Eric D. Snider

Out on a Limbo

Snide Remarks #540

"Out on a Limbo"

by Eric D. Snider

Published in EricDSnider.com on April 30, 2007

Good news, dead, unbaptized babies! Turns out there's a chance you're not going to hell after all!

This bit of cheery optimism comes courtesy of the Catholic Church, which is starting to do away with its teaching on "limbo." Now they say that babies and young children who die unbaptized don't go to limbo -- which is a good place but is not in God's presence -- but instead are probably whisked straight to heaven, straight into the loving metaphorical arms of the incorporeal, unknowable three-part God.

This is a big deal, because it's quite a switch from the previous policies. Officially, the church has no opinion on where unbaptized babies go. St. Augustine, the fifth-century bishop and philosopher, taught that anyone who dies without being baptized goes to hell, including children -- but that kids would be "under the mildest condemnation of all." So, you know, it's hell ... but it's a slightly less hot version. You get the nicer room, maybe with air conditioning. St. Augustine was surely a lot of fun at parties.

The idea of babies going to hell, even the nicer neighborhoods of hell, never sat well with people who believed in a loving and merciful God, or who even just had an ounce of common sense. So over time, the idea of "limbo" emerged. Limbo is for people who led good lives but who died before Jesus' time, and for infants and children who died without being baptized. It's a nice place, full of perpetual happiness and lollipops and bunnies and so forth, but God isn't there, so it doesn't have quite the full awesomeness of heaven. Also, it's near the interstate, so you get a lot of traffic noise.

Limbo was never official doctrine, but it was what most Catholics went with, since the Bible is silent on the specifics of what happens to unbaptized babies. Of course, the Bible is also silent on baptizing babies at all, or on baptizing anyone by sprinkling rather than immersing them in water, or on the need to confess sins to a priest in order to be absolved, or on the notion of doing penance to obtain forgiveness, or on the idea of praying to saints or other intermediaries instead of directly to God, or on celibacy within the priesthood, or on papal infallibility, or on having popes in the first place. But still, limbo has been a commonly accepted Catholic belief for several centuries.

But now the Vatican's International Theological Commission has issued a 41-page report called "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized," and the report says that limbo indicates an "unduly restrictive view of salvation." The report has no doctrinal authority, but Pope Benedict XVI (who was never a fan of the limbo philosophy anyway) has endorsed it, leading some to speculate he might make an official papal statement on it at some point.

The report says: "Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered ... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy [God's presence]." It is careful to add, however: "We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge." In other words, you should still baptize your newborns. Heck, baptize 'em twice, just in case. But if for some reason you don't get around to it, and your baby goes teats up, don't let guilt compound the feelings of agony already racking your soul! You have reason to prayerfully hope that your baby is in heaven, not in a place called "limbo" that some people sort of made up around the 13th century!

The report says the impetus for examining the limbo question was that Pope John Paul II requested it, back in October 2004, because it had become a matter of some urgency to him. With so many abortions occurring worldwide, not to mention the thousands and thousands of infants who die in countries where Catholicism has not yet taken hold ... well, that's a lot of babies whose post-mortal status was unaccounted for. The pope wanted to get to the bottom of it, so he put his best theologians on the case. And it took them 2 1/2 years to come up with "we think they're in heaven, but we still don't know." You gotta love committees.

There are two things that I find very interesting about all this.

1. The report says, "People find it increasingly difficult to accept that God is just and merciful if he excludes infants, who have no personal sins, from eternal happiness." Well, duh. It took the church 1,600 years to realize that? Really? The blatant injustice in that arrangement never struck anyone as odd until now? And no one thought to research the matter until the pope specifically brought it up?

2. The commission doesn't indicate how, exactly, it came to its new conclusion. There wasn't any new scripture to analyze, unless they stumbled across some book that's been hidden in the Bible all this time that no one noticed. Like maybe it was stuck between the pages between Matthew and Mark? Maybe it's called Smartthew? The Gospel According to St. Smartthew? But no, probably not. So no new scriptures, and there doesn't seem to have been a revelation from God. So what are they going by? They sat around and thought about it for a while, and this new arrangement just sounds better? OK, I guess. But I could have arrived at the same conclusion they did, and I'm not even Catholic.

The bottom line is: It looks like St. Augustine was probably wrong. Hell is probably not full of babies. Which is too bad, in a way, because I was hoping that that's how people who refuse to take their crying babies out of movie theaters would be punished: by going to a hell full of crying babies. Maybe the really wicked babies still go there. YOU'RE NOT OFF THE HOOK YET, BABIES!

