So I just can’t help thinking about the topic of limbo without humming that catchy tune…and now it is stuck in my head…so here is a link.[1]  May it haunt you the way it haunts me!  In fact, I think it should be required listening in the background when reading this post!  hahaha

But on a more serious note, if we are going to talk about Jack and the state of his immortal soul, we first have to figure out when Jack lived and (generally) how old he was.  Wait…huh?  You thought limbo was just for unbaptized babies didn’t you!  Well, the answer is both yes and no.

First of all, there is no “official” church teaching about limbo.  The concept has arisen and has been passed down based on theological speculation.  For that reason, you can choose to believe in limbo or choose to believe[2] that limbo does not exist, well at least the limbo relating to infants.[3]

Back to the idea at hand, the concept of limbo swirls around the question of what happens to people that die in original sin but, apart from that, die without any personal sin.  The people that die in this condition are typically categorized into two groups: (1) the fathers of the faith that died before Jesus made redemption possible and (2) unbaptized babies.

The limbo of the fathers (also called Limbus Patrum) is a name coined by medieval theologians when speaking about a certain outer portion of hell.  Typically, those theologians agreed that the limbo of the fathers was a temporary place that allowed the souls present therein to be in a generally happy condition, but not in the eternal bliss of Heaven.  The limbo of the fathers is also thought to be replaced by a condition of final and permanent bliss after a Messianic Kingdom is established.[4]

In the New Testament, the limbo of the fathers is described  in many different ways.  For example, it is described as a banquet[5], a marriage feast[6], the bosom of Abraham[7], paradise[8], the lowers parts of the earth[9], and even as prison[10]. In addition, this idea was taught by Clement of Alexandria.[11]

So if Jack died a long time ago…and did so without any serious sin…then maybe he is still in Abraham’s stomach…or bosom…or whatever that word means…or maybe he is sitting at a table at an eternal wedding feast.  Oh goodness…if that’s true, I hope that silly limbo song is not playing over, and over, and over….Maybe prison would be better than that!  Maybe not.*

Ok, so back to Jack…what if Jack was a baby?  The limbo of infants (i.e., unbaptized babies) is also called Limbus Infantium.  This concept is, in essence, a hypothesis about what happens to unbaptized babies who do not have any personal sin but who were not yet freed from original sin. There is no definite statement about this type of limbo made in the New Testament.  However, if we look to John 3:5, we see that Jesus says we must be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.  In addition, in Romans 5:12, St. Paul teaches that men are born into the world in a state of sin (and thus would then need baptism and rebirth).  Similarly, Scripture and Tradition teach that the methods of rebirth and regeneration are not available after death such that those people who are not reborn are forever excluded from the beatific vision.[12]

In olden times, the Council of Florence stated that baptism was necessary even for children[13], which basically affirmed the previous teachings of the Council of Carthage that took place in the year 417.  In addition, the Council of Florence stated that those people who die in the state of original sin go to hell.

However, over time, Catholic opinion has clearly developed that unbaptized children are not sent to a place of suffering.[14]  To that end, some theologians hypothesize that the limbo of infants is a place of maximum natural happiness.  Other theologians hypothesize that this limbo is a place of least possible punishment.

In fact, in 1980, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated that we must entrust unbaptized babies to the mercy of God.[15]  Then, in 1992, the Catechism affirmed that while the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism to assure salvation, God is not bound by the sacraments.[16]  Even more recently, in a document entitled “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized” the International Theological Commission opines that Heaven may be possible for unbaptized babies.[17]

So all that said, maybe it doesn’t really matter how old Jack is/was or when he lived.  We can be fairly certain (if we want to believe) that Jack is experiencing eternal happiness.

So the next time you see a limbo stick or hear that….song….maybe you will think of Jack and wonder just where he went…

This week’s entry is from the very smart and talented Ms. Giroux…enjoy…

———-

Truth is real and accessible to anyone who cares enough to look for it.  However, sometimes the truth, even though accessible, can be hard to comprehend.  Nevertheless, we are all called to spread the truth and to let the world know that the truth is not just a something but a somebody.

In today’s world of misleading headlines and social media, where anybody can proclaim their perception of truth, whatever is most captivating and presented with the most style is often considered the “truth.”  Regardless of the credibility of the message, the most convincing speaker always seems to win.  But before you bite my head off for sounding like a relativist, I am not saying that the truth changes.  What people perceive to be the truth can change, from person to person.  To clarify, we are not talking about whether Taco Bell is the best fast food chain. I don’t think there is any objective and unchanging truth in the answer to that question.  No, instead, in this post, we are talking about the Truth himself…the truth of the Gospel.  There is no “maybe” or “depends on who you ask” element to this Truth.  This Truth is eternal, unchanging, and solid rock upon which we are all called to base our lives.  However, how that Truth is expressed does really depend on who you ask…and thats not necessarily a bad thing!

