The State of Limbo in Catholic Teaching

The State of Limbo in Catholic Teaching May 21, 2018

memorial to the unborn statue

A few days ago, during a discussion on Facebook about infant baptism, I read a comment along the lines of, “I had no idea that Limbo had been repealed and was no longer doctrine!”

I explained that Limbo never had been doctrine in the first place, but that only lead to more confusion. As a result, I decided to create this post as a way to lay out the facts for easier reference.

Limbo is (allegedly) a state in which one is not in heaven because of original sin, but not in Hell due to a lack of personal sin. It’s most often that unborn children lost to miscarriage or abortion, or born-but-unbaptized children who died, in this category.

This issue first arose in the Church in the 5th century, when St. Augustine was countering the Pelagian heresies. He did not ascribe to the Pelagian belief that all children were automatically saved by God, but he also could not reconcile the damnation of innocents to a loving and merciful God. He conceived the theory of Limbo, and it became widely held by the Church for the next several hundred years.

Unfortunately, the common belief among Protestants and other non-Catholics seems to be that that the theory of Limbo was official and/or infallible doctrine taught by the Church. This misconception became fodder for misleading headlines when, in 2007, Pope Benedict XVI authorized the publication of The Hope of Salvation For Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised (or, as most non-Catholic news sources called it, “The Pope Throws Out Limbo”).

This document, originally commissioned by Pope John Paul II, was a work of the advisory body known as the International Theological Commission.

It emphasized that Limbo is and was only ever theological speculation:

…[t]his theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis…

Since it is a possible theological hypothesis, it is one that Catholics may hold without being in conflict with Church teaching.

Similarly, Catholics may also freely disbelieve in the hypothesis of limbo, and in fact many theologians have done so, as author Scott Eric Alt notes in his article “4 Reasons I Do Not Believe in the Limbo of Infants.”

However, the belief that unbaptized children may have a means of salvation is not a recent development of doctrine in the Catholic Church. One of the great Doctors of the Church, St. Thomas Aquinas, wrote in his Summa Theologica:

Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.

In other words, it is possible for God to transmit sanctifying grace to unborn children, perhaps at the moment of death. Baptism is the ordinary means of salvation, but God is not limited by His own sacraments and can sometimes grant salvation through extraordinary means (the good thief at Calvary is one possible example of extraordinary means of salvation).

I agree with St. Thomas Aquinas. Limbo seems inherently illogical to me. It doesn’t make sense that a just God would punish parents like me, who earnestly desired baptism for their child, because we did not do the impossible (baptize our children while they were still in the womb).

If God had provided a way to baptize unborn children, that would be one thing, but He did not. Thus, our children did not, per the Church, have any possible access to the ordinary means of salvation prior to their deaths. If God will grant salvation to those who, through no fault of their own, did not know Christ, it seems logical that He would also grant salvation to the children of parents who, through no fault of their own, were unable to request baptism for them.

In sum, the ITC document teaches: “…there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation.”

This is not to say that baptism is at all superfluous or unnecessary:

None of the considerations proposed in this text to motivate a new approach to the question may be used to negate the necessity of baptism, nor to delay the conferral of the sacrament. Rather, there are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible to do for them that what would have been most desirable—to baptize them in the faith of the Church and incorporate them visibly into the Body of Christ (emphasis mine).

As the mother of four miscarried children, I trust in God’s mercy regarding the fate of their souls. I find the alleged words of St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who wrote to a couple that had suffered a miscarriage, especially comforting:

Your faith spoke for this child. Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. Your faith suffices. The waters of your womb — were they not the waters of life for this child? Look at your tears. Are they not like the waters of baptism? Do not fear this. God’s ability to love is greater than our fears. Surrender everything to God.


Photo credit: Corey Coyle [CC BY 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • ADG

    Thank you for this. Our first child unexpectedly died in utero at full gestation, the day before a planned labor induction. I’ve never had any doubt about his salvation and must say that we received only support and affirmation from our Church and clergy.

  • I’m so sorry for your loss.

  • This was excellent and very informative. And the quote from St. Bernard was a perfect and touching ending. Thank you.

  • My sympathies. May you be reunited in heaven.

  • Ulf Turkewitsch

    What is so bad about leaving the eventual fate of unborn children in the hands of God? Do we trust Him or not?

  • Judgeforyourself37

    I am so sorry for the loss of your dear, wanted, hoped for baby.
    As you grieve your loss I am relieved that you will not have to feel that your dear baby is not in heaven, he is there.

  • Judgeforyourself37

    I am a 81 year old Protestant and a retired RN.
    Years ago, as a young nurse, I baptized several babies who were either stillborn or died shortly after birth, usually due to prematurity.
    Some of these babies were born to Catholic moms but the mom did not care that I, a Protestant baptized their dear child. If a priest was not available they were comforted that their child would not have to be restricted to “limbo.”

  • Judgeforyourself37

    That sounds so cold. Perhaps you have never lost a child. Granted, perhaps if the child had severe anomalies, it was a blessing in disguise.
    If a sudden event, such as an umbilical cord around the child’s neck causing sudden anoxia, abruptio placenta (where the placenta suddenly separates prior to the birth which would lead to anoxia) it is an emergency and if a C-Section is not immediately done the child will suffer lasting brain damage. Sometimes even then that C-Section too late, causing Cerebral Palsy, severe developmental delays due to the lack of O2 to the child’s brain.

  • Ulf Turkewitsch

    My comment was not intended to be cold. I think that this is the simplest way to think about the terrible situation like the loss of a child. We must remember that limbo is not a Catholic teaching. So we just dont know. And making up something just to make us feel better has been VERY wrong, as the past has shown us in history. I am referring to the problem of slavery. I hope that you are aware of how that period on history eventually was resolved. What we as a society think about slavery now is the exact opposite of what society thought 150 years ago. There is a lot of info on this from a religious perspective on the web, or on Wikipedia. Check it out.

  • Chari McCauley

    That sounds so cold.
    Why? Is The Father a “god” of love and mercy or not?
    Why do we overide His decisions for Him?

    I, as a “mistake” of the young would like to know. Do you know how many children KNOW that they are just an obligation, but not loved? Some of us get told as much. Or,…despite what some parents would like to think…we CAN and DO hear the arguements that YOU THINK are kept behind closed doors….

    And, we were the kids “lucky” enough NOT to be socked away to an (a stranger’s care) orphanage,…hoping….to be adopted by a family (some other stranger’s care) who is not abusive…

    Does The Father love His kids, or not?

    Has He been a Parent longer, or not?

    Can love love eternal pain?

  • Gallibus

    Nevertheless….when Our Lady was appearing in Theriot in Louisiana towards the latter part of the last century, someone had gifted one of the visionaries, Claire Rose, with a wristlet rosary. Reportedly, Our Lady blessed that rosary and said that “for every rosary said on that little rosary a little soul would be released from Limbo.” This made a deep impression on me. A priest I spoke to about this protested, “But she can’t do that!” I replied that Our Lady is Queen of Heaven and if she said that could happen then I believe her. Clearly, Our Lady has no problem with the concept of Limbo. Since Jesus and Mary are the TWO WITNESSES of our days, (who stamp out heresy by their witnessing to the truth) I think Our Lady is trying to tell us something here. I have not visited that website for many years but it was something like dwp/ if I remember it correctly. But records are copious and I warn you, it will take a lot of reading to get to that particular quote. At the very least, Our Lady’s statement gives us hope and encourages us to pray for these little souls.