The Limbo of unbaptized children, or those who died without baptism and before having the use of reason, or of all the unborn. We are talking about those who have not received baptism nor have been able to do so (blamelessly) desire. I have discussed this topic a lot in the past, so today it's just a matter of summarizing. I had already written:
The penalty for original sin is the lack of vision of God (1. Denz. 184 219; 2. Denz. 780); there is no intermediate place in the Pelagian sense between the kingdom of God and damnation (3. Denz. 184; 4. Denz. 224; 5. Denz. 2626); the proposition is condemned: [the souls of children who are born to Christian parents and who die without baptism reach an earthly paradise, the souls of children who were born to non-Christian parents and who die without baptism arrive in the place where the souls of their parents are] (6. Denz. 1008).
The souls of those who die only with original sin descend into hell where they are punished with penalties and in different places (7. Denz. 858; 8. Denz. 926; 9. Denz. 1306), we will delve deeper later; they are punished with the penalty of damnation without the penalty of fire (10. Denz. 2626); the place where they are found is commonly called Limbo (11. Denz. 2626); the proposition is condemned: [a child who dies without baptism will hate God] (12. Denz. 1949).
Where I write Denz. I mean Denzinger, that is to say A handbook of symbols, definitions and declarations on matters of faith and morals, in a more abbreviated form Handbook of Symbols, also cited today as Denzinger-Schönmetzer: the main Catholic collection of the Magisterium of the Church. It was initially developed and published by Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger in 1854. I feel obliged to advise against the latest editions of the writing.
A text that I had not mentioned until now is theEncyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, The Teaching of the Catholic Church of the 1963, Burns Oates, ed. ita. Pauline 1966. The voice on the pages 412 ss. does not appear to present any particular critical issues, although I do not recommend reading it in its entirety to people who are not familiar with the material. The period was already strongly characterized by the earthly horde of "New Theology" or "Modernism", complex theological-philosophical the most heretical (That, between one sophism and another, door to’practical atheism) condemned by Pope Pius XII with the Of the human race, even before that by Saint PiusI went up to Dominic's flock, so far back in time. I quote the following purged of elements, IMHO, of “disturbance”:
«Destiny of unbaptized children. So far we have examined the effects of original sin on this life. We must now see what effects it will have on the destiny of the soul in the next life. For the sake of clarity we will take the case of the soul that passes into the other world unstained by current sin, but nevertheless burdened by original sin. […] the problem mainly concerns children who die without baptism and, given their immense number, is of great interest and practical importance.
«The opponents of the Church, neglecting his authoritative pronouncements and the general and current teaching of his theologians, they attach themselves to some opinion supported perhaps by Saint Augustine or by some of the early Fathers, claiming to present this or that individual point of view as representative of Catholic doctrine, so as to be able to denigrate it as hard, inhuman and incompatible with the loving mercy of God. [The next rule of faith is the Magisterium of the Church, not the opinion of that Father or that Saint, this said without any disrespect but only for the sake of truth, ndR].
«[…] Despite the confidentiality due to these champions of the faith and despite the authority and prestige rightly linked to their names and their teachings, it should always be kept in mind that no father and no doctor is infallible; and where the Church has spoken or even shown the direction of its thinking, it is not only our right, but it is our duty to set aside even one [sant’]Athanasius or a [sant’]Agostino, where his teaching is not completely in keeping with that of it.
«On this problem the Church has had the opportunity to clarify some points of its faith, sometimes issuing conciliar decrees, sometimes publishing condemnations of erroneous doctrines. In the Council of Florence of 1439 […] the Church […] included as an article of his creed the statement that “the souls of those who depart from this life, whether in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, they immediately go to hell, to suffer however disparate punishments". [This definition is already dogmatic, ndR] "In the 1567 Pope Saint Pius V condemned a number of propositions taken from the writings of Michael du Bay of Louvain; among them there is one which states that the child is not baptized, reaching the use of reason after death, he will truly hate and blaspheme God and go against God's law. In the 1794 [Papa] Pius VI condemned many of the errors affirmed by the Erastian Synod held in Pistoia in Tuscany, including the “doctrine which rejects that part of the lower regions as a Pelagian fable, generally known as children's Limbo, in which the souls of those who die with original sin alone are punished with the penalty of damage, that is, with the loss of the beatific vision, without the pain of fire… “. [Nella is the Author of Faith, Bull to which reference is made, the Pontiff dogmatically condemns the proposition, so, positively, states that the existence of “… that part of the lower regions is a truth of faith, generally known as children's Limbo, in which the souls of those who die with original sin alone are punished with the penalty of damage, that is, with the loss of the beatific vision, without the pain of fire…”, ndR].
