Most people reading the headline, "Pope Gets Rid of Limbo" are probably thinking, "What a killjoy! We really liked that game." They have in mind, of course, the game invented in Trinidad in which people shimmy their way to an ever-lowering pole and then try and propel their bodies, facing up and legs first, under the bar. It's a lot of fun to watch, especially when there are girls doing it, and alcohol is involved.
This type of limbo has not been outlawed by Pope Benedict, although I am sure he is ambivalent about it. Rather, the Pope has approved a theological commission's recommendation that the Catholic Church get rid of it's longstanding concept of limbo--a place, mentioned nowhere in the Bible, where babies go if they die before being baptized. Limbo has never been a formal doctrine of the Catholic Church, but it was considered sufficiently standard to be included in pre-communion lessons in Catholic schools around the world.
I was scornful of the idea when I first learned it in Catholic cathechism. But over the years I saw that it makes a kind of sense. The Christian idea is that we humans are born with original sin, what Immanuel Kant called the "crooked timber of humanity." This warped disposition is part of our nature, and therefore Catholics held that even newborns have it, and how can anyone who has an unrepented sinful nature go to heaven? Hell seemed like too harsh an alternative for little ones who had done nothing wrong, and so the Catholic Church invented limbo.
Think of limbo as a place which has no suffering, or if there is suffering, it is very mild. One of my Dartmouth professors explained it as a place where one-year-olds were gently pelted with marshmallows which they were nevertheless permitted to eat.
But today we live in a strange era in which infants are killed even before they are officially born. Thanks to Roe v. Wade and other abortion laws, being born is itself getting to be quite an achievement! And certainly it seems cruel and unreasonable to consign an unborn child, whose life has been snuffed out even before it began, to anything less than heaven. Even marshmallow pelting seems unfair under these circumstances.
And so from now on Catholicism will teach that unbaptized infants--born and unborn--go straight to heaven. I like this idea better, although I'm going to have to throw out my old cathechism book.
Reader Comments ( Page 32 of 33)
466. Weird. I tried to post my first comment and it didn't go up and my computer said there was an error. Then I wrote a second comment, and accidnetally double clicked and now there are three comments.
Maybe it is a sign. I heard something about a threefold cord not being easily broken.
Bob at 3:24AM on Jun 15th 2007
467. Are the different understandings about what is still unseen really worth bickering about here on earth ,,, If a Catholic bleaver likes to particate in Christianity ,by doing works , or as they say ,doing their part in their salvation , or duty ,is it a sin to missunderstand,,,,or is it a sin to know, then use the will to disobay ...does God forgive sinners and not Christians doing their best to honor him ..I think 500 years of the same old argueing could be used better by going out doing good works any day ,,,wether you have to or not...stop worrying about what others are doing ....you may be wrong yourself...and still go to heaven...why not end this self assured attaditue
gary at 10:14AM on Jun 20th 2007
468. Hello Bob,
I got busy again, but I am back.
It is funny what you say about that we cannot inpose our standards on others. The ironic thing is that you are imposing that I cannot impose.
I agree with you that we should think outside the box more, but that can get dangerous if it is taken out of porportion. When the moral lines start to be eliminated, people get confused. They may feel free at first, but eventually they will feel empty and dirty. And all the other empty and dirty people they had enjoyed cavorting with will not be able to comfort them. It is the safety of home that people really need, the safety of the pasture with the shepherd.
Michelle
Michelle at 10:44PM on Jun 21st 2007
469. Hi Gary,
You made some good points. I have thought about those things myself. Like you said, we may be wrong. We may be willful. I think true people are going to have doubts all their lives and not always be happy and satisfied with what they believe fully. Hell is a horribly skary thought and if it is real, and it seems to be, I do not think we should be lazy or haphazard about possibly ending up there. Good works are beautiful, but one also has to believe in Jesus. And the periferals. There are some that are also quite important, but I do not know what all they are. Maybe in a way they vary for different people. Not much, but some. Maybe for some of us too we like to think out what we believe. Actions need to balance that, you are right, but actiong all the time and not thinking... What if in doing good works, people ask us questions. We should have answers. So we keep thinking and learning.