First lets start with the question of why do you have faith (i.e., why do you believe in the Truth)? Different people say different things.  Some people say “God is the only logical explanation to life.” Other people say “I feel the presence of God in my life.” Still others say “The intimate relationship I have with Jesus is more real than any human interaction.”  Even others say “If there is no God, how can science explain this, that, or the next thing?”

What is clear is that there are many different reasons for each of us to have our faith.  In the same way, the Truth can be expressed in many different ways to many different people without watering it down or changing it.  Ultimately, all Christians understand God to be the way, the truth, and the light, because that is what He said.  But why are there so many different reasons for faith, if all faith is the same way, truth, and light?  If He is the way, the truth, and the light then why are there people who don’t believe?

God knows each of us, individually.  He knows how to communicate His truth to every man, woman and child.  He knows what we need and what we are capable of understanding.  He knows everything about us.  If God didn’t know us, He could not have revealed Himself to us in the different ways that He has throughout history.

Maybe think of it this way…when you want to invite a multitude of people to an event, is there a universal form of communication that works for everyone? Nope.  Some people use Facebook, Twitter, email, texting, and some people don’t have any of those so you can only mail them a letter or go visit.  Regardless of how we communicate, we all want that personal invitation.  God knows that if he emails someone like my mom or sends a text to someone like my dad, they will not receive the invitation.  He communicates with each of us in the best way for us…because he knows us better than we know ourselves.  In the same way, we are called to spread the Truth to the world in the best way that we know how…and that way may change from person to person or group to group.

There are many different ways in which God expresses His love for us.  To name just a few, we think of creation, scripture, Tradition (oral and written), consolation, desolation, other people, the Cross of Christ, life circumstances, etc…  The list goes on.  God knows you.  He knows how to get the message to you. Faith stories all have similarities but there are no two alike.  This is one of the many ways that show how intimate our relationship is with our Creator.  God uses different instruments or forms of communication to show His love, grace, and existence to different people.  As followers of Christ, we play a vital role in this line of communication between God and man.

We are those instruments.  The mission of the Church is to spread the good news and to share the Gospel.  It is our duty to share what we have been blessed with, the truth.  When you think about a musical instrument, different people play different instruments and reach different audiences.  God has blessed each of us with a distinct set of gifts, but as a Church we have the ability to reach the entire world.

You may be familiar with the phrase, “You will be the only Bible some people ever read.”  This concept can be quite frightening when we look back each day and think that the people we interacted with may have only had one opportunity to meet Christ and it was through us.  Is that a little too much pressure?  Maybe.  But why should we have to make the effort when nobody wants to have anything to do with God?  They have just as easy access as we do to the Gospel.  Why is it up to us?

We are Catholic and have the fullness of the truth which makes it is easy for us to keep it to ourselves.  The world not wanting anything to do with Christianity makes it even easier to keep it to ourselves.  Why should we come out of our comfort zones when nobody really cares?  Jesus said so, that’s why! (Check out the Bible if you don’t believe me.)  Some people will not accept the Gospel; this is where trust becomes essential.  When you are trying to introduce someone to a friend, Jesus Christ, you cannot force them to like Him or accept Him. That is between them and God.  It is our duty to bring the love of God to our neighbor.  The only thing we are required to do is to love.  We love them by sharing the Gospel with them.  But we should try and share the Truth with them in the way that they can best understand it.  It will do no good to try to explain the Truth to someone in a foreign language or using foreign concepts.

To share a message, you need to know the message and your audience.  To share the Gospel with the world, we need to know the Gospel and the world.  Without knowing either, evangelization is not possible.  Nobody is going to listen to a complete stranger.

God reveals Himself to us individually. We have been blessed with the grace to recognize the truth.  Thanks be to God, the truth has set us free and we are free to love.  As inconvenient and challenging it can be, it is our duty to love our neighbor.  Loving our neighbor consists in revealing to them their dignity, self-worth, and purpose in life – happiness.  However, we are called to this in a way that they can best understand.

In the end, it is our duty to spread the Gospel of truth and the Gospel of Love.  But let’s not be afraid to express it in different ways to different people.  The Truth is unchanging, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t be re-packaged, re-explained, and brought to life using different means and different techniques than we’ve ever done before.  As long as the core message is dead centered on Jesus, I hope that it does actually all depend on who you ask…at least in terms of the delivery, the style, the language, the enthusiasm, and the emphasis…because if that is true, then it means that we are all engaged in preaching the Truth in our own way.  What a great problem to have!