Comments & Reaction:

The full 41-page report is not publicly available yet, so all of my information on it came from the many news stories about it. I assume the report itself offers more details about how, exactly, they came to their conclusions.

St. Augustine's teachings (including the "mildest condemnation" part) can be found here. Some good news stories about the commission's report are at USA Today and Catholic News Service.

I hope I don't seem too dismissive of the Catholic Church in this column. I love religion in general, and I like Catholicism a lot, at least from an outsider's perspective, i.e., I have no interest in becoming a Catholic myself. There were just some things about the new limbo report that I thought were amusing and worthy of comment.

This item has 67 comments

Lane says:
April 30, 2007 at 4:28 am
That part about limbo having traffic noise = funny. Sometimes your articles are informative, and that's fine. But it's the pointless lies that keep me coming back.
Robert says:
April 30, 2007 at 6:22 am
Paragraph five summarizes so much about "their" doctrine. I've always wondered where that stuff came from.
Kyralessa says:
April 30, 2007 at 7:33 am
Geez, man, haven't you ever heard that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones? You're LDS, of all things, and you're making fun of someone else's theology?
Turkey says:
April 30, 2007 at 7:46 am
I love the photos. They make the article.
Brandon says:
April 30, 2007 at 8:45 am
I've been discussing the concept of infant baptism with a Lutheran for about two weeks now on another board. He's dead set on the belief that children are conceived in sin and are therefore sinners. If they die before being baptized, limbo for them!

I thought it's kinda weird that a Lutheran is so into what I've always perceived as a Catholic docrtine, but whatever.
Diane says:
April 30, 2007 at 8:47 am
Thatâ€™s why Iâ€™m a Pagan. At least most of us admit we just made up all our crap.
Tobias Drake says:
April 30, 2007 at 9:28 am
Huh. I'd heard about Darth Benedict's anti-limbo stance, but this is the first time I've heard anything about it other than "he's planning to abolish limbo". I actually learned something from Snide Remarks; go figure.

Being non-Catholic and, heck, even non-Christian, there's one thing that I've never really understood: for lives that end before they can even get off the ground, what's so abhorrent about the concept of reincarnation? Baby snuffs it before they've even had a life to judge, why not recycle the soul and give them another chance?
Randy Tayler says:
April 30, 2007 at 9:33 am
Kyralessa, you have to admit -- YOU MUST! OR ELSE! -- that LDS theology makes waaaay more sense than Catholic.

But the devout Catholics I've known have been really good-hearted people, theology aside, which is more than I can say for other devotees.
Matt says:
April 30, 2007 at 9:48 am
Catholic theology has always struck me as unnecessarily complicated, though it doesn't score much different than LDS on the weird-o-meter.
whea-wix says:
April 30, 2007 at 10:08 am
I have a 7 month old daughter, and she is the best baby in the world. Seriously. Line up every baby in the whole world, and you'd pick her every time as the best, most beautiful, and as Miss Congeniality. I suspect, but cannot confirm, that this is a common feeling that parents have. Ergo, the whole "babies go to hell" idea always struck me as an incredibly unfair rule from a just and loving God.

Also, love the pictures.
Skizat says:
April 30, 2007 at 10:26 am
"But the devout Catholics I've known have been really good-hearted people, theology aside..."

Very true. Since about the 16th century at least.
HP says:
April 30, 2007 at 10:29 am
Randy,

I believe that all religions look equally bizarre to people who aren't adherants. I don't think that LDS beliefs are more or less weird than Catholic ones. Sure they have infant baptism, but we had plural marriage. It all evens out.
Matt says:
April 30, 2007 at 10:47 am
And don't forget the baptizing and marrying dead people, sacred undergarments, and all the secret temple stuff. Plenty of weird to go around. Then there's those Pentecostals with their speaking in tongues and those Lutherans with their Garrison Keillor...
Melis says:
April 30, 2007 at 10:48 am
Wow, I don't even know what to say about this one, except to point out that religion in general was created by man, with the "best" intent at the time. What man does is not what (one would assume) God does in any comparrison, and is therefore imperfect-- AND conjecture and supposition tend to make up a whole lot of what is called doctrine in this modern day and age. I personally would think that babies, in all of their minute perfection, off to heaven straightaway, no questions asked. Tell ya what, when we get to meet The Big Man, lets just ask, m'kay?
John Doe says:
April 30, 2007 at 11:16 am
Funny article. I hope that not too many Catholics get offended. Though in the end, all of the ones I've spoken to believe A) families are together forever, B) babies go to Heaven. They don't care what their church says or what the Pope says, they believe what they believe, and then attend mass on Easter and Christmas. That is until, like my grandparents, they are old and want to get into Heaven. Then they start attending frequently :)
Ann Robins says:
April 30, 2007 at 11:28 am
As a former Catholic, I can tell you that this doctrine always seemed abominable to me. I was so relieved when I read in the Book of Mormon that not only is it not necessary to baptize infants but that it is a sin to do so.

