On Limbo and the ITC Document "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Died Without Being Baptized:"
I think from a close reading of the conclusion of the ITC document that it actually turns out to be a much more conservative document than most frame it as being and more frequently condemns those who wish to use it to assert their opinion on the existence of Limbo.
While, throughout the document, it mentions its intention to relegate "limbo" to theological opinion, interestingly enough, this is now what it does throughout the document. Perhaps there was a lack of clarity, maybe the phrase was used colloquially, but, if we seek to understand what the document is actually saying (rather than looking for phrases), we see that the thesis it is actually putting forward is somewhat of a development within the doctrine of limbo than any departure.
I will phrase the thesis thus, "from the ordinary status of an unbaptized infant, we ought to rightly conclude that they will not enter the beatific vision, yet, we may hope that God will grant them grace in an extraordinary way."
Think of it will the "dare we hope?" thesis, yet, applied to infants. Those who affirm "dare we hope?" (which I do not) do not deny hell, neither do they assert that they can have certainty that it will be empty, but they "hope" that it will be.
Likewise, the ITC document (despite what the language may seem like at times) is not denying limbo, neither is it asserting that they can have certainty that limbo is empty, but they "hope" that those who otherwise would head there (unbaptized infants) will not head there, and they give reasons for why this would be fitting (they do not give reasons for why it "WILL" happen, but reasons for why it would be fitting if it did).
This interpretation is most in line with the text of the document and the CCC.
The conclusion reads "Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us."
First, notice that the grounds are a "grounds of hope." They seem to be articulating a new dimension to the teaching on limbo, i.e., we have good reason to hope that none go there, rather than overturning the teaching.
In an earlier place they describe their goal: "in order to account for the hope that infants dying without Baptism could enjoy eternal life in the beatific vision." (41)
It is important to note that to "hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants" is not at all in formal contradiction to the traditional teaching on limbo. In fact, to hope for such seems like an obvious disposition to have.
Second, notice that it rejects the view of many anti-limbo proponents, i.e., that we have "grounds for sure knowledge."
In another place: "It must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die." (79)
It is also interesting to see how the document interprets previous magisterial teaching on limbo, always deferring to the idea that it does not necessitate that unbaptized infants will be there, but only that they WOULD be there if they died in original sin (c.f., 37).
This interpretation is in line with what the CCC says on this issue, holding:
The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude (1257)
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments (ibid.)
“As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God….the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved…allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” (1261)
I think from a close reading of the conclusion of the ITC document that it actually turns out to be a much more conservative document than most frame it as being and more frequently condemns those who wish to use it to assert their opinion on the existence of Limbo.
While, throughout the document, it mentions its intention to relegate "limbo" to theological opinion, interestingly enough, this is now what it does throughout the document. Perhaps there was a lack of clarity, maybe the phrase was used colloquially, but, if we seek to understand what the document is actually saying (rather than looking for phrases), we see that the thesis it is actually putting forward is somewhat of a development within the doctrine of limbo than any departure.
I will phrase the thesis thus, "from the ordinary status of an unbaptized infant, we ought to rightly conclude that they will not enter the beatific vision, yet, we may hope that God will grant them grace in an extraordinary way."
Think of it will the "dare we hope?" thesis, yet, applied to infants. Those who affirm "dare we hope?" (which I do not) do not deny hell, neither do they assert that they can have certainty that it will be empty, but they "hope" that it will be.
Likewise, the ITC document (despite what the language may seem like at times) is not denying limbo, neither is it asserting that they can have certainty that limbo is empty, but they "hope" that those who otherwise would head there (unbaptized infants) will not head there, and they give reasons for why this would be fitting (they do not give reasons for why it "WILL" happen, but reasons for why it would be fitting if it did).
This interpretation is most in line with the text of the document and the CCC.
The conclusion reads "Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us."
First, notice that the grounds are a "grounds of hope." They seem to be articulating a new dimension to the teaching on limbo, i.e., we have good reason to hope that none go there, rather than overturning the teaching.
In an earlier place they describe their goal: "in order to account for the hope that infants dying without Baptism could enjoy eternal life in the beatific vision." (41)
It is important to note that to "hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants" is not at all in formal contradiction to the traditional teaching on limbo. In fact, to hope for such seems like an obvious disposition to have.
Second, notice that it rejects the view of many anti-limbo proponents, i.e., that we have "grounds for sure knowledge."
In another place: "It must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die." (79)
It is also interesting to see how the document interprets previous magisterial teaching on limbo, always deferring to the idea that it does not necessitate that unbaptized infants will be there, but only that they WOULD be there if they died in original sin (c.f., 37).
This interpretation is in line with what the CCC says on this issue, holding:
The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude (1257)
God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments (ibid.)
“As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God….the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved…allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” (1261)