Michelle at 11:09PM on Jun 21st 2007
470. Hello Michelle,
It was good to hear from you again. To begin, I am not imposing on you. I am anti-opposition. That is why I believe we should all be free to make our own choices about life. That is why I do blogs like this is becuase my stance is the exact opposite of controling people. I believe in leaving questions of morality up to the individual. That is why I am pro choice. People who don't want to do something don't have to and those who do can. This is what is proscribed in our constitution. It is a governemnt by the people for the people. Not just some people or that some people have to abide by other peoples' sense of morality.
I have done my utmost to explicate that everyone has a different sense of morality. I have tried to show you that you would likely not want to live under someone else's sense of morality. And they in turn, shouldn't have to live under yours or anyone else's. What makes this country free is that people can practice any faith they want or no faith at all. But, it is not free if one faith controls the laws and makes others abide by them. That is a form of religious slavery and it is the exact antithesis of what was proscribed by our founding fathers. Again, I am not imposing on you -- I don't think anyone should impose on anyone. I am simply pro liberty. That means I believe in people's right to choose.
Thinking outside of the box is not dangerous. Not thinking outsidee of the box is what is dangerous. It is stage two thinknig that allows peopole to think that they have the right to deny others of rights.
The second statement you made is only true for you. If you do something you may feel dirty or that you have done wrong. However, not everyone would feel the same. Let every person do what is right in thier own hearts. I doubt you would deny that there are some things you feel are wrong and others you know don't feel the same way on certain issues. Well, that is becuase we are all different. There are even variations in morality within the same church among the congregants. I know this for a fact.
Michelle, how you feel is a product of your upbringing and your life experience thus far. You are entitled to feel the way you do. However, what you and nobody else is entitled to do is deny others rights based upon our own senses of morality. We need to respect the rights of others if we want to continue to have rights of our own.
Be Well Michelle,
Bob
Bob at 8:37AM on Jun 23rd 2007
471. Hello Bob,
I agree with what you say in regards to freedom. Imposing leads down the wrong road. Tyranny is not suitable. I do not mean to impose. My temperment partially is what causes me to like rules and try to help others follow them . And yes, allll my childhood I was taught that Christianity was the only way. And I believed it. I just think it is best for people.
But, alas, it is their decision. I will not force it down their throat. Then it would not be real to them. I rememember saying that one time to my friend that was gay.
Well, Bob, you mention the fact that different people have different senses of morality. Maybe you are not talking the extreme stuff like people who kill and mame people and do not feel bad about it. In the Bible God had people killed, but never chopped in pieces or any other sick, sick stuff. And a confused sense of morality can do this to people. There must be some clarification. Yes, public schools teach "Values Clarification", but the skary thing about it is that everything from a ballerina to a murderer are all presented as options. I do not believe the word wrong is ever mentioned. Everything is equal. Whatever little Johnny wants to be he can be. Dont stop little Johnny. It is wrong to use the word wrong.
But, again, people have rights. But they should at least be warned by someone where their actions will lead. Like you said before human life is very valuable, or is that true only for you, Bob?
Michelle
Michelle at 9:08PM on Jun 26th 2007
472. Hi, Michele and Bob and anyone else reading here.
While everyone does have their own ideas about morality, that doesn’t mean there are no absolute rights and wrongs. And just because someone believes them or doesn’t believe them, doesn’t change truth. That is not subjective. It is truth, whether one person believes it or a million or none. So we should be searching for truth on morality, not freedom for everyone’s morality to be formally accepted by society.