«From these statements we can draw the following conclusions: unbaptized children are deprived of the beatific vision of God, which is the true terminal end of man: this is part of the defined Catholic faith. It is certain that they do not hate, they do not blaspheme God, nor do they rebel against his law and it is at least very unlikely that they will suffer hell fire or some sort of positive and sensitive punishment, while on the contrary it is very probable that their state is one of true peace and natural happiness. The dogma of faith is clearly contained in Christ's words to Nicodemus: “If man is not reborn through water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God” (Gv. 3, 5), and it is also the direct theological consequence of everything that has been said about the nature of original sin. This consists mainly in the deprivation of sanctifying grace which is the principle of divine adoption and therefore the necessary condition for becoming part of the life of God. The beatific vision is the full flowering of grace; when the soul in a state of grace is free from the bonds of the body and is cleansed of minor waste and fully repaid with the justice of God, it passes naturally into glory. But where there was no gem, the flower cannot bloom.
«[…] Says St. Thomas: “The punishment involves a proportion with the sin. Ora, in actual sin there is first the estrangement of God with the corresponding punishment of the loss of the beatific vision; secondarily, the disordered attachment to some created good with the corresponding punishment which is the punishment of the senses. But in original sin there is no disordered attachment to created goods… and consequently it is not punished with the punishment of the senses" (Question. Disp., Bad, 5, a. 2).
«From this follows our third conclusion, that is, it is very probable that the state of unbaptized children in the other world is a state of peace and natural happiness. Since they do not suffer any pain of the senses and since they do not hate God and do not go against his law, the only thing that could disturb their peace or reduce their happiness would be the pain or anguish resulting from the knowledge of the supernatural happiness to which they were destined, but which is lost to them forever. Some eminent theologians, like Saint Robert Bellarmine, they claimed that they suffer this way. Apart from the authority of some Fathers, the main reason for this view is that the child will see and understand his loss and therefore regret it. However, St. Thomas denies it and his reasoning seems conclusive (Question. Disp., Bad, 5, a. 3). It is based on truth, fundamental in Catholic theology, that grace and therefore the possession of the beatific vision, which is the final culmination of grace, it belongs absolutely and strictly to the supernatural world. Not only do they surpass man's natural ability to act but also and equally his natural ability to know. It is impossible that a man, with natural reason alone, without the help of revelation and the gift of faith, know that his final happiness consists in the immediate vision and possession of God. Consequently, unbaptized children, not having received the sacrament of faith, they do not have supernatural knowledge, without which they cannot know what they have lost. Therefore their loss does not cause them any heartache.
«Although these considerations provide consolation to the Catholic mother who suffers from the fate of her child who died without baptism, however, they do not lighten the burden of conscience of those who were guilty of it and do not exempt parents from the obligation to have their children baptized as soon as possible since there is no measure or proportion between the natural happiness that will be their destiny [eternal] in Limbo and the ineffable happiness of heaven, of which man's carelessness could so easily deprive them. Furthermore, it must be clearly understood that the child who dies without baptism is definitively lost. He is not in a state mediated between salvation and damnation. He was created for one purpose only, a supernatural goal and not reaching it, whether it's your fault or someone else's, it is complete failure, it is eternal loss, even if not accompanied by the positive returns of a soul that has deliberately damned itself".
Let's now look at some Pontiffs.
Pope Siricius, Letter Directed to the deceased to Bishop Imerio of Tarragona, 10 February 385:
«The necessity of baptism. (c. 2, § 3) As we therefore affirm that the veneration for Easter must absolutely not be reduced, we want the children to do so, who according to their age cannot yet speak or to those, who in any emergency will need the water of sacred baptism, come to the rescue promptly, so that it does not turn to the detriment of our souls, with, having denied the source of life to those who desire it, (happen that) in the passing of this century someone will lose the kingdom (of the heavens) that life. Furthermore, anyone who ran the risk of a shipwreck, in the incursion of enemies, in the uncertainty of a siege or in any hopeless bodily illness, and asked to help him with the sole help of faith, at the same time as he requests it, achieves the requested regeneration reward. Enough with the mistakes made so far in this area! From now on all priests who do not want to be uprooted from the solid apostolic stone, on which Christ built the universal church, observe this rule".
