Category: Religion

The Washington Post’s EJ Dionne writes about the discovery of the apocryphal Gospel of Judas, a writing known and rejected by Christians since the early days of the Church, but which has achieved new notoriety lately through its textual release after years of study. Dionne addresses the silliness that has accompanied the National Geographic release:

The buzz surrounding the Gospel of Judas is that it will threaten the faith. Much the same has been said of “The Da Vinci Code” by Dan Brown, but the Judas Gospel has the additional benefit of being a genuine historical document. It is the product of the Gnostic wing of early Christianity, eventually condemned as heretical, that claims salvation not by faith or works but by special knowledge. …
Judging by the Gospel of Judas, the “knowledge” claim of the book’s author or authors is to a rather bizarre cosmology. The detailed description of a divine realm of assorted angels and an emphasis on the stars — “Stop struggling with me,” the Jesus of the story says. “Each of you has his own star.” — reads like a rejected screenplay for a Spielberg movie.

Gnosticism has always been a seductive force, and not just in Christianity. For some reason, a large percentage of people want to believe that real truth can never be easily understood. Humans appear to have a deep-seated need to be part of a secret, inner circle that can unlock hidden truths — or at least to believe in hidden truths. Gnosticism could be accurately described as Christianity’s first conspiracy theory, except that it undersells the strength of the movement and how difficult it was for the early Church to stamp it out.
The Gospel of Judas and the actual assertions on which the fictional DaVinci Code are based represent the eternal attraction of Gnosticism. We cannot believe that God loved us so that He gave us His only son as the perfect sacrifice for all time, and all we have to do to partake in that sacrifice is to believe in Him. (I often think that Jesus understood this so well that he spoke in parables just to address this human need for deconstruction, along with the other eternal human need to have everything explained in small words.) Because this sacrifice is so unbelievable, a lot of people are unable to take it at face value, and that’s when people start thinking about conspiracies, secret knowledge, and so on.
The problem with Gnosticism is that it denies the universality of the sacrifice. Christians believe that Jesus died for all our sins to set mankind free. If that is true, then Gnosticism directly contradicts it. Rather than having Jesus be the universal sacrifice, Gnosticism would have people believe that the salvation offered by Jesus was intended from the beginning for only a select few, only those in on the Double Plus Secret Plan, if you will. Under this system of belief, the only people who can achieve salvation are those who can successfully decode secret messages in the Gospels and recognize the secret nature of God. It casts Heaven as a convention for conspiracy nuts.
It’s no small wonder, then, that the Gospel of Judas portrays a Jesus that doesn’t sound terribly concerned about humanity but emphasizes astrology — another form of study that attracts the same kind of attention from the same kind of people. It’s also fitting that this gets attributed to Judas, the apostle who apparently believed that Jesus would command an army to overthrow the Romans, a man who looked for the secret code in the teachings of Jesus rather than the overt message He preached. This Gospel only threatens the faith of those who still are tempted to do the same, in the same manner that the Da Vinci Code threatens the faith — which is to say not at all.
For those of you who wonder why I read Dionne, this column is an excellent example of his insightful writing and point of view. I may not agree with EJ often, but he always has something interesting and provocative to say.
UPDATE: Thank you for all of the excellent comments in this thread and to those who e-mailed their thoughts on this subject. For more on this topic, I’d recommend this post at Stingray.

The Anchoress wondered if Islam has a tradition similar to Christianity that encourages its followers to ignore insults and pray for the insulter instead of lashing out in revenge. In order to answer that question, she engaged in a conversation with Ali at Unwilling Self Negation, a self-described moderate Muslim. The result deserves a read from everyone, and kudos to both for talking with each other rather than at each other.

ABC News reports this morning that the Afghanistan convert to Christianity, Abdul Rahman, has had the charges dropped against him for abandoning Islam (via Michelle Malkin):

“The court dismissed today the case against Abdul Rahman for a lack of information and a lot of legal gaps in the case,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the matter.
He said the case has been returned to the prosecutors for more investigation, but that in the meantime Rahman would be released.
“The decision about his release will be taken possibly tomorrow,” he said.