The idea that only people who have stricter morals are trying to impose them on others is wrong. Those with looser or no morals do impose their way of life on the rest of society because we are all interconnected. What we each do, in private or not, eventually touches other people and those people touch others. They can and do harm people emotionally, physically, spiritually or psychologically, or through spreading disease or death. It limits the pool of people who will become healthy and compatible friends and spouses of other people’s children. It becomes harder and harder to raise children with morals in an immoral world. The sins of others hurt and touch all of us. Prayer is the only thing a parent has left sometimes in this polluted world our children breathe into their souls, especially through the media. And it breaks my heart to see my children’s friends who do things they shouldn’t, suffer later for it. I love them all.
So there is no way around the fact that as a society, we must decide by the majority what the norms on morality should be. Whatever is decided will affect everyone. But that doesn’t make the more moral person more “controlling” than the less moral person. The majority does the controlling and that can irritate those who do not agree with the majority. I know I get irritated with immorality that imposes on my family, so I’m sure some people get irritated with morality that they think imposes on them.
ANYWAY, the reason I came back on here is because I read an article yesterday and it made me think of you here. I thought that you both might find it of interest. I’m not here to debate it. Just to post it if someone wants to read it.
So here it is, Michele and Bob. God bless you both. You have both been in my daily prayers, as well as anyone else who comes here to read your discussions.
The only question I do have is for Bob. I noticed that you said you believe that “human life is of infinite importance” and “It is the most precious thing in our universe.” I was wondering why. I’m not trying to be a smart aleck or question your sincerity. I truly believe you are sincere in that. But I know why I believe human life is important, precious, even sacred. Because I believe we are created “in the image and likeness of God.” And that God loves us and that the Holy Spirit can and does dwell in our souls. And that man was created to love God. Like St. Augustine said, “We were made for you, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.” I think all humans search spiritually. It occupies much thought in life of the believer and the non-believer who questions it. It is certainly occupying a lot of your time all your life, when you believed and even now that you don’t or that you are questioning it. (I’m really not sure if you totally don’t believe in God or that you aren’t sure.)
But if I didn’t believe in God, I might treat humans with respect, because I would notice that they are a little bit different than plants and animals. (And I know 2 Atheists who are 2 of the nicest, loving and moral people I know. Their families were religious, so I’m not sure what happens a few generations down the road if society raises children without religion.) But I wouldn’t believe that human life was “of infinite importance” or “precious.” So I was wondering if that was a holdover of your religious upbringing or what the reason for your beliefs on this would be. Not to debate, just out of curiosity. I probably won’t be able to get back and read here for a while, so if you do wish to respond, take your time.
God bless you.
Elisa
PS I heard a priest on EWTN recently say that the difference between a river and a swamp was the river banks that guided and allowed the water to flow freely. Freedom without some “river banks” (rules, laws, commandments from God) turns us and our society into a swamp. I think we all prefer clean flowing rivers.
_______________________
http://ncregister.com/site/article/2400/
Interior Life Of Atheism
BY MARK SHEA
May 13-19, 2007 Issue
Recently I ran a series of articles on The Incoherence of Atheism in the Register.
As a result, I’ve received inquiries for advice from readers with loved ones tempted by atheism. Not infrequently such inquiries center on what arguments are effective.
This is understandable. Arguments are important. The existence of God is a philosophical, not a religious question. My articles focused on a couple of these arguments. St. Thomas Aquinas has five. Peter Kreeft points us to 24. Beyond the purely philosophical arguments, evidence for the supernatural can be culled from every nation, language, people, tongue and religious tradition in the world.
Indeed, one standard rhetorical ploy of atheists is to say, “Christians arrogantly say their God is the true God, but all these other religions can also point to claims of the supernatural and Christians denounce those as false. So why can’t I dismiss the Christian claims too?”
