Real Pope Story or from The Onion?

In the Saturday paper, on page 20A, I came to the following AP article's headline: "Pope: Unbaptized babies could go to heaven" (I can't find the article from my local paper online). The LA Times headline was "Vatican Panel Condemns Limbo to Eternal Dustbin", and another version of this story is here. As the mainstream media often gets subtle, complicated things very wrong (not to mention getting simple, obvious things wrong a lot of the time too!), you might also read this blog entry that criticizes the news coverage of this story and provides some details of Catholic belief to correct any misimpressions that the news media might be causing.

Be that as it may (and I'm not in a position to argue with the "Faithful Rebel" blogger on the details of Catholic belief), I must admit I found this entire story -- and especially some of the headlines -- to be quite comical. I would expect such headlines at The Onion, but as real news stories?

This raises the question that Dawkins has asked in his most recent book and elsewhere, which is essentially this: To what extent is theology a legitimate and serious endeavor or field of study? The "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin issue" arises here. Consider this passage from the AP story:

Although Catholics have long believed that children who die without being baptized are with original sin and thus excluded from heaven, the Church has no formal doctrine on the matter. Theologians, however, have long taught that such children enjoy an eternal state of perfect natural happiness, a state commonly called limbo, but without being in communion with God.

Where to begin? Leaving aside the huge elephants in the room from this paragraph (assumptions of "eternal", existence after death, and so on), on what grounds would theologians feel qualified to teach one side or another of the issue of limbo? I say "feel" on purpose, not think. Because that is what it in the end comes down to. One might say that theologians base their teachings and arguments on this or that written document. They then argue which documents are more blessed, have more mystical import, or whatever the case may be. But in the end they have no evidence for the claims they make -- they are relying on authority, a logical fallacy, and in this case not very good authorities since the authors of ancient documents were individual humans like you and me, except they lived during extremely ignorant times (relative to the knowledge we possess today). So theologians are not thinking, but rather feeling, when they take sides on issues such as this. So then Dawkins asks: Is this really a legitimate field of inquiry and study, or just people making emotional utterances?

Take this next example:

"If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace,'' said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.

Obviously the context for "we're left with only one option" remaining is the realm of Catholic doctrine and the attempt to have as many internal consistencies, and as few outright contradictions that then require blatant calls to faith in the face of logic and reason. But there are of course many other options on this question: grace is a meaningless concept in a metaphysical context, there is no limbo, and no heaven or hell either, there is no existence for living beings after death, there is no supernatural realm of any kind -- including ghosts, angels, and gods.

Or perhaps theologians and the like make decisions based on feelings, but feelings tempered by pragmatism:

Benedict approved the findings of the International Theological Commission, a Vatican advisory panel, which said it was reassessing traditional teaching on limbo in light of "pressing'' pastoral needs - primarily the growing number of abortions and infants born to non-believers who die without being baptized.

Gotta love this... what does this have to do with questions that purport to be about the truth and falsity of a grand metaphysical question? Saying that innocent babies might make it into heaven (or even limbo, as opposed to hell) is just an emotional tool to make people feel better. Again, feelings rather than reason.

Or how about this:

In the document, the commission said such views are now out of date and there were "serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision.''

I'd like to know how two theologians decide when there are "serious" vs. "unserious" grounds for deciding anything! I know, I know... it would be based on the ancient texts involved, and for Catholics, the writings of Augustine, Aquinas, and so on. But my point is... why those texts and not others that contradict them? That is a core epistemological problem with all such religious beliefs -- on all kinds of important questions they resort to written authority to play the role that legitimate evidence and reasoning should play instead. And on top of that the written authorities are not even really smart people alive today, but people from a long time ago, when mankind was laughably ignorant. Consider how much laughter someone from today would rightly receive, someone with only the knowledge that a man from 400 AD had, if he were to start making pronouncements about the nature of reality and so on. So why do millions of people continue to believe what these ancient and ignorant people felt and opined about the world? Again, note the key word felt used here, as opposed to "scientifically tested and reasoned using logic therefrom".

And this gave me a laugh, it really did:

It stressed, however, that "these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than
grounds for sure knowledge.''

Well, good. Perhaps they know their epistemological limitations afterall... though I doubt it.