This isn’t the end of the story, and it may well be that Rahman faces more danger now than he did before. Earlier today, before the decision was announced, Afghan authorities transferred Rahman to a maximum-security prison where former Taliban soldiers and al-Qaeda terrorists are detained. One can imagine how precarious Rahman’s fate will be when word gets around the yard about his conversion to Christianity — which will probably be obvious five times a day when Rahman doesn’t kneel in the direction of Mecca. Even if he survives to be released, he faces a nation that overwhelmingly believes he deserves punishment for his religious beliefs, and some may feel it necessary to deliver it personally.
His best bet is to apply for asylum to the West, preferably the US but at least anywhere but Afghanistan and Pakistan in the near term. Given enough time, they may learn religious tolerance, but that time obviously has not come yet.

The case of Abdul Rahman, the Christian convert in Afghanistan on trial for abandoning Islam, finally got the official attention of the United States yesterday, but unlike in Germany and Italy, the American protest came quietly:

The Bush administration yesterday appealed to Afghanistan to spare the life of a man facing the death penalty for converting to Christianity, but said the matter was one for the Afghan government and courts to decide.
In a case that has sparked international outrage, the remarks of Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns were in sharp contrast to condemnations of the trial by lawmakers and by leading European allies.
Briefing reporters with Afghan Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah at his side, Mr. Burns said the U.S. government was watching the case of Abdul Rahman closely, but added, “This case is not in the competence of the United States government. It’s under the competence of the Afghan authorities.”
But the governments of Germany and Italy, which — like the United States — have substantial troop deployments in Afghanistan, lodged strong protests at the prospect of Mr. Rahman’s execution, with former Italian President Francesco Cossiga saying Italy should withdraw its 1,775 troops in Afghanistan if the death sentence is handed down.

The American low-key approach may intend to preserve some wiggle room for Karzai with Muslim hardliners in his country. After all, many of them already consider Karzai a sellout to Western forces attempting to strip Afghanistan of its Islamic traditions, and murdering Christian converts is a tradition they seem keen on continuing. Unfortunately, with Afghanistan still working on its stability and facing an insurgency from Taliban remnants, Karzai does not seem terribly interested in rocking that particular boat. The judge handling the case is a Taliban appointee and Karzai has shown no effort to remove him from the bench.
All due respect to Karzai’s delicate position, allowing a Taliban appointee to murder a man simply for his profession of faith is simply unacceptable, and the US should register that message at a pay grade higher than that of Nicholas Burns. Karzai should hear this directly from George Bush, and he should understand that Karzai will suffer direct consequences if Rahman’s persecution continues. The American people will not support efforts to prop up the Afghanistan democracy if it results in the execution of Christians for just being Christian; we will rightly ask whether we achieved anything in replacing the Taliban with Karzai’s government. The new Afghan constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and if the Afghans do not adhere to this clause, then the whole document is unreliable.
We performed a marvelous mission in Afghanistan by liberating 24 million people from brutal oppression and dismantling the terrorist network that operated openly under Osama bin Laden. We can consider that much a success and a necessity in the war on terror. We do not need to support a government that wishes to impose another flavor of radical shari’a in order to justify that mission. Karzai needs to know that, and know it now.

EJ Dionne kicks on the Wayback Machine to pick up an argument started during John Kerry’s presidential run, pushed up to today thanks to Catholics in Congress trying to emulate Kerry. A coalition of 55 Catholic representatives, all Democrats, plan to issue a paper this week explaining why the politics of abortion should be irrelevant to their standing in the Church. Dionne praises this as a strengthening of the underlying secular nature of our government. He starts off, as did Kerry, by quoting John Kennedy:

When John F. Kennedy ran for president in 1960, he said some things about Catholic bishops that might, in today’s climate, be condemned as insolence toward church authority.
“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute — where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act,” Kennedy told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960. “I do not speak for my church on public matters — and the church does not speak for me.”

