Maybe. An international theological commission is reportedly slated to advise Pope Benedict to abolish the notion of limbo – that place which is neither heaven nor hell, but has souls waiting in, well, limbo. Before his death, Pope John Paul asked the commission to consider the sticky issue of limbo, requesting “a more coherent and enlightened way” of describing the fate of innocents. I realize this is not the appropriate reaction, but I was highly amused after seeing this article.
Limbo is officialy designated for the poor souls of infants who die before being baptized, or the poor souls of others who die without grievous personal sin. They are not admitted to heaven, as they have never been forgiven for the original sin. This got me wondering – just what constitutes grievous personal sin anyway? Catholics are supposed to go to confession, reasonably often, to own up to their sins. Even if we don’t murder, rape, or pillage, we still commit sins. I would hope that normal everyday type of sins are not considered grievous, otherwise the poor souls of an awful lot of us are condemned to hell. Surely the poor soul of the Sherpa that lives on top of a mountain in Tibet and has never heard of Catholicism gets to go to limbo. I am showing my religious ignorance here, but I would bet the fate of such souls differs, depending on who is pondering the notion. Thanks to the teachings of the church, some people probably believe that unconfessed normal everyday sins are a direct passage to hell.
This begs more questions….If limbo disappears, what happens to all the poor souls that are already there? And while I’m asking, isn’t it up to “God” to decide where all the poor souls go? I really had no idea such a decision could be made by a committee. I can’t wait to see what they have come up with.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:05 pm
Many sins are considered “mortal sins”, in that any one, individually, immediately removes your salvation until confessed and absolved. In particular, all sexual sins are mortal, including use of artificial birth control. This is why the Vatican is so dead-set against condom usage even to prevent death, since condom usage = birth control = sexual sin = eternal damnation >> a lingering painful death here on Earth. Looked at in the proper coordinate system, it makes perfect sense.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:18 pm
Christians die, then their souls burn in Hell for all eternity. Everybody else just dies. Fair is fair.
What happened to all those sinners who ate meat on Friday before the One True Church withdrew from piscene encyclicals? Did they get issued a Get out of Hell for Free card? What kind of credit did they earn for time served?
“…so I was swimming in this burning lake of blood and it occured to me – it’s like a Jacuzzi except it doesn’t smell of hypochlorite. Or maybe like fondue including the forks. At least there aren’t any Jews in the pool. They all drink milk before dying and it wouldn’t be kosher. Professional courtesy and all that. ”
Note: I deleted 2 links at the end of this comment – they were not terribly relevant and resulted in ~20,000 pop-ups that got past the SLAC firewall. -JoAnne
December 1st, 2005 at 5:55 pm
Robert, Just as I suspected – most of us are condemned to hell….but does that include the Sherpa?
JoAnne (the Red)
December 1st, 2005 at 6:16 pm
George Carlin explored a couple of your questions on the album “Class Clown” back in the 70′s. (The album also features the essential “7 Dirty Words” routine.)
December 1st, 2005 at 6:51 pm
Kind of like Einstein’s theory of gravity vs Newton’s. Prior to GR Mercury did not know how to orbit properly and was therefore committing sin (albeit a small 574 arcsecond sin). Once GR came along Mercury did not change it’s orbit but was no longer “sinning”. Therefore sinners are no longer sinners and must get a get out of hell free card because the church has come up with a new Theory of Sin.
Simple.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:02 pm
My understanding is that limbo was always more theoretical than doctrinal, the solution for the problem of people who didn’t seem to deserve to go to hell (including tiny babies and “virtuous pagans”), but had not been baptised. Dante situated limbo in the first circle of hell, but it’s not a place of torment — the main drawback is that it isn’t heaven, and the folks in limbo have no hope of seeing God. Dante’s limbo is a decent enough place, especially if your idea of a good time is a long, cosy chat with Homer or Ovid (or, of course, Virgil).
Then there’s purgatory — the chance to atone for sins after death. Not sure what the church currently teaches on that subject.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:32 pm
Hmmm, since there are only a finite number of souls possible, why hasn’t God created all of them and placed them in the appropriate place (Heaven, Hell or Limbo) ?