Oh Man…who knew that Anna Mae Bullock was 73 this year!  She sure was a looker back in the day.  Seemed like everyone….Wait…Wait…Wait…What do you mean you have no idea who Ms. Bullock is??? “It’s Physical…Only logical[1]”…flipping her hair…that ring a bell? Ehhh…never mind its not important anyway.

The important thing that we are looking at this week is what love is…at least, in its highest and most perfected level…or as some would say…“True Love.”  But heads up!  This post isn’t politically correct or soft.  This post doesn’t pull any punches.  In fact, this post was basically written on the fly as I was debating two atheists on a local blog about DOMA, gay marriage, and the inherent lack of true love exhibited therein.  That said, read on at your own risk!  😉

Ok, so back to the issue at hand…Some, like Ms. Bullock, would sing – “The touch of a hand makes her pulse react – That it’s only a thrill of boy meeting girl…That you must try to ignore that it means more than that.”  Boy is she wrong…it’s a cheap way to define love.  But hey, it seems to work in today’s culture.  How sad.  How cheap.  Like trading diamonds for dung.

St. Thomas Aquinas defined love as the willing of the good of another[2] and wanting the absolute best for the other person.  As a matter of fact, it’s even more than that. Love is no less than acting to make “the best” real for the beloved.  We all know that the best for the other person is Heaven itself…nothing less. If love is “only physical,” then it can’t possibly be wanting the best for the other person. Can It?

Well, lets get one thing out of way straight up.  Love, in its highest and most perfected sense, is not an emotion or feeling or something that “happens” to us. Love is not limited to, or for that matter, limited by, sexual attraction or romantic feelings.  However, those things can be part of love.  They just cannot be true love itself.  If “love” is limited to just sex or just attraction then its not love at all.

Love, in its highest sense, is a choice, an act of the will – something we do.  When Jesus was hanging on the cross, I think it’s a pretty safe assumption to say that he wasn’t thrilled to be up there and wasn’t exactly “happy,” at least in the modern understanding of the word. Nevertheless, he made the conscious choice to want the best for all of us…Heaven…no matter how it made him feel as a man…no matter how much it physically or emotionally hurt. That is true love!

Some people mock this definition of love and say that it is too simple, rudimentary, or even juvenile.  I argue that this definition of love is absolutely rudimentary, absolutely simple, and absolutely juvenile – all in the best way. Love is pure simplicity Himself. It is pure act, pure potency, and eternal.  Love is also purely juvenile because it gives without asking in return and isn’t deterred by “adult” emotions of jealousy, irritation, anger, or anything else.  Love just is. This crazy culture, with all of its “intellectuals,” wants to muck up the definition of love and add all sorts of other words or concepts so that they can manipulate the definition in whatever way suits their situation. Not good.

The current culture hammers us with the idea that sex equals love, and love equals happiness, so therefore sex must equal happiness.  If we apply St. Thomas’ definition, then I think it becomes clear that wanting the best for the other is not sex, is not a pleasurable feeling in the glands, its not an orgasm into the orifice of choice, and is not eros. The best is much greater and higher than any physical act could ever be.  The best is fulfillment at the deepest of levels leading the other person to no less than Christ himself.

Unfortunately, some relationships in this culture are capped at the physical level. At their most intimate, some end with the sexual act.  Sometimes this type of relationship is evidenced as a same sex relationship.  Other times, this type of relationship exists when heterosexual contraception is used.  In still other situations, the relationship is limited at the physical level when a husband or a wife is seen solely as a provider, or as a caretaker, or as any “thing.”

None of these types of relationships evidence true love…not even close.  These types of relationships turn a human being into a human “doing.” They change a person into an “it.” They disregard our natural design and reduce us to an object…of pleasure, of work, or of anything. Such a transformation can never be the best for the other. It replaces purpose with feeling. It replaces purpose with act. The person becomes the thing that brings pleasure, or money, or fun, and therefore becomes replaceable. And just to be clear, this unfortunate conversion can happen in any type of relationship.

All authentic love results in incarnation of some type. Relative to sexual intimacy, the best and authentic love is the biological reception of man by woman and woman by man. It is the absolute giving of all that you have, by each party, and the absolute reception of that gift by the other, within the sacrament of marriage.  It is entry into the very creative power of God himself, which is infinitely greater than the act itself.

For many couples, this love results in a physical incarnation of children.  Hah…that’s easy.

But what about infertile couples? For these couples, their love is open to life but that life may never come in the form of a child.  However, these couples can still exhibit the true and highest form of love based on the marital act of full donation and acceptance…even if new life is absolutely impossible. The idea here is that that the sexual union is total, complete (as much as possible), and biologically based. This love is true and authentic because it is of the type that can result in new life.