After reviewing the statement’s preamble, signed by pro-choice and pro-life Democrats alike, Dionne argues that this resolves a dilemma faced by Catholic voters who would gladly vote as liberals if it weren’t for their local priests:

For Catholics with moderate or liberal leanings, the argument from some bishops that they could vote only for staunch foes of abortion posed a wretched dilemma. It seemed to demand that such voters cast their ballots for conservative or right-wing candidates with whom they might disagree on every other question — social justice, war and peace, or the death penalty. All are areas where liberals are often closer to the church’s view. “Our faith does and should affect how we deal with issues,” DeLauro said. “But we’re rebelling against the idea of a one-issue church.”

The problems with this argument multiply with every pass through the text. Dionne is, as always, earnest about his subject, but he and the signatories of this statement are flat wrong. And while Dionne is earnest, these politicians who run as Catholics in order to garner votes show a hypocrisy that, unfortunately, surprises no one.
Let’s start by deconstructing the argument that Dionne makes in the above paragraph. One can argue what policies best serve social justice; Democrats believe that government programs do this, and in some cases they may be right, while the GOP argues that providing a better economy and less intrusiveness does this, and in some cases they may be right. Neither party runs on the notion of “social injustice”, and I credit both with honest but differing philosophies on how to create the greatest possible public good.
On war and the death penalty, Dionne argues this as if the Catholic Church bans both — but in fact it doesn’t at all. The Church argues against the death penalty as a practice, but its catechism allows it (para 2267). It also allows for just war, a concept conceived and formed by Saint Thomas Aquinas. In fact, it almost argues it as an imperative under the conditions set forth in the catechism in paragraph 2309, among others.
On abortion, however, the Catholic Church has been crystal clear and absolute for 2,000 years, as paragraph 2270 states (emphasis mine):

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. … Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”77 “by the very commission of the offense,”78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

This “formal cooperation” goes to the heart of being a pro-choice Catholic in office. Merely proclaiming to be pro-choice does not put a Catholic in opposition to the catechism, although it’s hardly recommended. Actively voting to legalize abortion or voting against legislation such as the partial-birth abortion ban does put one in opposition to 2270. As the text itself notes, the Church considers that a “grave offense”, one that unless repented and forgiven in confession, mandates the withholding of the Eucharist. That is de facto excommunication, as the bishops noted.
There aren’t many “grave offenses” in the catechism outside of the Big Ten, and the Church considers this part of the “Thou shalt not murder” commandment. It is, in point of fact, a basic tenet of the faith.
Signing this document attempts to tell the Church that the faith must change one of its basic tenets in order to serve the political careers of a handful of people that already do not accept its teachings. The Church will not and should not become a smorgasbord of philosophy, allowing its members to dictate which parts of the catechism it accepts and which it discards. Any organized religion stands for truth in its own way, and this is part of the basic Catholic truth that members must accept to be Catholic.
And here’s the real point — Catholicism is not mandatory.
Members of a faith join or remain because they believe in the truth of the teachings and tenets of the sect. If they disagree with the basic tenets, they should leave and find a sect in which they do believe. The Catholic Church may not have the right to tell people how to vote — but they certainly have the right to tell people about the truth as they see it and to bar those who openly disagree with their teachings. There exists no right to access to the Eucharist except as the Church defines it. And those who commit grave offenses in the eyes of the Church have put themselves in a position of being denied access to communion.
The bishops have been forced into the position of threatening excommunication expressly because of stunts like this new statement. Their job is to make clear what the Church teaches, and since the politicians involved have made their alignment with Catholicism part of their political campaigns, the bishops have to draw a line and protect the catechism by pointing out the hypocrisy involved — and holding those who defy it accountable.
If these people want to be pro-choice and vote for abortion, that’s their right. It’s also the right of the Church to apply the consequences of those decisions.
UPDATE: Esmense claims that the Church was silent on abortion until the 17th century, but this is absolutely incorrect. Catholic writers have opined on this topic, and consistently argued in opposition, since the early days of the Christian church:

The early Church Fathers agreed. Fortunately, abortion, like all sins, is forgivable; and forgiveness is as close as the nearest confessional.
The Didache
“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).
The Letter of Barnabas
“The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).
The Apocalypse of Peter
“And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion” (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).
Athenagoras
“What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it” (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).
Tertullian
“In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed” (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).
“Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.
“There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] “the slayer of the infant,” which of course was alive. . . .
“[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive” (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).
“Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does” (ibid., 27).
“The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]” (ibid., 37).

There are plenty of other references as well. As I wrote earlier, this teaching goes back to the origin of Christianity. This also demonstrates that abortion has been a longstanding human controversy and not just something that popped up lately.

Some people never get over being told the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist.
An Italian atheist has filed a lawsuit against a Catholic priest for claiming that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, asking the court to impose damages on the priest for fraud and dishonesty:

LAWYERS for a parish priest in a small Italian town have been ordered to appear in court after he was accused of unlawfully asserting what many people take for granted: that Jesus Christ existed.
Father Enrico Righi was named in a complaint filed by life-long atheist Luigi Cascioli, after the priest wrote in a parish bulletin that Jesus existed and that he was born of a couple named Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem and lived in Nazareth.
Mr Cascioli claims this violated two Italian laws: so-called “abuse of popular belief”, in which someone fraudulently deceives people, and “impersonation”, in which someone gains by attributing a false name to someone.
He says that for 2,000 years the Roman Catholic Church has been deceiving people by furthering the fable that Christ existed, and says the church has been gaining financially by “impersonating” as Christ someone by the name of John of Gamala, the son of Judas from Gamala.
He also asserts that the Gospels – the most frequently cited testimony of Jesus’ existence – are inconsistent, full of errors and biased, and that other written evidence from the time is scant and does not hold up to scholarly analysis.

Had this been an American court, I don’t doubt that Cascioli would have had about ten minutes in front of a judge before being reminded that (a) no one forces him to believe in Jesus, either as a historical figure or as the Son of God, and (b) unless Cascioli could prove that he was personally damaged by the supposed fraud, he had no standing to bring legal action. Unfortunately, the Italian court did not choose to exercise a little common sense; for that matter, the Italian legislature should have understood the “abuse of popular belief” law would generate this kind of mischief from the beginning.
What is it about atheists that drive them to sue to eliminate all mention of God and faith in public? It demonstrates that everyone has a need to revere and worship something. In the case of atheist activists (a small but annoying percentage of atheists), apparently they have simply decided that courtrooms have replaced churches and judges have replaced priests. The worship of penal codes and case law instead of a higher power inevitably leads them to drag religious churches onto their own altars for a strange kind of sacrifice to their little demigods.
Mr. Cascioli and the rest of these secular Pharisees should take a cold shower and learn to live with diversity. It’s not possible to kill God on the altar of the municipal courtroom.

After several years of war and strife chasing tourists and pilgrims away from the place where Mary and Joseph stopped for the birth of Jesus, the little town of Bethlehem has recovered enough stillness for people to return for Christmas:

Despite the foul weather, Bethlehem residents had reason to smile. About 30,000 pilgrims converged on the birthplace of Jesus for Christmas celebrations this year, Israeli officials said, about twice as many as last year and by far the highest turnout since fighting broke out in September 2000.
Although the crowds remain a fraction of the peak years in the mid-1990s, the influx of tourists reflected the improved security situation. Israel and the Palestinians declared a cease-fire last February, bringing a sharp drop in bloodshed. Israel’s recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip also has buoyed spirits. …
“This was a very, very exceptional Christmas,” said Abdel Rahman Ghayatha, the Palestinian police commander in downtown Bethlehem. “We did not expect this big a turnout of people, especially in light of the rain and cold. It was very exceptional and very orderly.”