My younger brother died in infancy, and my mother was told by her priest that he was going to hell because he hadn't been baptized. Not even limbo--hell! This caused my mother to have an emotional collapse that required hospitalization.

And of course, John Doe (#15) is correct. Most Catholics don't believe in the fire and brimstone for the kindergarten set, they do believe that they will be with their families in heaven, and they don't get to worried about missing Mass now and then, even though it is technically a mortal sin.

And now the big question--what happened to all those Catholics who went to hell for eating meat on Friday now that this rule has been changed? Did they get to take a bus to heaven like in C.S. Lewis's "Great Divorce?"
richrich says:
April 30, 2007 at 11:29 am
the secret book of the new testament with all the limbo info is from the greek apostle Smarticus.
Andrew D says:
April 30, 2007 at 11:29 am
To HP & anyone else it may concern: Randy was being sarcastic.

If anyone gets offended over this article, it will be very easy to point to Eric's countless others that poke fun at LDS culture and doctrine. It's all well-meant, to be sure, and the only ones that get upset are those that take themselves way too seriously.
A different Matt says:
April 30, 2007 at 11:43 am
I like this column, but I'm afraid this is one case where I'd rather comments weren't on the site.
kevith says:
April 30, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Eric is on a roll with the allegedly offensive columns. I love 'em!

In my experience growing up with several Catholic friends and serving a mission in a country that was mostly Catholic, John Doe's comment seems rather accurate. No matter what their church says, they still think families will be together forever and that babies go to heaven. Catholicism seemed to be more a part of their culture than their religion.

I also wanted to add that all religions teach weird stuff. It just seems less weird the longer you're around it. That's probably why your religion seems so normal to you :)

P.S. Matt's comment about Garrison Keillor made me laugh out loud for some reason. I think the idea that he's integral to Lutheran doctrine and identity the same way that speaking in togues is to Pentecostal religions is what did it.
Eric D. Snider says:
April 30, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Just a reminder of one of the less obvious rules about posting comments here at EricDSnider.com: Since Eric comes from an LDS background, comments ridiculing the Mormon Church aren't allowed. Is that fair? Nope! Not in the least! And yet it is the rule. One of the benefits of having your own website is that you get to make up whatever rules you want.

I'd rather we not totally bash Catholics, either, for that matter. My intention with this column was to make jokes about a particular doctrine that never made sense, and which the church is moving away from, not to discredit Catholicism altogether. It's true that all religions' beliefs seem silly from an outsider's perspective (a perfect man who walked on water and came back from the dead?! What?!!), and what matters most is how it benefits the believer. If it helps you live a good, decent life and brings you personal happiness, then hey, worship how, where, and whatever you want.
jennyanydots says:
April 30, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I'm probably just a silly, silly person, I know, but I can't stop laughing until the tears are streaming down about, "YOU'RE NOT OFF THE HOOK YET, BABIES!" For some reason, it reminded me of the Simpson's episode where Ralph Wiggum says, "And I saw one of the babies and it looked at me!" Two weeks of COMPLETE hilarity in a row, Eric - thank you, thank you! (And thanks, Matt, for the Garrison Keillor comment - hilarity abounds!)
Markk says:
April 30, 2007 at 2:24 pm
"Of course, the Bible is also silent on baptizing babies at all, or on baptizing anyone by sprinkling rather than immersing them in water, or on the need to confess sins to a priest in order to be absolved, or on the notion of doing penance to obtain forgiveness, or on the idea of praying to saints or other intermediaries instead of directly to God, or on celibacy within the priesthood, or on papal infallibility, or on having popes in the first place."

I'm still waiting for someone to come here and claim those things are in the Bible, and quote lots of scriptures to back it up. Then we could have ourselves a good flame war. I will be so disappointed if we don't get a flame war.
Mozzie says:
April 30, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Diane, #6, that was freakin hillarious. Made me laugh out loud. Eric makes fun of the LDS religion plenty, so no one should get their panties in a twist over this article. It was funny, and anyone will admit, makes perfect sense.
Bucky Bunson says:
April 30, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Don't take this as a slam on Mormonism, Eric, but it seems really pot-kettle-black for a Mormon to play the "Limbo just never made any sense to me" card when and I say that as a lifetime Mormon (mission, temple marriage, etc). There are literally hundreds of things about Mormon doctrine and practice that only make "sense" if you ignore logic. I won't list those things because I don't want to appear as though I'm slamming Mormonism when that's not my intent, but any Mormon who has honestly studied his or her religion knows that there are ALL KINDS of times when such is the case.