Two things are prompted by such an argument. The first, at the intellectual level, is to point out that the Christian is quite free to believe that every religion in the world has gotten something right (some more than others). You are even free to believe that adherents of other traditions have had real encounters with the supernatural (whether divine or demonic). However, if you are an atheist, you have to believe, a priori, that 99.999% of the human race is absolutely wrong about the thing that matters to it most. Christians have the luxury of being able to be humble before the facts. When it looks for all the world like the apostles’ behavior is best explained by the Resurrection, Christians don’t have to resort to lame theories like psychedelic bread mold at the Last Supper to account for it. When thousands (including atheists) witness the miracle of the sun dancing at Fatima, Christians don’t have to attribute it to mass hallucination. Atheist ideology has to take these desperate measures, being constrained to do so by its own ideology.
That said, it should also be noted that this tendency of atheism to cling to dogma in the face of countervailing evidence reveals something even more important about the cramped ideology of atheism.
Consider: The French novelist Emile Zola said he just wanted to see one person dip a cut finger in the waters of Lourdes and be healed. He got more than he bargained for. Zola met a woman dying of tuberculosis, whose face had been half eaten away with the disease and who was spitting up blood from her infected lungs. She washed at Lourdes and was presented to Zola immediately afterward, her face already covered in new, dry skin and her tuberculosis in dramatic retreat. “Ah no!” said Zola, “I do not want to look at her. She is still too ugly.” He left declaring, “Were I to see all the sick at Lourdes cured, I would not believe in a miracle.”
Whatever that is, it is not the voice of reason. Rather, it is proof that the artillery of the intellect is subject to the will. That artillery can be ranged to defend against truth just as much as to defend truth. For atheism is often, though not always, driven by anger, pain or disappointment. Atheists (especially former believers) are quite often people who feel betrayed by God and who react by trying to punish him for the abusive relationship they were in or the treacherous way their pastor dealt with them or God’s failure to live up to their childhood expectations. Often they have very deep wounds. And often those wounds are caused by us believers. Not a few atheists are what they are because a Christian has behaved very badly. Zola himself may be an example of this. He was one of the few defenders of a Jewish officer named Dreyfus, who was wrongly convicted of treason and persecuted largely by French Catholics.
Indeed, atheism is a very diverse phenomenon. Many atheists are, theologically, fundamentalists under the skin, often having the most childish and literalistic notions of what Scripture says (Richard Dawkins is an especially egregious example here). Some atheists are simply confirmed in cold hard pride. Some are honest people who just can’t, for the life of them, see what theists are talking about when they speak of their belief in and experience of the supernatural. And that just scratches the surface of the various causes of atheism.
So it’s important to have a handle, not just on the philosophical and intellectual reasons for atheism, but also on this pastoral dimension, as well. Very often, when somebody says, “I don’t believe in God,” they mean, “I am very angry at someone who hurt me.”
If that’s the case with your loved one, then the pain beneath the atheistic temptation is the main thing that needs to be addressed.
Mark Shea is senior content editor for CatholicExchange.com.
Elisa at 1:08PM on Jun 29th 2007
473. Hello Elisa and Michelle,
I truly apologize for having not visited this page in so long. I will answer the question that you posed to me Elisa as well as respond to some of the content discussed in the article you attached.
I believe human life is the most precious thing on our planet and that it is of infinite inmportance becuase humans, unlike any other animal on the planet have the capacity for deep thought and emotion. I believe that this is self evident. It does not have anything to do with any religious doctrine I was taught in childhood. Quite to the contrary, the more devout on is in a faith, the more one only sees human life as having value only if that person shares your faith. The Pope recently just stated that all other churches aren't true and that Catholicism is the only true path to salvation. In so stating, the Pope is saying that any human who is not a Catholic is going to hell and will not have salvation. There are countless statements made like this by the religious. I have never heard such a thing said by an atheist or a secularist or a humanist. I hope thsi clarifies my position. I think human life is precious and I love and appreciate its diversity. That is why I am not religious. I think it would be awful if there was only on type of tradition in our world. The diversity in this world is what makes life beautiful. How awful it would be if we all had the same opinion on God. Man's attempt to define the unknown and question his origins has created the many different religions of our world throughout time. Neither on is "real" but it is just the attempt of different cultures throughout time to explain the universe and what they didn't understand. It is a matter of faith ... not fact. You have no proof. No evidence. You have to believe. I don't believe the question of God is something that will always remain so elusive. I think eventually scinece will be able to explain the true nature of our universe and the human race will no longer have a need for the angry sky god.