December 1st, 2005 at 7:54 pm
original sin and limbo are both Roman Catholic inventions. Orthodox Christians don’t have this particular problem..
Wikipedia says: “Saint Thomas Aquinas described the limbo of children as an eternal state of natural joy, untempered by any sense of loss at how much greater their joy might have been — a supernatural joy — had they been baptized.”
I’d settle for eternal natural joy, I confess.
December 1st, 2005 at 7:58 pm
I have to admit, I simply cannot comprehend JoAnne’s mindset here. There is some seriously weird cognitive dissonance going on here.
On the one hand you are willing to admit that the whole thing, the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, makes little moral or rational sense. What about minor sins? What about kids who die during childbirth? What about the mentally retarded? What about those who died before 0AD? What about the Sherpas?
On the other hand, rather than drawing the clear rational interpretation — if the whole thing makes no sense, then it is clearly nonsense — you try to go in for some sort of “Well, it all makes sense in the eyes of god or the the pope”.
How can you honestly consider yourself to be a serious scientist when, confronted with a situation that makes no rational sense, your response is not to point out that the emperor has no clothes, but rather to go along happily with the statements of those in authority of “Don’t worry your pretty little head about matters that are beyond your ken, just accept that your superiors know what they are doing”?
December 1st, 2005 at 8:09 pm
JoAnne wrote,
Just as scientific knowledge is dependent upon the epistemology of science, the scientific method, so also spiritual knowledge is dependent upon the epistemology of spirituality, obedience to the will of God. As Jesus put it, according to the testament of John: “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” Just as many people arrive at false and naïve scientific conclusions, because they are ignorant of, or for some reason choose to disregard, the proper scientific epistemology, so too many false and naïve ideas regarding Christian doctrine abound, because people do not follow the proper path that leads to spiritual knowledge, for one reason or another. To know if a given teaching of Christ’s is true or not, one must first seek to do the will of the Father, as Christ teaches.
Of course, Christ never taught many of the doctrines of modern Christianity that lead to enigmas, contradictions, and absurdities, and this concept of “limbo” is one of them. The need for infant baptism is another. Here are the words of Christ on the matter, but again, the only way to know of their truth is “to do his will,” as he says:
This is the Christian doctrine, but it’s strong stuff. Who can bear it?
Doug
December 1st, 2005 at 8:09 pm
Maynard, you really need to learn to read carefully. JoAnne is taking the piss, as we say in England. Do you really think she thinks it all makes sense, but is confused by this little quirk? Your eagerness to jump all over her without taking time to think that this might be what she meant shows extremely poor manners, or perhaps just a naturally poor level of reading comprehsnsion.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:12 pm
Maynard,
I think you took my last paragraph a little too literally. Go back and read it again.
The entire post, but especially the last paragraph, is dripping with sarcasm in the hope of pointing out the irrational nature of the framework of organized religion. And, in fact, I believe I did point out that the emperor has no clothes, by questioning how a committee of humans could possibly decide the fate of souls. I would think even someone who believes in religion and “God” should find that puzzling.
BTW, I am quite curious to hear the final conclusion of this theological commission. This whole thing is so ridiculous that it’s got to be hilarious!
December 1st, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Thanks, Mark.
Now, may I request that there be no further comments containing long biblical quotes? Thank you.
December 1st, 2005 at 8:18 pm
I am the Resurrection and the Life of the Party…..
“Jesus: “He who believeth on me shall live forever, though he die. And he that liveth in me and believeth, shall never die. But he that dieth in me and liveth, shall never believe. Meanwhile, he who dieth and believeth, shall never live; but he who liveth, dieth, and believeth, shall do all of the above. However he who pretendeth to die and believeth on me, shall probably live. But he who pretendeth to believe shall neither
live nor die. Any questions?”
December 1st, 2005 at 9:19 pm
Man, without Limbo I’m in trouble. Masquerading as a virtuous heathen was just about my only chance. Now it’s the Sixth Circle (heretics) for me for sure. At least according to this web page. And when has the Inter Net been wrong?
December 1st, 2005 at 9:50 pm
It’s about time, your god is way too forgiving, if you want to scare people you need a more vengeful god. Try the old testament if you want to test your disbelief.