We Mormons love to believe that vicarious ordinances and temple sealings somehow solve the limbo problem in a neat and tidy way but those things only give rise to more questions, such as:

- Since entire civilizations have lived without any recorded geneology whatsoever, how will Mormons possibly do the vicarious work for them? ANSWER: Don't worry, God will take care of that.

- Since the rate at which the number of temple recommend holders (notice I didn't say total membership) is growing is lower than the growth rate of the population as a whole, how will Mormons ever possibly do all the work for everyone who needs it? ANSWER: Don't worry, God will take care of that.

- If a man and a woman are sealed and have a few kids and then the father is excommunicated or resigns from the church (thereby nullifying the sealing), what happens to the woman and the children? ANSWER: Don't worry, God will take care of that.

- If a man and a woman are sealed and then the man dies two months later and the woman meets another man and they marry and spend a lifetime together, to whom will the woman be sealed? ANSWER: Don't worry, God will take care of it.

So--and I do not mean this as a slam on Mormonism--one can see that the so-called "easy answers" of vicarious work and temple ordinances that Mormonism offers to solve the "limbo" problem still leave just as many unanswered questions as the Catholics presumably have.

And the answer in both cases is: Don't worry, God will take care of it. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, but I'm pretty sick and tired of listening to smug Mormons blather on about how our doctrine answers all the questions when it clearly doesn't.

Just about everyone who believes in God (whether Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, or whatever) believes that God will take care them one way or another if they live a good life regardless of the limitations of their own doctrine. Mormonism included.
Holly says:
April 30, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Last week: politics. This week: religion. What's next week's controversial Snide Remarks topic? I can't wait to find out!
corned_beef says:
April 30, 2007 at 4:17 pm
The baby in flames picture is pee-in-your-pants funny.
BeeDub says:
April 30, 2007 at 4:29 pm
#26: Sex. Next week, Eric will talk about sex.
Kaydria says:
April 30, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Now, I'm not normally a laugher with Snide Remarks. Perhaps a smile and a snicker now and then. When I saw the flaming baby I laughed long and hard for several minutes.
Joshua Lutes says:
April 30, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Operating systems. I hope.
Dave the Slave says:
April 30, 2007 at 5:03 pm
#25 Mr Bucky Bunson is either a liar, claiming to be a mormon when he is just an ignorant mormon-basher, or he's a woefully ignorant member who's gone through his whole life playing BeJeweled on his cell phone every sunday rather than listening to whats being said at church. "These things don't make sense to me, even though I haven't put any effort into learning about them, therefore there obviously aren't any answers and those..i mean, WE mormons only say 'God'll take care of it!"

please. If you're going to make thinly-veiled attacks on mormon beliefs, spare us the "I'm not attacking mormon beleifs, but.."-comments.

If you really are LDS (mission and temple-marraige) its pretty sad how little you know about your own religion. Next Sunday during Elder's quorum meeting how bout you stop playing on your cell phone and listen. Better yet, how about you put some effort into learning the gospel during the week, before dismissing it? We're counseled to try to make our own personal scripture study the base and core of our beliefs, not just glide through each week and barely stay awake through church on Sundays.

Just a quick thought, do you even know what the world will be doing during the milenium? (at least, what those crazy mormons think we'll be doin) Just sittin around in a tranquil state of peace and happiness, floating on a cloud, playin a harp, watchin old reruns of Battlestar Galactica or something? At least do your research before you try to slam the mormons...

O wait, I should have started this comment with "Now I'm not sayin that Bucky's an ignorant hate-monger....." O well, in the end I'd have to agree with Eric, who cares what you believe as long as it helps you to be a better person. :-)
David Cornelius says:
April 30, 2007 at 5:17 pm
I was under the impression that the Pope did not like limbo because every time he bent over backwards, his big hat would fall off.

I also assume that the Vatican spent all that time studying the writings of St. Chubby of Checker.
Holly says:
April 30, 2007 at 5:20 pm
I don't think Bucky mentioned anything about playing with his cell phone and falling asleep during church...

Those are pretty harsh assumptions to make.
Queen of Everything says:
April 30, 2007 at 5:23 pm
#25:
Well, He has to have SOMETHING to do for eternities upon eternities, right?

