In Catholic teaching, what specific actual sinful act did Adam and Eve commit, and what level of authority can be applied to this teaching? What I am asking

What does Roman Catholic theology hold to be the nature of the original sin?  If we consider the Tree of Knowledge, its fruit, and Adam and Eve partaking of it as all being metaphors, what is the meaning behind the metaphor?  What exactly did Adam and Eve do that ran counter to God's command not to "eat of the Tree"?

To clarify, I am not seeking to identify the Original Sin in terms of the Seven Deadly Sins; Catholic dogma tells us that the sin was Pride.  What I'm trying to do is identify the specific prideful thought or action that Adam and Eve committed which was sinful.

This question is being asked primarily to form the basis of another question I have posted.

What I am looking for

The ideal answer will contain citation of specific doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church regarding original sin, including:


The degree of binding authority conferred by the Magisterium upon the teachings (i.e. solemn or ordinary, universal or non-universal).
How the teachings were added to the deposit of faith (i.e. Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition).
Teachings derived from Sacred Scripture should also furnish quotation of the applicable verse(s) from a Catholic English Bible (i.e. an English-language translation of the Bible containing only the 73 canonical books and having the imprimatur of a Catholic bishop).
Teachings derived from Sacred Tradition should furnish quotations from the applicable conciliar canons or decrees, as well as links to the sources of their full texts.


What I am not looking for


Discussion, analysis, or answers from non-Catholic perspectives.
The doctrines of Original Sin are of the highest level, de fide or "of faith."(cf. this table of theological notes, the proximity of truths to Divine Revelation)

The following comes from Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Denzinger numbers (e.g., D 788) are references to his Sources of [Catholic] Dogma, a collection of Catholic dogma from Councils and Popes' ex cathedra dogmatic definitions. For example, D 788 is a reference to the Decree on Original Sin from the Council of Trent's Session V (June 17, 1546).


  III. Man’s Lapse from the Supernatural Order
  
  § 20. The Personal Sin of Our First Parents or Original Sin
  
  1. The Act of Sin
  
  Our First Parents in Paradise sinned grievously through transgression
  of the Divine probationary commandment. (De fide.)
  
  The Council of Trent teaches that Adam lost sanctity and justice by
  transgressing the Divine commandment (D 788). Since the punishment is
  proportionate to the guilt, the sin of Adam was clearly a serious sin.
  
  The biblical account of the fall through the sin of the First Parents
  is contained in Gn. 2:17 and 3:1 et seq. Since Adam’s sin is the basis
  of the dogma of Original Sin and Redemption the historical accuracy of
  the account as regards the essential facts may not be impugned.
  According to a decision of the Bible Commission in 1909, the literal
  historical sense is not to be doubted in regard to the following
  facts: a) That the first man received a command from God to test his
  obedience; b) That through the temptation of the devil who took the
  form of a serpent he transgressed the Divine commandment; c) That our
  First Parents were deprived of their original condition of innocence.
  D 2123.
  
  The later Books of Holy Writ confirm this literal, historical
  interpretation. Ecclus. 25:33: “From the woman came the beginning of
  sin, and by her we all die.” Wis. 2:24: “But by the envy of the devil
  death came into the world.” 2 Cor. 11:3: “But I fear lest, as the
  serpent seduced Eve by his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted
  and fall away from the simplicity which is Christ.” Cf. 1 Tim. 2:14;
  Rom. 5:12, et seq; John 8:44. The mythological explanation, and the
  purely allegorical explanation (of the Alexandrines) are therefore to
  be rejected.
  
  The sin of our First Parents was a sin of disobedience. Cf. Rom. 5:19:
  “By the disobedience of one man many were made sinners.” The root of
  the disobedience was pride. Tob. 4:14: “From it (pride) all perdition
  took its beginning.” Ecclus. 10:15: “Pride is the beginning of all
  sin.” The theory that Original Sin was a sexual sin (St. Clement of
  Alexandria, St. Ambrose) cannot be accepted. The gravity of the sin is
  clear when we regard its purpose and the circumstances of the Divine
  commandment. St. Augustine regards Adam’s sin as an “inexpressibly
  great sin” (ineffabiliter grande peccatum: Op. Imperf. c. Jul. I 105).
  