December 1st, 2005 at 9:54 pm
I’m at Level 2 – Lustful – with a very high rating….although I also scored high on Level 6 (maybe I’ll run into ya Sean) and Level 1 – Limbo! Oh no – if they do away with Limbo I’m doomed to Level 2 or 6!
December 1st, 2005 at 10:07 pm
Welcome JoAnne and Sean. I’ve been waiting for you to arrive. Have a seat. May I pour you a drink?
December 1st, 2005 at 10:35 pm
Well, at least this human committee deciding the fate of dead souls is indulging in a mostly harmless, if irrational exercise. How about those actively persuading others that blowing themselves with maximum damage to the surroundings is a sure path to heaven?
December 1st, 2005 at 10:54 pm
“If anyone says that I ain’t divine
He’ll get no free drinks when *I’m* making the wine
But have to drink water — and wish it were “plain”
That I make when the wine becomes water again….”
December 1st, 2005 at 11:43 pm
”
How about those actively persuading others that blowing themselves with maximum damage to the surroundings is a sure path to heaven?
”
While we’re slagging religions, how about those actively persuading others that contraception is a sure path to hell? Yes, catholicism and US evangelicals, I’m talking about you, though as far as I can this sort of lunacy is also common in the muslim world and even among the nuttier fringes of judaism.
IMHO overpopulation and the resultant consequences have already been and will in the future be a source of way more human misery than suicide bombers.
Good to hear, JoAnne, that you view this whole issue for the farce that it is, but clearly, IMHO, you offer them far too much respect in how you phrased the article.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:58 pm
Remember, Dante was just freelancing when he came up with the whole circles of hell idea — it’s not Catholic doctrine. Just be grateful you’re not a Guelf. Or is it a Ghibbilene?
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:04 am
As for the theological question, how can a human committee change the rules, that’s pretty easy for any trained theologist (unfortunately I happened to be one). See, hell and heaven are just vague metaphors we humans use to explain the working of god that are too mysterious for us to comprehend. Every now and then those explanations may need changing (e.g when people stop being terrified at the old metaphors), but the rules are unchangable. Pretty slick, eh?
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:15 am
Doug K, I’m not sure what you mean by “Orthodox Christians.” If you mean Eastern Orthodox, you may be right. If you mean fundamentalists then you’re really misusing the term.
When I converted, my priest said that the Church doesn’t really blame those who have never heard of Jesus.
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:20 am
This is a test.
Moderation, to express a thought about limbo?
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:26 am
let me apologize beforehand. I’m sorry I just couldn’t help myself
Every Limbo boy and girl
All around the Limbo world
Gonna do the Limbo Rock
All around the Limbo clock
Jack be nimble, Jack be quick
Jack go under Limbo stick
All around the Limbo clock
Hey, let’s do the Limbo Rock!
First you spread your Limbo feet
Then you move to Limbo beat
Limbo ankle, Limbo knee
Spread out like a Limbo tree
Here we go!
Elliot
December 2nd, 2005 at 12:28 am
Okay, so not in religion.
Being raised a catholic, even I have a hard time with the thinking.
Moshe being presented with the option of going to hell was always afrightening perspective as a Child, so I guess it makes some feel better that those who didn’t enter the reality here, are forgiven for haven’t been tarnished in some way? Nice of them wouldn’t you say?
What about reincarnation then? As atheist Sean, would this fall under the same heading of God?
December 2nd, 2005 at 1:11 am
Thank you Mark, I’ll take a nice glass of Zinfandel. Sean probably would prefer a Martini. Good to see you again! How long until we see Clifford??
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:16 am
Do you think science and logic represent the pinnacle of human understanding? This question in the the link in Sean’s post explains everything.
No wonder Bush is trying to stop scientific research. What, with limbo gone, all of us in the siences will land up in hell proper. We ought to be thankful.
For those with trouble in discerning sarcasm, yes, I’m being totally serious, just like JoAnne
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:36 am
I don’t know much about this stuff; might it be the case that God knows a priori who is bound for the hot house and the church thrashes about trying to discern who is on this list. Any mistakes made in these earthly divinations of the Divine Will will be as naught to those already ensconced in Elysium, in contravention of the earth-bound view of the gravtiy of their sins that prevailed at the time of their demise.