Great column; but it's funny how people will leave like 80+ comments on a piece written that involves politics and politicians and the like within a day of its having been posted, yet one on something as long-standing, mysterious, and sensitive as religion merits only a few comments, a few of which have several disclaimers: "I'm not bashing any religion! Don't come torch my house for what I'm about to say, which doesn't bash anyone's religion!"

Not to bash anyone's opinion (lol, eating my foot), but it is funny that people are more willing to tell someone how wrong they are politically, but man don't touch their religion! Cuz they'll KILL YA!

lol lol lol, I heart these things, and the view from this flaming slum overlooking the Interstate is just icing on the cake. All these screaming babies all over do get old though.
Dave the Slave says:
April 30, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Sorry my comments came out so harsh, I was just trying to imagine why a life-long member would be so clueless about something as important as temple work. Seems every week theres at least a talk or two on temple work during the meetings.

It just got me a little worked up because if I personally dont understand a concept of religion, I keep quiet about it while I study up on it. It just made me kinda sick to see how freely he posts his own "concerns" on a weblog thats read by hundreds if not thousands of people, especially since the connotations I get from how he talks about it is openly mocking.
Holly says:
April 30, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Queen of E--By 6:03pm last Monday, the Cheney column had 34 comments vs. the 37 comments this column has at 5:30ish.
Dave the Slave says:
April 30, 2007 at 5:36 pm
wow...magic disappearing comments... :-P
Queen of Everything says:
April 30, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Gotta love them hyperboles, Holly.

But, thank you for correcting me. I am aware that it wasn't quite that many by Monday, I was simply making a point.

Look over there! >>>>

thanks, i'll be here all week.
Momma Snider says:
April 30, 2007 at 7:28 pm
I also think that most people believe they will be with their loved ones again, no matter what their particular church teaches. I heard a preacher the other day on the radio say that while you don't want to tell a grieving survivor that his loved one is going to hell because he wasn't a "believer," (believer meaning a member of his general sect) it's also not right to say, "He's in a better place," because, in this preacher's opinion, he is NOT in a better place. That theory, that a person who is not a mainstream Christian (whether he's ever even HEARD of mainstream Christianity or not) goes to hell forever, has never made sense to me.
Paul Norman says:
April 30, 2007 at 8:07 pm
I figured this would be one that would generate plenty of comments. Might even overtake "Something Wiki..." for the top of the leader board. The problem the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations have had with this question arises from the idea that EVERYONE that goes to heaven must be baptized, so unbaptized infants who die cannot go there. On the other hand, God is loving and merciful, so how can He NOT save unbaptized infants? Mormonism neatly sidesteps the issue by saying that children under 8 need no baptism. Then we have vicarious baptisms for the dead. By far most Christians, LDS or not, that I know do not believe in infant damnation.

With regard to #25, yeah, we are going to bump up against the limits of our knowledge. Would you really expect otherwise? Is it reasonable to expect any religion to have all the answers? Bucky Bunson is quite right that we Mormons can get a little too smug because we have more answers than others in a few areas.

In fairness to Catholics, I would say I Corinthians 7 gives support to a celibate clergy.
Bucky Bunson says:
April 30, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Dave the Slave, I assure you I am not a liar and having been raised in the church, taught seminary, served in three EQPs and two Bishoprics that I have at least a cursory understanding of the tenets of the Mormon faith.

You and I both know that there is no doctrinal answer to any of the questions I raised. There is plenty of speculation, but no doctrine. Should you disagree, please provide the scripture reference to support your claim.

In the context of an article about the doctrinal problems of Catholicism, it seems only fair to point out that Mormon doctrine introduces its own set of practical difficulties and relies just as heavily as any other religion on faith without understanding. I used the phrase "God will take care of it" to describe that concept. I'm sorry if you found that off-putting but as I said before there's a certain unwarranted Mormon smugness with regards to the afterlife that I think we'd all be better off dropping.

Surely you can step back from your own beliefs for long enough to understand that people not immersed in the Mormon faith might find the notion that a person who has lived an otherwise exemplary life must accept a Mormon baptism to be allowed to live with God and their loved ones to be at least as strange and non-sensical as the concept of limbo. Does being able to empathize with that make me a Mormon-basher?
Casey says:
April 30, 2007 at 8:18 pm
#31: Woah there, turbo. Slow down a little bit. Bucky wasn't slamming Mormonism at all. Personally, I feel like he knows what he's talking about. Heck, I even agree with him. He was showing that, hey, like it or not, we don't have all the answers like we think we do, at least in the sense of a specific one. Yeah, a lotta that work will be done during the Millenium. But who's still taking care of it?

God!

YAAAAY!