  2. The Consequences of Sin
  
  a) Through sin our First Parents lost sanctifying grace and provoked
  the anger and the indignation of God. (De fide.)
  
  In Holy Writ the loss of Sanctifying Grace is indicated in the
  exclusion of Our First Parents from intercourse with God. (Gn. 3:10,
  23). God appears as a judge and announces the sentence of punishment
  (Gn. 3:16 et seq.).
  
  God’s displeasure finally takes effect in the eternal rejection.
  Tatian believed that Adam lost eternal salvation but St. Irenaeus
  (Adv. haer. III 23, 8), Tertullian (De poenit. 12) and St. Hippolytus
  (Philos. 8, 16) rejected this view. In later times, the Fathers
  generally, supported by Wis. 10:2: (“She [Wisdom] brought him out of
  his sin”), teach that Our First Parents did atonement and “through the
  Blood of the Lord” were saved from eternal destruction (cf. St.
  Augustine, De peccat. mer. et rem. II 34, 55).
  
  b) Our First Parents became subject to death and to the dominion of
  the Devil. (De fide.) D 788.
  
  Death and the evils associated with it follow from the loss of the
  gifts of integrity. According to Gn. 3:16 et seq., God imposed
  suffering and death as a punishment for sin. The dominion of the devil
  is mentioned in Gn. 3:15 and is explicitly taught in John 12:31;
  14:30; 2 Cor. 4:4; Hebr. 2:14; 2 Peter 2:19.
  
  § 21. The Existence of Original Sin
  
  1. The Heretical Counter-propositions
  
  The doctrine of Original Sin was rejected by the Gnostics and
  Manichaeans, who believed that the moral corruption of humanity comes
  from an eternal principle of evil and also by the Origenists and
  Priscillianists, who explained humanity’s inclination to evil by a
  pre-corporeal fall through sin.
  
  Original sin was directly denied by the Pelagians, who taught: a) The
  sin of Adam is transmitted to posterity not by inheritance but through
  imitation of a bad example (imitatione, non propagatione). b) Death,
  suffering and concupiscence are not punishment for sin, but a natural
  condition of man who was created in a pure state of nature. c) The
  baptism of children is administered, not for the remission of sins,
  but as a sign of acceptance by the Church, and to enable men to reach
  the Kingdom of Heaven, which is distinct from vita aeterna (a higher
  stage of blessedness).
  
  The Pelagian error was combated chiefly by St. Augustine and was
  condemned by the Church at the Synods of Mileve 416, Carthage 418,
  Orange 529 and in later times by the Council of Trent (1546) D 102,
  174 et seq., 787 et seq.
  
  The Pelagian error lives on in modern rationalism (Socianism,
  Rationalism of the age of the Enlightenment, Liberal Protestant
  Theology, modern unbelief).
  
  In medieval times the Synod of Sens (1141) rejected the following
  thesis of Peter Abelard: Quod non contraximus culpam ex Adam, sed
  poenam tantum D 376.
  
  The Reformers, the Baians, and the Jansenists admitted the reality of
  original sin, but misunderstood its essence and its operation, since
  they regarded it as identical with concupiscence which corrupts
  completely human nature. Cf. St. Augustine Conf. Art. 2.
  
  2. Teaching of the Church
  
  Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by
  descent. (De fide.)
  
  The dogmatic teaching on original sin is laid down in the Tridentine
  Decree “Super peccato originali” (Sess. V; 1546), which in part
  follows word for word the decisions of the Synods of Carthage and of
  Orange. The Council of Trent rejects the doctrine that Adam’s loss of
  the sanctity and justice received from God was merely for himself
  alone, and not for us also, and that he transmitted to his posterity
  death and suffering only, but not the guilt of sin. It positively
  teaches that sin, which is the death of the soul, is inherited by all
  his posterity by descent, not by imitation, and that it dwells in
  every single human being. It is removed by the merits of the
  Redemption of Jesus Christ, which as a rule are bestowed through the
  Sacrament of Baptism on adults as well as on children. Therefore
  children also are baptised for the forgiveness of sins (in remissionem
  peccatorum). D 789–791.
  