December 2nd, 2005 at 2:56 am
They are? Well, as of this moment, they’re on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION!
Dean Wormer – Animal House
December 2nd, 2005 at 3:31 am
Growing up in a fundamentalist Christian home, I was taught that:
1. Everyone is born with the original sin, and will go to hell if they do not accept Jesus as their personal saviour.
2. In the eyes of God all sins count equally, i e by committing them you deserve hell.
3. Even if someone accepts Jesus, they will go to hell if they committed the so-called spiritual sin, sin against the Holy Ghost.
We have had many earthly leaders who lead societies in which people who do not believe their dogma or are not among the chosen few, are sent to Siberia or to concentration camps. Christians believe that something rather similar are happening on an eternal scale, and they are willing to follow a God who will enforce this scheme. I think they most often don’t see the seriousness of it, because even to believers, it does seem quite unreal, supposedly happening after death and so on, but if you think about it, it is a very scary – not just a silly and unproven – world view.
December 2nd, 2005 at 8:26 am
Oh my God… (oops…there I go, sinning again). I’m going to the Seventh Circle! Even if Mark were to give me a drink as I pass you guys on the way there, it’s so hot that far in it would all boil away. ;(
December 2nd, 2005 at 8:30 am
….how about we just stay “real” as to the consequences of our actions?
That we never recognized how far reaching this could have been implicated beyond the confines of causal order? That it might have a deeper connection to karmic ties? That what was once spooky to einstein, has now amazing entangling properties
“Like winning the lottey and getting hit by a car.” Then making a list to making amends ( what’s the name of the TV series escapes me right now)
The “Limbo Religion” tried to take care of this, but has failed:) A 538 AD constanople thingy I think?
December 2nd, 2005 at 3:26 pm
Uncle Al drinks like a Catholic…
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:15 am
JoAnne –
The RC Church believes some words of Jesus: “Whatever is bound on earth is bound in Heaven, whatever is loosed on earth is loosed in Heaven.” So this is how a human committee, rather than God, can decide what metaphysical entities do or do not exist.
This belief in the ultimate authority of man over God would enable all manner of adjustments to official RC belief (eg, over contraception, women priests, etc) if only anyone in charge was minded to use it.
December 3rd, 2005 at 11:56 am
I have a friend who’s studying to be a Catholic theologian, and he tells me that it is an open question in Catholic theology as to whether anyone is in hell. As I understand it, there are two competing interpretations: a) Christians who sincerely repent do not go to hell (confession is a method of repenting, but not strictly necessary) and Christians and non-Christians who commit sins that they do not understand are sins do not go to hell. The only way to go to hell would be to do something you deliberately know is wrong, and not repent it afterwards. b) Virtuous non-Christians go to hell, but hell for them is not that bad (a la Dante). One notion is that Hell is not in itself a punishment, just not being in the presence of God after you die.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:29 pm
I wonder how the public perception of Catholicism is affected by a change in its doctrines? My guess is that the Church is held in less esteem.
How, then, can the public perception of Physics not be similarly affected by the inevitable changes in its “doctrines”?
Interestingly, it seems that inflexibility might be widely perceived as a virtue in religion and a vice in science.
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Belizean,
They’d have a long way to go from the archaic, to present day solutions. This doesn’t dis-avow good thinking intelligence amongst the hierarchy, but there is a class distinction that has to be upheld?
What needs to be upheld in science is and has been tried and tested, and is open to theoretcial idealizations as long as they issue from some “guiding principal.”
There is a lot of room here in terms of definitions of what might behind the creations in terms of a God, right from atheistic as Sean teaches to some guiding principal behind the matter consolidations and buddhist teaching about responsibility?
Who said one couldn’t learn when they had applied thinking, but from the class distinction of religiousness of the Catholic system, how could you compare?
December 3rd, 2005 at 2:55 pm
Science is not inflexible or flexible. It is a process whereby ideas about how reality work are continually tested against that reality in a feedback loop.