Now to the article. The point of the article was that many people who are atheists are only atheists becuase they have been hurt by someone or something that they associated with their religion. What utter rubbish. That is not the case at all. I can imagine the same thing being said to Gallileo when he said the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. He was persecuted for saying that by the religious zealots of his day. I can imagine them saying "Who hurt you Gallileo?" This is contemtible.
People who are atheists simply realize there is no more reason to believe in one culture's myth than the next. What religion you are is simply a matter of where you were born. That is why the majority of people in India are Hindu, the majoirty of people in Iraq are Muslims, and the majority of people in the US are Christian. This is the only logical way to look at things. You could have easily been raised in a different home and have been taught to believe something else. Being an atheist is just the lack of assumption on something for which there isn't the slightest shred of proof.
On the matter of the sun dancing at Fatima: this could not have taken place. If it did our planet would have been incinerated and the gavity flux would have thrown everyone out into space. These hallucinations are common among the religious. Some people who have "near death experiences" say they see different things. A lot of Catholics say they see the Virgin Mary. Some however have seen a pink elephant. Does this impress anyone? Why do different people see different mythological creatures? I doubt many Protestants have seen the Virgin Mary. There is a very fine line between thinking these things and insanity. If someone said they saw the great elf they would be institutionalized. That is unless someone makes a religion about elves someday... why not?
Take Care,
Bob
Bob at 7:22AM on Jul 20th 2007
474. Hi Bob,
Glad u came back. Dont know if you noticed but I had posted something up there too.
Michelle
Michelle at 11:48AM on Jul 24th 2007
475. Hello Michelle,
I am sorry that I neglected to respond to what you wrote in my last post. I guess I was focusing too much on Elisa's much longer post.
I think that you are woefully misinformed about what public schools teach in regards to morality. Everything in our society says that major issues of morality are either right or wrong to children very early on. Killing is a perfect example. Killing is not only wrong but it is illegal. There is not anyone who would say otherwise. Students are given guidelines that they must abide by in public schools like not engaging in violence or fights (or even cheering on people who are fighting), no public dispalys of affection (kissing and hugging), and the worst of any offense would be being found on the schools premesis with a knife or a gun or firearm of somekind. If convicted of murder in the court of law and found unremorseful one would get life in prison or the death penalty. So, society and and schools alike of course show that major issues of morality are wrong and are so wrong that if you do one of them you could ruin the rest of your life or even lose it.
These are things of course which harm other people like killing, injuring (not to the point of death), burglary/theft, etc. These are what are known as serious crimes or felonies. There are smaller degrees of crimes known as misdemeanors which do not directly harm other people or are not intentioned as sol like driving without insurance or speeding to name two very common minor crimes or misdemeanors.
So, in short, I can't believe that you were serious in saying that murder is presented as a moral optinon. Of course it is not! It is the worst felony that can be commited and is illegal throughout the whole of the United States!!!! What in the world were you talking about? Were you actually serious? You could not have been. Surely you are not that ingnorant of this most common of knowledges. It is not only said to be wrong it is the most illegal thing that you can do and the most dangerous.
So, to clarify, when I talk about values and moral options I am talking fist of all about things which do not harm anyone else like murder, theft/burglary, or physically harming someone in any other way which the whole of society condemns as not only wrong but illegal. I am talking about things that don't harm anyone like nudity, or homosexuality which don't cause anyone any harm at all. When I talk about someone else's ideas of what is right and wrong I am talking about issues that have not been condemned as wrong by the whole of society (we all agree that killing one another is no way to go about things). This is true for everyone not just me. There is infinite evidence to show why human life is special and uniqe unlike any other kind of life that we have encountered. That is why I believe it to be so precious. We are deep thinking sentient beings with deep emotional capacity and the capacity to speak and to think cognitively and reason. Something that no other living organism on this planet has aside from the human. I hope this just begins to clarify why I feel that way.
