The Limbo of Limbos
I was moving tons of books in my sanctum sanctorum today, especially a lot of my philosophy and religious studies bookshelves, and this popped back into my mind.
I’ve been wondering about this ever since last year when I read of Pope Rat abolishing the first level of hell, “limbus infantium,” the limbo of newborns. It reminded me of his predecessor Pope John Paull II undamning Gallileo and other scientists. Later JP II also unasainted tons of saints, because the saints lists were too long and he had a habit of making a whole bunch of new ones. So lesser known, relatively unimportant saints (especially to those in Vatican City), were simply abolished back to humandom.
Which made me think of two things.
1) A Pope can do whatever the hell he wants. Hope his whims are good ones. (Please see The Bad Popes for some ideas about the alternatives.)
2) What exactly happens to things the Pope writes off?
Did an entire dimension, the baby limbo surrounding hell, just evaporate? Or does it return to humanspace? Or what? Secondly, what happens to all of those centuries of damned babies? Did they all just get saved or zapped into nothingness?
Is there a limbo for limbos? A limbo full of former limbo babes?
Likewise, Gallileo seems to have been hanging out in hell for several hundred years. Is his soul now a half-burned, tortured husk of what it once was? Can he even still raise his arms in praise to the skies, now, or is it just sad John McCain survivor mode? Does it really hurt you spiritually or just sort of, kind of, wear on you emotionally maybe? Is all that inflicted hell just a bad memory now? Did the punishment get undone when the entire case was overturned by the later Pope? Is it like a guy who has been serving hard time for rape and murders he never committed suddenly getting the DNA test from heaven and he gets out with an apology from a governor, but unfortunately a lost life.
What happens matters, right? Religion teaches that if you ever dare violate some sacred tenent, you are damned. The end. Well, maybe. Unless a later religious leader disagrees with a former one. Then you are OK.
Huh? Is nothing sacred?
Is this absolute truth? Is this inerrancy?
Seems a little confused to me. Where is that Ron Hansen when you need a little Stay Against Confusion, anyway?
Given all this, I think we need al lthe help we can get.