Pope Innocent I, Letter Among others of the Roman Church to Silvanus and the other fathers of the Synod of Milevi, 27 January 417:
«The necessity of baptism. (c. 5) ... that the reward of eternal life can be given to infants even without the grace of baptism, it is a great folly […] Those who maintain that they have it without regeneration, It seems to me that he wants to annul the baptism itself, maintaining that infants have what faith conferred upon them except through baptism. Se, so, according to them there is no harm in not being reborn, it is necessary for them to say openly that the sacred waves of regeneration are of no use. But so that the unjust teaching of people (that they assert) superfluous things, can be dismantled with a quick exposure of the truth, (ecco) the Lord declare (own) this in the Gospel, saying: “Leave the children and do not impede (They) to come to me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." [cf. Mt. 19,14; Mc. 10,14; Lc. 18,16]».
Pope Innocent III, Letter Major causes of the Church to Archbishop Imberto of Arles, fine 1201:
«… They claim in fact that baptism is uselessly conferred on young children. …We reply that baptism took the place of circumcision. … Therefore, how the soul of the circumcised man WAS not lost by his people [cf. Gn. 17,14], Like this, the one who will be reborn from water and the Holy Spirit, will gain entry into the kingdom of heaven [cf. Gv 3,5]. … Even if original sin was remitted through the mystery of circumcision, and the danger of damnation was avoided, non si perveniva tuttavia al regno dei cieli che, until the death of Christ, è rimasto chiuso per tutti; ma, through the sacrament of baptism, purple with the blood of Christ, è rimesso il peccato e si perviene pure al regno dei cieli, la cui porta il sangue di Cristo ha misericordiosamente aperto per coloro che credono in Lui. Non è pensabile infatti che vadano perduti tutti i bambini piccoli, di cui muore ogni giorno una così grande moltitudine, without the merciful God, who does not want anyone to perish, non abbia procurato anche per loro un qualche rimedio per la salvezza. … What the opponents allege, che cioè ai bambini piccoli non vengono infuse la fede o la carità e le altre virtù, since they cannot consent, non è affatto ammesso in modo assoluto dai più …, as some argue that, by virtue of baptism, even small children are blamed, but grace is not conferred; and many others say that sin is remitted and virtues are also infused, to these who possess them as I live [cf. *904], not yet in their exercise, until they reach adulthood. … We say, making a distinction, that there is a double sin, the original one that is, and the current one: the original sin which is contracted without consent, and the current one which is committed by virtue of consent. Original sin therefore, which is contracted without consent, without consent he is restored by virtue of the sacrament; finally the current one, which is contracted by virtue of consent, it is not dissolved at all without consent. … The penalty of original sin is the lack of vision of God, while the penalty of current sin is the torment of eternal hell. …».
[EXTRAORDINARY SENTENCE TO THE DENIERS OF LIMBO] Pope Pius VI, Constitution Author of Faith against the errors of the "synod" of Pistoia, 28 August 1794:
«The doctrine that rejects that place in the underworld as a Pelagian fable (which the faithful everywhere call by the name of children's Limbo) in which the souls of those who died with original sin alone are punished with the penalty of privation without the penalty of fire; as if this way, those who exclude the punishment of fire, introduced that place and intermediate state free of guilt and punishment between the kingdom of God and eternal damnation, of which the Pelagians fable: (And) false, would fear, offensive to Catholic schools". So the opposite is true, that is, it is true, that "that place of hell exists (which the faithful everywhere call by the name of children's Limbo) in which the souls of those who have died [through no fault of their own, ndR] with only original sin are punished with the penalty of deprivation without the penalty of fire".
Pope Benedict XII, Letter Since a long time ago to the Armenians, August 1431:
«So do the Armenians [wrong] they say that the souls of children born to Christian parents after the passion of Christ, if they die before being baptized, they go to earthly paradise, in which Adam lived before sin; the souls instead of children who are born to non-Christian parents after the passion of Christ and die without baptism, they go to the places where the souls of their parents are found. [The Armenians are wrong]».
Also really useful for our study Blessed be God of the 1336, always from the mentioned Pontiff.