Peace has to start somewhere. Can it be too much to hope that it can start in Bethlehem, even it consists now of serial truces? It gives us a goal for our prayers today, anyway.

For Christmas Day, the Washington Times reports on a poll taken this week on religion. In a small surprise, the poll shows that traditional monotheism still ranks highly among Americans of all political stripes and that New Age and Eastern beliefs have not gained much of a toehold:

Traditional religion is still the bedrock of America, with “very large majorities” of the public steadfast in their belief in God and the birth and Resurrection of Jesus Christ — with belief in astrology, ghosts and other New Age hallmarks lagging behind.
Overall, 82 percent of Americans believe in God, according to a recent Harris poll, which also revealed that 73 percent also believe in miracles, 70 percent in life after death, 70 percent in the existence of heaven, and 70 percent that Jesus is the Son of God. In addition, 68 percent believe in angels and 66 percent in the Resurrection of Christ.
Six out of 10 believe in the devil and the existence of hell.

The Times notes a “partisan divide”, with a twelve-point difference between Republicans and Democrats on the existence of God. However, the figures run 93 percent for the GOP and 81 percent for the Democrats — so rather than God being a partisan trophy, it appears that both sides overwhelmingly believe in one monotheistic God. In fact, the Times says that the Democrats edge Republicans in their belief in miracles — which finally explains the John Kerry nomination last year. Sixty-seven percent of Republicans believe that the Devil and hell exist, while 61 percent of Democrats agree. (The only difference is that two-thirds of them believe that George W Bush is the Devil and that Suburbia is Hell.)
More women than men believe in ghosts, while more men than women believe in UFOs. This proves that men will believe almost anything if it comes with really great gadgetry.
When reached for comment, the Golden Calf reminded us that “God always polls well at his peaks — his birthday and April 15th. I expect to do better at my traditional height, which is the the couple of weeks between Spring Break and the Oscars.” He did express disappointment that Billy Crystal and Chris Rock won’t be hosting the latter.
God, as always, could not be reached for direct comment, but various spokespeople noticed a decided rise in attendance at His celebrations this week to underscore the polling numbers. They assure us that God keeps a close eye on His metrics and delights when His supporters come to celebrate with Him. They also extended His appreciation for all the best wishes and thoughts He receives this time of year and hopes — as always — that His friends stay in touch all year round.

A few CQ readers sent me a surprising story this morning regarding a decision by some “megachurches” to close their doors for Christmas. The AP reports that pastors at these large, non-denominational Christian houses of worship have decided that one of the more holy days for Christians should give way to secular celebrations instead:

This Christmas, no prayers will be said in several megachurches around the country. Even though the holiday falls this year on a Sunday, when churches normally host thousands for worship, pastors are canceling services, anti-cipating low attendance on what they call a family day.
Critics within the evangelical community, more accustomed to doing battle with department stores and public schools over keeping religion in Christmas, are stunned by the shutdown. …
Cally Parkinson, a spokeswoman for Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Ill., said church leaders decided that organizing services on a Christmas Sunday would not be the most effective use of staff and volunteer resources. The last time Christmas fell on a Sunday was 1994, and only a small number of people showed up to pray, she said.
“If our target and our mission is to reach the unchurched, basically the people who don’t go to church, how likely is it that they’ll be going to church on Christmas morning?” she said.
Among the other megachurches closing on Christmas Day are Southland Christian Church in Nicholasville, Ky., near Lexington, and Fellowship Church in Grapevine, Texas, outside of Dallas. North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, Ga., outside of Atlanta, said on its website that no services will be held on Christmas Day or New Year’s Day, which also falls on a Sunday. A spokesman for North Point did not respond to requests for comment.