I think, more than anything, he was taking an "outsider looking in" stance on what we believe. It was a smart, rational move that showed that we're on the same plane as everyone else. There are questions that not even we have the answers to, and "God will work it out in the end" seems like a perfectly viable answer.

Remember, scripture and gospel study is a lifelong process. You are continually learning and understanding new things. And maybe ol' Bucky Bunson here understands the Gospel in a way different from you.
David Manning says:
April 30, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I love this site, but when controversy arises--unless Eric's doing his thing with it (because then it's tactful and funny) or it's one of those harmless, Angry Stupid Letter-Writers we all love...well, I get pretty darned uncomfortable. I gotta agree with #19 on this one. But what really matters is, this column cured the stress resulting from my feelings on the subject matter and made me laugh at the same time. Which is why I always come back (for the latter, I meant, the former is just an occasionally occuring bonus).
Dave the Slave says:
April 30, 2007 at 9:02 pm
K I admit my comments were my knee-jerk reaction, I came off most definately too-snotty, and I apologize. In response, I just want to add that if people try to settle any theoligical questions appealing solely to the written canon of scripture, it will never be as enlightening as learning from living prophets that receive direct revelation from God. Direct personal revelation through the Holy Spirit is the only real way anyone can claim to know anything from God for that matter, so it's obvious why so many people dismiss certain aspects about the gospel and religion in general. Silent prayer, contemplation, and scripture study, truly seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit is utterly laughable from most of the world's perspective. All I'm trying to say is if you have serious questions about any topic of belief, you can find out the why of it if you really want to. Even if the why really does boil down to "trust the Big Man, He's got it covered".

The only thing I can say to give scriptural reference to support my claim would be to reread D&C 120:45-46. If we truly desire knowledge, and live worthly to receive it, the truths of the gospel will be made known to us "as the dews from heaven".

So while I agree we should beware of being prideful, thinking we have all the answers, it should be our goal to learn as much as we can, and avoid criticizing things we personally don't understand.
Jane says:
April 30, 2007 at 9:34 pm
I do feel that there's a difference between the humor in this column and Eric's frequent fun-poking at Mormon culture. Eric has pointed out that he never makes fun of Mormon doctrine or the Mormon church, only Mormon culture; whereas in this column he is making fun of a point of Catholic doctrine and Catholic leadership. If he were making fun of Catholic *culture* it would have to be about, I don't know, bingo or fish fries or something.

I think this column has a more mean-spirited feeling than some of the others; as Eric points out in his comment, pretty much every religion has some doctrines that don't make a lot of logical sense. It seems unfair to single out Catholics.
Queen of Everything says:
April 30, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Jane, (#45) I think you're right on some aspects, but I'm not sure if many Mormons who have been so their entire lives can really claim to have seen much of the Catholic culture, just like some Masai may not quite know about Weird Al fans daring each other to eat Twinkie-weener sandwiches. Plus, I kinda doubt that Eric, being LDS, or at least heavily affiliated with it, would start in on his own said religion, because most people don't do that out loud where hundreds of people can be witnesses, ya know?

Also, I don't think that this was meant to be mean-spirited (despite, the, you know, *snide* part of the column's title) or anything to Catholics at all. It's a news story, and Catholics were involved, he deemed it amusing, and then wrote about it.

Kudos for stickin up for 'em, though. I didn't know bingo and fish fries had anything to do with the Catholics! Like Mormons with jello salad and--jello. Plain jello. :)
Zimm says:
May 1, 2007 at 12:52 am
Wow, Eric. I guess you really 'let a monkey loose in a classroom full of retards' with this one...
mommy says:
May 1, 2007 at 2:21 am
I really love the suburbs of hell concept...I just imagine a cheap motel. If you were in heaven it'd be ocean view...here we just have an empty pool
Jane says:
May 1, 2007 at 7:18 am
Queen- Everything you say is true, of course. I don't expect Eric to make fun of his own religion, and he can write about whatever he wants to. I just didn't enjoy this particular column as much as the others because it felt mean-spirited to me. Other people felt the same way about the clowns column a few weeks ago, which I thought was hilarious.

For the record I'm neither Catholic or Mormon.
Clinton King says:
May 1, 2007 at 9:35 am
Eric: I can't exactly put my finger on it, but this column made me feel a little uncomfortable. I would certainly be embarrassed to have any of my Catholic friends read it.