Papa Gregorio X, Council of Lyon II, Session 4, 6 July 1274, Profession of faith of Emperor Michael Palaeologus:
«The souls of those who die in mortal sin , or with original sin alone, they immediately descend into hell, even if punished with different penalties" [hell for the first ones, Limbo (or Lembo) for the seconds, ndR].
Pope John XXII, Letter Not without pain to the Armenians, 21 November 1321:
«The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin alone, they immediately descend into hell, to be however punished with different penalties and in different places" [hell for the first ones, Limbo (or Lembo) for the seconds, ndR].
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Bull on the union with the Greeks Let the heavens rejoice, 6 July 1439:
"Instead, the souls of those who die in the state of actual mortal sin or with original sin alone, they immediately descend to hell to be punished with different penalties [cf. *856-858]» [idem, ndR].
Therefore the issue may still be a subject of debate? Clearly NO! Whether it is a solemn Magisterium, extraordinary or ordinary and universal, given the topic of faith, to use a quote from Pope Pius XII against the new modernists (cf. Of the human race):
«[…] these teachings are of the ordinary Magisterium, whose words then apply: “Who listens to you, listen to me” (Luc. X, 16); and mostly, what is proposed and inculcated in the Encyclicals, it is already the heritage of Catholic doctrine for other reasons. If then the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts purposely issue a sentence on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to everyone that this issue, according to the intention and will of the Pontiffs themselves, it can no longer constitute an object of free discussion among theologians […]».
And where do the souls of aborted children go??
Pope Pius XII himself explains CLEARLY, Speech to midwives, 29 October 1951:
«If what we have said so far concerns the protection and care of natural life, it must apply even more strongly to supernatural life, that the newborn receives at baptism. In the present economy there is no other means of communicating this life to the child, who does not yet have the use of reason. And yet the state of grace at the moment of death is absolutely necessary for salvation; without it it is not possible to reach supernatural happiness, to the beatific vision of God. An act of love may be enough for an adult to achieve [own, ndR] sanctifying grace and making up for the defect of baptism: this path is not open to the unborn or newborn child. If we therefore consider that charity towards our neighbor requires us to assist him in case of need; that this obligation is all the more serious and urgent, the greater the good to be procured or the evil to be avoided, and at least the needy is capable of helping and saving himself; then it is easy to understand the great importance of providing for the baptism of a child, deprived of any use of reason and who is in grave danger or facing certain death. Without a doubt this duty binds parents first and foremost; but in cases of emergency, when there is no time to waste or it is not possible to call a priest, the sublime office of conferring baptism falls to you. Therefore, do not fail to provide this charitable service and exercise this active apostolate of your profession. May the word of Jesus be a comfort and encouragement to you: “Blessed are the merciful, because they will find mercy" (Matt. 5, 7). And what greater and more beautiful mercy than to ensure the soul of the child – between the threshold of life he has just crossed, and the threshold of death that is about to pass – the entry into glorious and beatifying eternity!».
Let's read an opinion of Saint Alphonsus:
«[…] From this we see that in that innovation, as St. Thomas writes, there will no longer be animals or plants or other mixed materials, for everything will be destroyed by fire. Animals and plants were created by God to support the present life of man; thus ceasing this purpose, such means must cease together. Nor does it prevent us from saying that plants and animals make up the perfection of this world; because the saint responds in another place, that this perfection concerns the present state, but not the much improved state it was then: “They are about its perfection according to that state, but not according to the state of that novelty". Here the question is whether in the innovated world there will be inhabitants above the earth? Cardinal Gotti reports the opinion of some and especially of a certain author named Siuri, who with others holds the sentence, that children who died without baptism will live on the innovated earth, and there they will enjoy the elements already purified. Gotti does not consider this opinion to be sufficiently probable what St. Thomas says, that all the earth will be clothed in clarity, so that the light can penetrate the place of Limbo, and thus enlighten it somewhat. After all, as we wrote above in the dissertation. 6. num. 36. and seq., St. Thomas holds in several places that such children will not suffer any punishment, nor harm, nor sense, rather they will enjoy it’ natural assets" (cf. Theological-moral dissertations, DISSERTATION VII. Of the state of the world after the Last Judgment).