Given that the “war on Christmas” has been pushed by churches such as these, I find these decisions rather stunning. As a Catholic, my experience has proven just the opposite: more people show up for Christmas and Easter (the holiest Christian celebration) than any other time of the year. Closing the doors due to a drop in attendance on Christmas morning would never get consideration at a Catholic parish, nor I suspect at most mainline Protestant churches either.
If the remarks made by Parkinson are representative, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Christian mission by the megachurches. The point of operating a church isn’t just to convince the unchurched to attend — it’s to build and minister an entire community, including those who are “churched’ — to keep them in that status. In order to do that, the ministry has to take the mission seriously. What kind of message does it send when the church closes its doors and does not offer the opportunity for even a part of its community to gather and pray on one of the most holy celebrations in the Christian calendar? It sends a message that popularity trumps truth and secular concerns supercede spirituality.
It says, “We give up.”
I’m sure that the people who work at these churches want to spend the day with their families, and the lower attendance makes them feel that their efforts have less worth. That only remains true, though, if one considers popularity an accurate measure of the mission. Most churches do not — they understand that the mission requires churches and ministers to take a stand for the principles of Christianity, including the sacrifice for which it calls, of which attending a 90-minute service on Christmas historically represents the least of sacrifices made for the mission. Church doors should remain open to force sinners and the “churched” alike to remember this truth.
If Christian churches want to reclaim Christmas for themselves, then they need to literally show up to do so. Closing the doors is nothing less than surrender.

No, the Mass has not gotten so liberal that celebrants or the congregation do the popular party dance on the way to the Eucharist, although some might believe that the Church wouldn’t necessarily think that a bad idea if it got people to fulfill their holy obligations more frequently. The Vatican has studied the religious concept of limbo for decades now in an attempt to either minimize it or eliminate it altogether, and the Globe & Mail reports that a blue-ribbon commission of theologians first formed by John Paul the Great on the question will recommend that Pope Benedict banish limbo from Catholic teachings:

In Latin, it means “the lip,” and for centuries devout Roman Catholics have tried to avoid thinking about its full meaning: the edge of hell, where those who have died without baptism — notably babies — are sent for eternity.
Now it seems that limbo, a place invented in the Middle Ages that soon became a well-known part of the architecture of the cosmos, is about to be struck from the theological blueprints as part of the Vatican’s lengthy renovation of its heavenly layout.
Its place, alongside such well-known medieval additions as the gates of heaven, the nine circles of hell, purgatory and the heavenly vestibule, has become increasingly shaky, and yesterday, the Italian media reported that an international commission of high-ranking theologians intends to advise Pope Benedict to banish the notion of limbo from all teachings of the Catholic catechism.

One of the reasons that limbo has been in, well, limbo is because the concept presents a stumbling block to Christian unity, especially for those who practice from a literal form of sola scriptura. After the Church could catch its breath when it emerged from four centuries of martydom and oppression, theologians presented many questions about the nature of the faith which challenged the thinking of Church elders. Among them: what happened to unbaptized babies at death? Instead of just leaving such questions up to God, distraught parents and theoretical thinkers wanted answers, and limbo came into being.
Limbo, it should be pointed out, differs from purgatory, another difficult but more scriptural-based concept of Roman Catholocism. Purgatory refers to the process of purification that has to take place between the death of a sinner and their entry into heaven. Misunderstood as a particular place in space and time, purgatory would at first appear to be an unmentioned third possible destination for the dead, but the Church teaches that all souls who enter heaven must necessarily experience purgatory to be cleansed of sinful impulses before final acceptance into the presence of the Lord. When I taught confirmation classes, I used to explain it to the teenagers as an extra rinse cycle in the washing machine … which may explain why I don’t teach confirmation classes any longer.
Purgatory as a concept would have also explained what happens to the unbaptized, and done so with much more elegance than the notion of limbo. I suspect that if limbo gets the heave-ho it deserves, the Church will probably emphasize purgatory as the merciful process that it is and the path of the unbaptized to reach heaven when judged deserving by the Lord — who, after all, makes the rules and the choices without consulting any of us on our opinion anyway.