[Clemenza]

The RCC instituted child baptisms to insure that those who died in infancy would see heaven, as opposed to "Limbo."

Whether baptized at childhood or adulthood is irrelevant. One has the ability to reject their faith once they become conscious of such issues.

[the invisib1e hand]

as seems typical of this interminable debate, prior to post #40 no recourse was had to the obligation of parents in the care of their children's temporal and spiritual needs.

A person who rejects the Church's teaching isn't likely to follow it in this matter. But a Catholic is obligated to baptise the baby. It is a matter of spiritual care-taking.

It is the spiritual parallel to feeding, bathing, clothing, and loving the child. In fact, it is the expression of it.

Parents who don't see this are a bit more concerned about their own beliefs that either their child's or the Church's, and, frankly, they are either ignorant (for which charitable allowances can be made) or frighteningly self-centered.

[boatbums]

The RCC instituted child baptisms to insure that those who died in infancy would see heaven, as opposed to "Limbo."

Yet in the original post the RCC scholars all got together and couldn't make a decision about Limbo. Neither, yes nor no. Do Roman Catholics believe in actually FOUR places a soul could go to now? Heaven, Hell, Purgatory and Limbo? Show where the last two are named anywhere in scripture.