San Tommaso in Sudden, spl. 69, a. 6 he states:
«Whether the limbo of children is identified with that of the patriarchs. It seems that the limbo of children is identified with that of the patriarchs. Indeed: 1. The punishment must be proportionate to the guilt. Ora, the guilt that held the patriarchs and the children captive was the same, that is, the original fault. Therefore the place of punishment for both must be identical. 2. Saint Augustine [Enchir. 93] states that “the punishment of children who die with original sin alone is the mildest”. Now no punishment is milder than that suffered by the patriarchs. Therefore the place of their punishment is identical. On the contrary: As for actual sin there is a temporal punishment in purgatory and an eternal one in hell, thus for original sin there was a temporal punishment in the Limbo of the patriarchs and there is an eternal one in the Limbo of children. Therefore, hell and purgatory are not identical, nor the Limbo of the children and that of the patriarchs. As for the identity of the place of hell and purgatory, we have already discussed this previously [In 4 Sent., d. 21, q. 1, a. 1, sol. 2]. I answer: The Limbo of the patriarchs and that of the children are undoubtedly different in terms of the quality of the reward or punishment. In fact, children are deprived of that hope of bliss that the patriarchs had, as well as the light of faith and grace. But the location is believed to have probably been the same: only that the Limbo of the patriarchs was above the Limbo of the children, as has been said [a. 5] about Limbo and hell. Solution of difficulties: 1. Patriarchs and children do not have the same relationship with original sin. In fact, in the patriarchs the original guilt had already been atoned for what contaminated their person, although it remains an impediment in human nature that is not yet perfectly satisfied. In children, however, there is a double impediment: personal and natural. Therefore different homes had to be designated for children and patriarchs. 2. Saint Augustine speaks of the punishments due according to the person, among which the mildest is that of original sin alone. But there is an even milder punishment, and it is that of those who are prevented from possessing glory not due to personal impairments, but rather due to the mere impairment of nature, reducing the punishment to the mere delay of glory".
The known Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Piolanti, Relative, Garofalo, Studies, 1952 Limbo says in the voice:
«Latino limbus = flap, hem of the dress): according to today's doctrine of the Church it is a place bordering on hell, where the righteous already died in the grace of God before Christianity, then freed by Jesus, and where the children who died without Baptism still are and will remain forever, with only original sin. Holy Scripture speaks of Abraham's bosom, as a residence of the righteous (Lc. 16, 22), but not a place for children who died without Baptism. The Tradition begins, especially among the Greek Fathers, by affirming a distinction between adults who died in personal sin and children who died with original sin alone, who cannot enter the heaven of the blessed, but neither can they be lumped together with the damned of hell. Pelagius' heresy arises, which denied the transmission of original sin and its consequences, To defend the truth, Saint Augustine goes so far as to teach that even children who die without Baptism will be subjected to the punishment of fire, but very light, because of original sin. This opinion later influenced some theologians, but it did not prevent the continuation of another, more just and more benign opinion, according to which children who die without Baptism will only suffer the deprivation of the beatific vision. This sentence was defended and developed especially by Saint Thomas and from then on prevailed in schools. It is found in a letter from Innocent III to the Archbishop. of Arles and in the Constitution “Auctorem fidei” with which Pius VI condemned the Synod of Pistoia (Denz DB, 1526). The children of Limbo will not enjoy the vision of God nor will they be unhappy because the beatific vision is a supernatural good, of which they are unaware. Some Theologians (Block) they think that not only abnormal children and adults will be welcomed into Limbo, who did not have the use of reason, but also certain categories of men of low level of civilization, who can be compared to children due to the poor development of their moral conscience. In recent times a strange opinion has prevailed in the theology of Protestants and Orthodox (Schismatics), which, abusing some evangelical expression (Mt. 12, 32; 1 Petr., 3, 18; 4, 6), they claim that all pagans are evangelized in Limbo after death and given the opportunity to convert and save themselves. Critically, the opinion doesn't hold up.".
The prestigious Catholic Encyclopedia, Vatican, 1951, vol. VII, col. 1354, under Limbo this is how it begins:
«[…] it is the place and state of souls who, having not deserved hell, could not, before redemption, enter the sky (Limbo of the SS. Fathers), or they are eternally excluded from it due to uncancelled original sin […]».
[DECLARATION of faith] Il Larger Catechism of Saint Pius 100:
«Where do children who die without Baptism go?? Children who die without Baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they don't even suffer because, having original sin, and that alone, they don't deserve Heaven, but not even hell and Purgatory».
This obvious statement in matters of faith, from which the will of the Pontiff is clearly evident, it can only be denied guiltily or through harsh ignorance (guilty at this point). It is true that he does not cite Revelation, however, the necessity of Limbo is indirectly deduced from other dogmas.
