This is how the headlines might read if the media chose a different tactic when reporting on the Catholic Church. Instead, we have sensationalist headlines like "Catholic Church Reverses Teaching on Limbo." We have commentators like Fr. Richard McBrien absurdly claiming that the new document means "Baptism does not exist to wipe away the 'stain' of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church," and we see the NCR practically gloating when it reports that "God can live without limbo."
The actual document, however, tells a different story. "The theory of Limbo," it says, "remains a possible theological option." Further, Sr. Sara Butler, a member of the commission, states in an interview that "the report concludes that Limbo remains a 'possible theological opinion.' Anyone who wants to defend it is free to do so." (In an article entitled "Notion of Limbo Isn't Closed, Expert Says; Adds It's a Theological Option That Can Be Defended," Zenit provides coverage of Sr. Butler's interview.)
So one could contrive a headline that Benedict XVI has upheld limbo, but the theological and pastoral issues involved in the question of unbaptized infants don't lend themselves to headlines or sound-bites. The document itself has several troubling facets. Foremost among them is the oddity of its describing limbo as part of the sententia communis, while at the same time advocating a departure from it. Then, there are minor problems like the commission's claim that Mark 2:5 demonstrates how a person can be saved by the faith of another. In reality, the faith of the paralytic in Mark 2:5 is on display as much as the faith of his four friends: he's a conscious participant.
In any event, here's an outline of the problems associated with limbo.
First, the pastoral problem of the death of an unbaptized infant creates social pressure for priests and other Church figures because the prospect of engaging in theological speculation with bereaved parents is uncomfortable. The death of an unbaptized infant is easier to discuss in theoretical settings than in pastoral settings. ("We can't be sure" and "We have reason to hope"--the doctrinally correct explanations--aren't especially comforting assurances.) As difficult as this problem may be pastorally, though, pastoral work isn't the same as theological work, and the questions involved always require caution and prudence.
Second, as a result of the liturgical reforms after Vatican II, the new liturgy of the Church has separate funeral Masses for adults, baptized infants, and unbaptized infants. The Mass for adults prays for the soul of the deceased. The Mass for baptized infants celebrates the infant's entry to heaven. The Mass "For the Funeral of an Unbaptized Child" prays for the parents and mourners left behind, but it neither prays for the dead child nor celebrates the child's entry to heaven. The reason is that because of baptism's necessity for salvation, the Church doesn't have the authority to determine with certainty what happens to a child who dies without baptism. The Theological Commission re-affirms this fact.
Third, the Theological Commission, according to Sr. Butler, has departed from Augustine on unbaptized infants by making its starting point "God's universal saving will" in contrast to Augustine's emphasis on the necessity of baptism. It's worth pointing out that "God's universal saving will" has never been formally defined by the Church, but the necessity of baptism has. While both doctrines are required of Catholics, these respective "starting points" don't have equivalent doctrinal development. The force of promulgated dogma stands in support of the teaching of the necessity of baptism. The doctrine of God's universal saving will is accepted as doctrine by inference from Revelation and defined dogma. It hasn't been formally defined that God wills the salvation of all. In pointing to the source of that dogma, the Congregation for Divine Worship has recently referred to the "for all" (in the phrase "which will be shed for you and for all" of the consecration) as "a correct interpretation of the Lord's intention expressed in the text." In other words, while not formally defined, it follows from Revelation. In the same document, the Congregation nevertheless has ordered that future translations of the Mass discontinue translating pro multis as "for all" and render it as "for many." By this digression, I mean to point out that what we know is equivalent neither to how we know it nor to what extent we know it. So it isn't true that two dogmatically certain "starting points" will necessarily provide equal foundations on which to build more speculative theology. Further, Sr. Butler's implication that two different dogmatic "starting points" lead to opposite theological conclusions has validity only if one accepts that the subsequent conclusions will always be relative, not definitive. In this case, however, the methodology then appears to take the speculative conclusion as its starting point, ascending from there to a convenient supporting dogma. This is what the Theological Commission seems to have done.
Finally, there's a reluctance today to place the goals of Christ's sacrifice in their proper order. The primary purpose of Christ's sacrifice is to propitiate God in recompense for the offense of Adam. The secondary purpose is to provide humanity with a way of salvation. The importance of this order is that the propitiation of God is at the fore of Christ's sacrifice. Consequently, the fulfillment of Christ's primary purpose doesn't depend on the number of the elect or on the relative ease or difficulty of our attaining salvation. The latter accomplishment flows from the first and depends on it. In today's theology, however, ends which relate to man often receive more attention than ends which relate to God.
