop to the ground more times than any other human being. Ever.

[Eric]

Cool. You might want to hop in a time machine, go back to about last week and tell yourself that.

He's stuck in the 1950s. Don't send him any further back in time than he already is!

[Akash]

Nuance is overrated. Sometimes being direct gets better results.

Cool. You might want to hop in a time machine, go back to about last week and tell yourself that. In the previous thread where the topic of religion got out of hand (and I was one of the main culprits, I admit) you said perhaps the issue being discussed was too "naunced" for some. That's what I was referring to :p

[criddic3]

That doesn't prevent us from having heated debates and legal arguments about equal treatment and so forth, but it does prevent a totalitarian mindset where you aren't allowed to thank God in an awards speech if you choose to do so.

No one is saying they shouldn't be allowed to thank the Big Guy. We were just exercising our right to call them out on some particularly problematic/illogical comments. There is a difference - a nuanced difference you could say...

Nuance is overrated. Sometimes being direct gets better results.

Quote (Akash @ Mar. 15 2007,17:04)
George Bush for instance is very sincere in his myopic beliefs but that doesn't make any of them right.

How do you know that? I think he is as two-faced about his alleged religious convictions as he is about everything else.

--Big Magilla

Your hatred runs deep if you believe this. Some people don't seem able to separate their disagreements with policy from their feelings about a person in general.

For instance, I don't like Alec Baldwin's politics, but I think he's given some solid film performances.

I didn't like Bill Clinton's personal behavior (including lying before a Grand Jury) and many of his policies, but I acknowledge he is an often brilliant politician.

I like President Bush, but I recognize that he isn't always right and that he has made mistakes during his tenure. Lucky for me, I agree with him on the important issues, like fighting terror and saving Social Security.

Anyway, I don't personally believe that his view of his faith is "two-faced" or fake. He found in his renewed faith (and the birth of his daughters) years ago the stregnth to stop drinking. His faith has to run pretty deep to find that kind of stregnth. So, I don't think your comment is accurate. It is something you feel as a result of your dislike of his policies. That is coloring your personal perception of him.

[ITALIANO]

Jennifer's religious beliefs are heartfelt and very sincere.

I can only hope you are joking. Even Hitler's beliefs may have been sincere and heartfelt. You have no idea how many dreadful things (and thoughts) have been done in a sincere way. There is something completely wrong not only - of course - in Jennifer Hudson's and other Americans' expression of their religious beliefs, but even in the way some of us are discussing it on this board.

I think with the Jennifer Hudson/Adolph Hitler comparison, you've officially jumped your own shark, Marco. There's really nothing you could say that I'd take seriously after that kind of ridiculous parallel.

Trust me, flipp, I haven't taken seriously ANYTHING you said after I read your first post on this board. But read carefully what I write and you will realize that there is always a very good logic behind it - and this may be the reason why you can't understand it.

[Big Magilla]

George Bush for instance is very sincere in his myopic beliefs but that doesn't make any of them right.

How do you know that? I think he is as two-faced about his alleged religious convictions as he is about everything else.

[Akash]

I think he was being facetious Flipp. A while back someone on this board compared Italiano to Hitler (which was also an unfair and ludicrous comparison), so I think he fired that comment purposefully.

Also, while I personally wouldn't go that far to invoke Hitler, he was pointing out an extreme example to prove that sincere belief need not be a virtue. George Bush for instance is very sincere in his myopic beliefs but that doesn't make any of them right. Neither does it mean that Hudson has anything in common with the evil that is George Bush.

[flipp525]

Jennifer's religious beliefs are heartfelt and very sincere.

I can only hope you are joking. Even Hitler's beliefs may have been sincere and heartfelt. You have no idea how many dreadful things (and thoughts) have been done in a sincere way. There is something completely wrong not only - of course - in Jennifer Hudson's and other Americans' expression of their religious beliefs, but even in the way some of us are discussing it on this board.

I think with the Jennifer Hudson/Adolph Hitler comparison, you've officially jumped your own shark, Marco. There's really nothing you could say that I'd take seriously after that kind of ridiculous parallel.



Edited By flipp525 on 1174002770

[Akash]

That doesn't prevent us from having heated debates and legal arguments about equal treatment and so forth, but it does prevent a totalitarian mindset where you aren't allowed to thank God in an awards speech if you choose to do so.

No one is saying they shouldn't be allowed to thank the Big Guy. We were just exercising our right to call them out on some particularly problematic/illogical comments. There is a difference - a nuanced difference you could say...