Comment onarticle of faith (N° 100) father Dragone in his Commentary on the Catechism of Saint Pius, 1963, rist. anastatic at Centro Librario Sodalitium, Verrua Savoy, 2009, pag. 153 ss.:
«I. Children who die without Baptism have original sin, and that alone. – All men, except Mary Most Holy, they were born, they are born and will be born with original sin (nn. 69-75), which is canceled only through Baptism (n. 295) of water or blood or desire. But children who die before the use of reason without the Baptism of water, they are not capable of receiving that of desire and if they do not receive that of blood with martyrdom they pass to the other life with original sin, deprived of the grace of God and the right to Paradise. On the other hand, not yet having the use of reason, they committed no actual sin, neither mortal nor venial, for which the warning of the mind and the consent of the will are required, of which they are incapable. They therefore only have original sin at the moment of death. II. … they don't deserve Heaven. – Heaven is a supernatural prize, which can only be merited by those who have the supernatural life of sanctifying grace, which unbaptized children lack, who therefore do not deserve Paradise and cannot be admitted there. III. … but not even in hell. – Sin deserves hell because it is personal, current and attributable to those who commit it. But original sin was voluntary only in Adam, while in all other men and therefore also in children, it consists only in the deprivation of the grace that they should have but do not have due to Adam's fault. Therefore children who died with original sin alone do not deserve hell, where only personal or current faults are punished. IV. … nor Purgatory. – Purgatory is the punishment due to light personal sins, Forgiven or not, and those who are serious are forgiven. In Purgatory only personal and current sins are paid for. Therefore it cannot be inflicted on children who have only original sin. V. … but they go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy God, but they don't even suffer. – Children who die without baptism and before the use of reason cannot be rewarded with the intuitive vision and happiness of Paradise, nor punished with the punishments of Hell. Therefore they are destined for Limbo, where they have neither supernatural needs nor joys, but they enjoy all that natural happiness of which human nature is capable. They know and love God according to their natural faculties, and they enjoy because they participate to a large extent in the divine goodness in natural perfections (Saint Thomas, In 2 Art., d. 33, q. 2. a. 2). Reflection. Parents have a very serious obligation to have Baptism administered to their newborns as soon as possible, to ensure them the supernatural happiness of Paradise, in case they were to die. Example. – The pious Dauphin (crown prince) of France, father of Louis XVI and son of Louis XV, he had private baptisms administered to his newborn children. He later had them taken to church for solemn baptism ceremonies. One day he had the parish register of baptisms brought and opened it in front of his little children. Next to the names of the little princes there were names of unknown people of humble conditions. “Ecco, said the Dolphin, the book of the children of God; you see, my children: in the eyes of God all men are equal, and there is no distinction beyond that which faith and virtue give us. Before the world you will be greater than these; but if these strangers are more virtuous than you, before God they will be greater than you!”».
According to some, bringing up childish sentimentality, the mother who had to abort, Guiltily or spontaneously it doesn't matter, if he were to repent or grieve, could obtain Paradise for the soul of his little son, desiring his baptism. But we have already seen that the condition of the soul is dogma, in this case, it doesn't change (only for the souls in Purgatory there is the passage to Paradise, when appropriate); that the sacraments are for the living and not for the dead; that theology does not allow the desire for the sacrament (of baptism) through a third party. This foolish belief could also encourage abortions in the hope that, Anyway, the soul of the little son can obtain, for one or more reasons, Paradise.
[CONCLUSION] To use, truly with full opportunity and without any abuse, the words taken from the sentence of Pope Pius VI: still support today, In the 2016, that Limbo is only a "theological hypothesis", that is, reject, behind sophistry or openly, «that place in the underworld is like a Pelagian fable (which the faithful everywhere call by the name of children's Limbo) in which the souls of those who died with original sin alone are punished with the penalty of privation without the penalty of fire" is truly "false, reckless, offensive to Catholic schools".
Modern “theories” on the non-existence of Limbo or on salvation (Paradiso) through other ways unknown to us, even if they come from high-ranking sources, but clearly against the sentence of the Acts (XX, 27) For I did not subterfuge, lest I declare unto you all the counsel of God – I have not shied away from the task of announcing to you all the will of God (mentioned with a slight accommodation), they prove to be «false, reckless, offensive to Catholic schools".
By CdP