Be Well Michelle,
Bob
Bob at 9:08AM on Jul 26th 2007
476. my faith is a gift for my own good , and helps teach me to be a better neighbor ,or at least aware of others and there well being ,,,things get less complacated ....and I would still follow his teachings even if there was no Heaven,,its just a better life in the long run
gary at 5:42PM on Jul 27th 2007
477. Hi Bob,
Well, I have heard by a fairly reliable source that little children these days are taught "Values Clarification". This class teaches kids to make their own decisions with a list of different possible future endeavors. I had thought that murderor was on the list. It does not necessarily say that it is wrong, but it does not say that it is right either. But you could be right though. Here's a link in case you did not know what VC was. Though it is not very specific about which values exactally are shown as options.
http://www.allanturner.com/clarifyingvalues.html
Bob, I know homosexuality and promiscuity may not seem bad to you and perhaps I am still trying to break that "three- fold cord" as you said, but it just seems logical and reasonable that homosexuality is not natural and promiscuity is not the best way to go. There is a deep part of a person that is attatched to their sexuality and its use. When their heart gets broken and they just keep getting tossed from person they lose a part of their souls. Some people say they are committed though and they do not need a paper to prove it. But whats wrong with a big occasion that gets burned into ones conscience and makes that person feel bad if he or she leaves this person? There is a ability of the brain that is geared toward commitment for a reason.
Michelle at 5:39PM on Jul 27th 2007
478. Garry C. ,,,hate to bring up old church issues ,,,I was reading something about other schools out side the church...Congress passed a law to stop underrrported crimes ,and to warn the campus community 16 years ago after students did not learn details of a murder on campus or even that a murderer was on the loose,,At this time even after the Catholic mistakes ,,Although the the law requires colleges to report all sexual assaults ,many colleges report only those investigated by police outside ...but most all incidents are handled by college officials,sound familar?...Burglaries if something is stolen the law requires it to be reported as burglary....many colleges classify the theft as a larceny , which doesnt have to be reported ,,why isnt this exposed? because colleges and churches dont take the law seriously .They are both afraid the truth will scare off prospective students ...no wonder Eastern Mich.U. and the churches Ignored the law ,,think about it instead of self destuction everyone goes for Damage control first ....the first question is OK how do we fix this to save us ... and the temptation must be great to make it a internal crises if possible ...instead putting a knife to your own throut
gary at 6:26PM on Jul 27th 2007
479. Well Bob,
I am going to be gone this week. So you have a little more time to get back to me.
Michelle
Michelle at 10:02PM on Jul 28th 2007
480. Hello Michelle,
I looked at the site you referred me to. It appeared to be an entirely religious site. It constantly quoted scriptures in all of its weblinks and talked about Christ and God etc. It did not appear to be something taught in secualar schools.
There are univerasl morals in society Michelle, and they are written into law. These are the things that are harmful to others, thus they are not individual choices of morality. There are however, things that people choose for themselves -- these are things that do not harm others in any way and are their own business.
If someone is not robbing you, trying to kill you, or harm you or someone else in some way -- all of these things are prohibited by law. Then, they are free to make their own choices when it comes to individual choices of morality.
I am unable to make this point any clearer than I have made it. Some people feel that filling little childrens minds with images of hellfire is a sick and immoral thing to do and that it is psychological abuse. However, you are free to do that to your children regardless of what other people think. That is an individual choice of morality. You however, are not free to kill your child -- that is against the law. Do you see what I mean?
Take Care Michelle,
BOb
Bob at 11:43AM on Aug 3rd 2007