Bucky Bunson and others: Some of your comments got me thinking, and I remembered a document I read the last time I was visiting my wife's family. It was a report of an interview by Joseph Smith III of my wife's great-great grandmother, who had been a plural wife of Joseph Smith for nine months before his death. I wish I could give the particulars (ie names) off the top of my head, but this woman came to Utah and remarried and had five or six children with her second husband. She stated that her second husband knew and accepted that she and the children should not be his in eternity, but that she and her children were sealed to Joseph Smith. She stated that she fully expected that when she died (she was aged at the time of the interview) she would be reunited with Joseph Smith (and not her second husband, who had also passed away by this time) and implied that she was content with that fact. Anyway, this doesn't really answer anyone's questions, but it is interesting to consider.
stephkitten says:
May 1, 2007 at 4:52 pm
I would also like to express how much i loved the baby in flames picture...hilarious. And I also enjoyed paragraph 5.

Oh, and I'm Lutheran and have absolutely no idea who this Garrison Keillor person is that apparently makes poster #13 (i think...i'm too lazy to scroll all the way back up and check) think that Lutherans are crazy. I'm genuinely curious, and shall now go google him.
stephkitten says:
May 1, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Googling done, I think I have been missing out on some quality humor for years, as I am a Lutheran from a very Norwegian Lutheran church in Iowa. I very much enjoyed his essay called "Singing with the Lutherans" which was the first search hit. And as I'm sure no one cares, and would much rather get back to flaming each other, I will stop now with the silly Lutheran comments.
Kyralessa says:
May 1, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Context is everything. This column would've been funny if written by a Roman Catholic. But written by a LDS, it sounds (as others have pointed out) mean-spirited. (And I'm not Catholic or LDS, by the way.)

Look at it this way: English isn't my wife's first language, and I laugh at the silly stuff she says sometimes. But that doesn't give you the right to laugh at my wife for the same stuff if you don't even know her. My laughter is OK because it's tinged with my affection for her.

I didn't detect any affection in this column.
Matt says:
May 1, 2007 at 7:53 pm
stephkitten, I'm happy I could introduce you in a roundabout way to Mr. Keillor's work. Try to catch him on Prairie Home Companion if your local NPR station caries it. If not, it's probably available online.
Mommy says:
May 1, 2007 at 10:55 pm
I just had a premature still born baby and people have been pussy-footing around me on how to describe what happened. While technicaly I am appalled that Eric would describe the death of an infant so, I can't stop snickering through my nose. What's wrong with me? I think from now on when some one gently tries to bring up "what happened" I will reply, "oh you mean when my baby went teats up?" and then joyfully declare that atleast there is a chance that he is not Hell.
Eric Herman says:
May 2, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Great column, with a surprising amount of humor, considering the subject. "This is my favorite part: Limbo is for people who led good lives but who died before Jesus' time, and for infants and children who died without being baptized. It's a nice place, full of perpetual happiness and lollipops and bunnies and so forth, but God isn't there, so it doesn't have quite the full awesomeness of heaven. Also, it's near the interstate, so you get a lot of traffic noise."
Mary says:
May 3, 2007 at 8:16 am
I also agree with comment number 8. Most Catholics, while their beliefs make me go "huh?" and make me laugh at the same time, are pretty nice people...well at least the ones who arn't devote and never even go to Mass. My dad is Catholic but hasn't been to a Mass in about 10 years, and he's the best person I know, but don't even try to disscuss religion with him.

Sometimes I think that the preists of way back when got tired of reading the same ol' Bible with the same ol' rules so they decided to jazz it up with a few rules of their own. Do you think priests talk about who confessed to what when they drink their coffee in the break room? "Father Mark, you won't believe what Mrs. Smith told me she did with the pool boy during confesional!"
Jeff says:
May 3, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Doesn't all religion defy logic by its' very existence? Isn't that where faith is supposed to come into effect?

That's why I never really understood religious arguments between religions.
Andy says:
May 3, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Eric. It's only ok to poke jokes about your own religion, sexual preference, marital status, income, race, country, computer brand (you own), hair style, language, weight and political affiliation. Oh, and gender. That said, I look forward to your snide remarks about 30 something, single, hetrosexual, LDS, english speaking, mac carrying, temple card toting, middle income earning, honkies!. Those will be some great entries. I'm really looking forward to them. I thought our reward for being good was that babies were going to hell? There better be plenty of women in heaven to take care of them.
ClobberGirl says:
May 4, 2007 at 3:10 am
#25 Bucky Bunson, you said:

If a man and a woman are sealed and have a few kids and then the father is excommunicated or resigns from the church (thereby nullifying the sealing), what happens to the woman and the children? ANSWER: Don't worry, God will take care of that.

Hmm... now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the LDS answer to this was something to the effect of, she'll get a new husband to be sealed to in the afterlife along with the kids. Heck, polygamy's still legal in the next life, so we could even just tack her onto any faithful LDS man who's already been sealed to another woman, no? That could be seen as just an extended version of "God will take care of it," but still, it is a bit more specific.

