This is my response. Enjoy!
Response to L.A Times article: Vatican panel condemns limbo to eternal dustbin
Limbo does not abolish the doctrine of original sin, or the salvific effect of Baptism commanded by our Lord to “make disciples of all nations”: (Matt 28:19). Since Limbo was never a part of the Sacred Deposit of the Doctrine of the Faith, it was held by the Church as a theological hypothesis. The Doctrine of Purgatory, however, is a part of that Sacred Deposit. Purgatory is a state in which the faithful are made perfect in the after-life before entering the fullness of life in Heaven; a kind of prelude to eternal bliss. Limbo, however, is an eternal state of happiness, neither in Heaven or Hell. According to the article, the commission has concerns of limbo in the light of God’s merciful love: Would the God whose very Essence being Love Itself, prevent an infant to participate in His Life, if deceased before being baptized (among other reasons?) This is a question that has loomed over the Church for centuries; the hypothesis being a far cry from the Catholic Traditionalist (Feeneyites, Sedavacantists, etc) and Protestant Fundamentalist sects who damn everyone without explicit faith in Christ, regardless of circumstances (the former including full membership in the ‘True Catholic Church’.
That being said, it does not diminish, let alone abolish, the necessity and responsibility to baptize infants in Christian families (save Evangelical/Fundamentalists, Baptist, Pentecostals and other sects, who have their qualms on infant baptism). Baptism is the normative way people are cleansed from the stain of original sin, entering Christ’s death and resurrection, dying to sin and rising to new life, and becoming a new creature in Christ. The baby, who cannot for what ever reason become baptized, is put in God’s merciful hands; however, it would be better if baptized. If you had the choice of taking antibiotics to clear up an infection, or not taking them and still being cured but perhaps with some doubt, wouldn’t you rather choose the former? In the same way, babies should be baptized to be assured of their complete salvation, as well as the parent’s/caretakers who have the responsibility to hand on the Faith! There is such a thing as the sin of omission.
The fact that many families refuse to baptize their infants is not unsurprising, for we ‘progressive’ Westerners hold business, wealth, and possessions in higher esteem than we do our own Creator – ‘might means right’. Are we to be surprised then that an egocentric self interested culture, which has long since crept into the Church, negatively affected our need to be responsible and informed Christians regarding core beliefs? If we spent half as much time informing ourselves, as we do on our I Pods, it would be a different story. This scenario must change if the Church is to remain a force of all that is good and true amongst those, who in their dominating egos, regard the Church as ‘irrelevant’ because of the tremendous duty being a Christian entails. As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said: “Grace is not cheap!” Sadly the ego would have it so cheap as to neglect all Christian responsibility in order to propagate the self. I leave the Catechism with the final word.
Catechism of the Catholic Church
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.