Relative specifically to the idea of “incarnation”, the true donative love of infertile people is incarnated as a total giving of oneself to the spouse and still acting in a way that represents what is the best for them. In essence, the husband and the wife are incarnating a new life in themselves of total service and giving to the other. There is no substitution here. There is no transforming of the person into an “it” or an object here.  The person’s procreative potential (although maybe never fully realized) is still never cut off or purposely frustrated.

But moving even further, what about an otherwise “loving” couple that uses contraception?  Well, at its basic level, using contraception also converts the spouse from a person to an “it.” If I treat my wife as merely an object that gives me pleasure, by my artificially blocking my donation to her or her to me, then I fall into the same trap described below relative to homosexual relations. That is not true love.

If I cannot share myself…all of myself…with my spouse, and be received by my spouse 100%, then the unitive concept of love and marriage is broken. There is not full donation and there is not full acceptance. At the very deepest level, by doing this, I am saying to my spouse that you can have all of me…except…

This type of “rejection”, from the person that I am closest to and in most union with in the entire world, is not healthy. It is saying that I want 99% of you but don’t you dare give me that last 1%. Such actions do not evidence true love. They may be “close” but they aren’t genuine and authentic. Just like above, they are cheap counterfeits.

(Congrats to all of you for still reading at this point and for not giving up on this post because it is a bit in-your-face and a bit direct! Although I would like to say that I apologize for offending anyone, I cannot apologize for describing the Truth.  And so, for that reason, I go on…)

Ok, so now some of you are probably also asking, how can a person living a celibate life “love” in such as a way as to result in an incarnation? For those living the vocation of celibacy, their love, i.e., their best, is the service of others to their absolute maximum, leading the others to Christ. Their love is the total giving of self to the service of this world for the absolute best of other people, putting themselves second or even third.  This love results in an incarnation that is not physical but that is spiritual.

Still others may also be wondering whether the aforementioned definition of love means that people with same sex attraction can never “love.” Again, lets be clear – every single human being, no matter their sex, gender, identity, attraction, etc., is capable of, and is required to exhibit, the highest form of love.  That is precisely how we get to Heaven.  Loving God first and loving our neighbor as ourself..or, said differently, loving our neighbor into Heaven, is what we MUST do. As a child of God, each of us is capable of this love.  In fact, with sanctifying grace, each of us is capable of loving as Jesus loved – yes even to hang on a cross.

Make no mistake, love is a choice. If Male 1 and Male 2 “love” each other, then they must want the best for each other (i.e., Heaven), as outlined above. And, yes, this love involves tough choices of living chastely and for the other.  No one ever said that love was easy.  If we paid more attention to the cross, the complaint of “love is hard” wouldn’t even cross our minds!

If these men live as brothers, then absolutely they can exhibit the highest form of love, regardless of their attraction or their inclination. No doubt about it. However, once they choose to have sex together, they have not chosen love. They have chosen eros. They have replaced the dignity of the other (and of self) with a counterfeit. They have replaced the person with an action.  They have capped their relationship at the sexual level which, again, is no where near the depth of true love.

If I love another person, I want the absolute best for them. I want them to reach their best and ultimate fulfillment. I want them to be deeply happy and joyful to their core.  True and perfected love does not, and cannot, affirm self-destructive practices or the limitation of the other person by a destructive and malicious culture. True love does not support the lies of this culture, the do whatever-you-want abuse of freedom, or the changing of human being into objects of lust and pleasure.  True love does not grasp at second-rate substitutes for happiness and fulfillment.  True love does not grab onto the garbage that this culture slings at us and uses to try to convince us that we are happy when we are sexual.

If we truly love, we want the source of happiness itself…which is true, unending, sacrificial love, that leads to the incarnation of life. We want the power itself, not some crappy counterfeit. Taking a person and making them an “it” or an object – for whatever reason (not just with sex) – is never OK, is never respectful, is never an acknowledgement of the other person’s dignity, and is never…ever…true, highest, and perfected love.  Anything less than true sacrificial love of the other is flat out highway robbery of the dignity of the human person and deceit of the worst kind.  Let’s not go there…not now…not ever…not even with a gun to our heads.  Love is a somebody…so lets start acting like it!

Ohhhhhh…and I almost forgot about Ms. Bullock and her crappy definition of love and sex.  Well, maybe she never knew what love really was.  Maybe she never witnessed the real deal. Maybe no one ever worked to make the best real for her.  Hah…Ike may never have.  But Tina Turner should have known better.  Tina Turner, with all of her pop cultural influence, should have explained it better.  Tina Turner should have been a better example for the youth.  So let’s pray for all of the new Ms. Bullocks/Tina Turners that are just coming up, that they provide a better example of love, a better example of wanting the best for the other, and a better example of leading others to true happiness and true love Himself.

God Bless