- If a man and a woman are sealed and then the man dies two months later and the woman meets another man and they marry and spend a lifetime together, to whom will the woman be sealed? ANSWER: Don't worry, God will take care of it.

Again, I thought the answer was, she gets to choose which one she wants to be sealed to, and has the option of breaking the first seal if she wishes to be sealed to the second husband. I do know that when work is done for a woman who was married to two husbands in her life (on good terms, I think, ie the first one died and was not a divorce), she's sealed to both of them. Not that she gets to practice polyandry, just that she gets to choose which one of them she wants to be permanently sealed to.

I could be wrong on all those counts, but I recall going over a lot of these hypotheticals with LDS folks when I first started learning about the Church, and those are the answers I seem to recall being given.

In any case, I think you still make an excellent point. Answered questions in religion are like missing links in evolution. Every time you find one, you create a need for two more. You never actually fill in all the gaps; you just have to reach a point where you're satisfied with the size of the spaces and think they're small enough to be irrelevant. Mormonism answered some of the questions which traditional sects of Christianity did not have solid answers to while creating a host of new questions of its own. I do my share of eye-rolling when LDS types preach to me about how Mormonism has all the answers. All religions have areas where the only answer is, "You'll just have to wait and ask God."

BTW... what the heck is up with all this nonsense about babies and children being innocent? If you think babies are innocent, I challenge you to get over here and change my 10 month-old's diaper. It's not the contents of the diaper I'm complaining about; it's how, as soon as she's free of the old one, she'll immediately flip over and make a half-naked run for the other side of the living room before I can wrestle the other diaper onto her--and for some reason, being free of her diaper seems to give her the urge to urinate again...

Innocent? Psshh, whatever.
alanyst says:
May 4, 2007 at 11:25 am
#60 ClobberGirl, your 10-month-old daughter IS innocent; she's just afraid of the lemon-juice-based diaper rash ointment you've been using. Try something with zinc oxide...
Joe Q says:
May 4, 2007 at 9:28 pm
I'm also a Mormon who doesn't know the answer to everything. I guess I never knew I was supposed to. I get Bucky's intent when writing "Don't worry, God will take care of it" (i.e. I'm an ignorant sheep), but that also seems to me to be a decent explanation of faith. Or maybe I'm wrong.

Regardless, Eric's comment reminds of a story:

An elderly American man and his wife were traveling in the Holy Land when the wife suddenly died. The Israeli morgue told him that he could ship her back to the States for burial for about $10,000, or just bury her in Israel for a fraction of the cost. After thinking for a minute, the man said "I guess we'll go ahead and ship her home." The examiner said, "wow, how loving to see you care so much about your deceased wife to make such a financial sacrifice." The man replied, "well that's not it. A few thousand years ago a man was buried in this same area and, after three days, he rose from the dead. I just can't take that chance."
Chocolatestu says:
May 4, 2007 at 10:56 pm
I was vaguely disturbed by some of the phrasing in the article - probably because I have a 7 month old daughter (who, by the way #10, is ACTUALLY the cutest, sweetest, and most lovable baby on the planet - but you're right, all mothers feel that way, I'm sure) - but I could tell everything was written with a flavor for humor (this BEING, after all, a HUMOR column). So yes, I was disturbed, but not offended. The comments following the article, however... wow. I tell you what, wow. I had no idea so many of Eric's fans were nuts. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, I'm a little crazy myself. But SERIOUSLY, people!
lolly says:
May 5, 2007 at 12:28 am
I loved it, as I always do when Eric writes about anything remotely controversial or offensive. Even when I don't completely agree with him. I'm always surprised when people are offended by his columns. I guess I'm just here for the humor and don't care much what his actual views are.
Katie says:
May 6, 2007 at 12:13 pm
This column made me laugh so hard that soda came through my nose, and the other people in the computer lab stared at me.

Being neither Roman Catholic nor LDS, I cannot adequately pass judgement on either religion. I think that if a religion helps you lead a happy and full life, you go ahead and follow the religion that makes you happy. (I am a Christian, as a disclaimer.)
Kat says:
May 7, 2007 at 11:44 pm
#50, your family story sounds a lot like comments made by Elvira Holmes (a plural wife of Joseph Smith) recorded in Jonathan Holmes' diary. Sorry, that's all I've got to say on this one.
Kourtney says:
January 9, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I don't see what the big deal is. Unless you're wearing a mini skirt, limbo is fun AND wholesome! Any baby's dream come true!

This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.