  3. Proof from the Sources of Faith
  
  a) Scriptural proof
  
  The Old Testament contains references to original sin. Cf. especially
  Ps. 50:7: “For behold I was conceived in iniquities: and in sins did
  my mother conceive me.” Job 14:4 (according to Vulg.): “Who can make
  him clean that is conceived unclean?” Both passages speak of an inborn
  sinfulness whether this be understood in the sense of habitual sin or
  merely of the inclination to sin, but do not bring this into causal
  connection with the sin of Adam. The causal connection between the
  death of all mankind and the sin of our First Parents (original death)
  is, however, clearly stated in the Old Testament. Cf. Ecclus. 25:33;
  Wis. 2:24.
  
  The passage which contains the classical proof is Rom. 5:12–21, in
  which the Apostle draws a parallel between the first Adam, from whom
  sin and death are transmitted to all humanity, and Christ, the second
  Adam, from whom justice and life are transmitted to all men. V. 12:
  “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death,
  and so sin passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned (in quo omnes
  paccaverunt—ἐφʼ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον) … 19. For as by the disobedience of
  one man many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many
  shall be made just.”
  
  By sin (ἁμαρτία) is to be understood quite generally sin, which here
  appears personified. Original sin is therefore included. What is meant
  is the guilt of sin and not the consequences of sin. Death is
  expressly distinguished from sin and is represented as the consequence
  of sin. Concupiscence is not meant, because sin, according to V. 18 et
  seq., is removed by the grace of Christ’s Redemption, while evil
  desire remains as experience shows.
  
  β) The words in quo (ἐφʼ ᾧ; V. 12 d) were related relatively to unum
  hominem by St. Augustine and during the whole middle-ages: “By one man
  … in whom all have sinned.” Since the time of Erasmus the
  better-founded conjunctional meaning already proposed by the Fathers,
  especially by the Greeks, came to the fore: ἐφʼ ᾧ = ἐπί τούτῳ ὅτι =
  “on the ground that all have sinned” or “because all have sinned”; cf.
  the linguistic parallels in 2 Cor. 5:4; Phil. 3:12; 4:10; Rom. 8:3.
  Since those also die who have committed no personal sin (young
  children), the origin of bodily death is not a personal guilt, but a
  guilt inherited from Adam. Cf. V. 13 et seq. and V. 19, in which the
  sin of Adam is given as the reason for the sinfulness of the many. The
  conjunctional interpretation, which is adopted generally to-day,
  conforms to the explanation of St. Augustine: all have sinned in Adam,
  therefore all die.
  
  γ) The words: “Many (οἱ πολλοί) were made sinners” (V. 19a) do not
  limit the universality of original sin, since the expression “many”
  (in opposition to the one Adam, or Christ) is parallel to “all”
  (πάντες) in V. 12 d and 18 a.
  
  b) Proof from Tradition
  
  St. Augustine appeals to the Tradition of the Church against the
  Pelagian Bishop Julian of Eclanum: “It is not I who have invented
  original sin, which the Catholic Faith holds from of old, but thou,
  who deniest it, thou art without doubt a new heretic” (De nupt. et
  concup. II 12, 25). St. Augustine, in his Contra Julianum (L. I and
  II), adduces a formal proof from Tradition, in which he quotes St.
  Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Reticius of Autun, Olympius, St. Hilary, St.
  Ambrose, Innocent I, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Chrysostom,
  St. Basil and St. Jerome as witnesses of the Catholic teaching. Many
  assertions of the Greek Fathers who insist on personal responsibility
  for sin and appear entirely to prescind from original sin, are to be
  understood as being in opposition to Gnostic-Manichaean dualism and to
  Origenistic pre-existentianism. St. Augustine defended the teaching of
  St. John Chrysostom against its misinterpretation by the Pelagians:
  vobis nondum litigantibus securius loquebatur (Contra Jul. 16, 22).
  
  Irrefutable proof of the conviction of the primitive Church as to the
  reality of original sin is the old Christian practice of the baptism
  of children “for the remission of sin” (in remissionem peccatorum).
  Cf. St. Cyprian, Ep. 64, 5.
  
  4. Dogma and Reason
  
  The doctrine of Original Sin cannot be proved by natural reason,
  nevertheless the fact of Original Sin is evidenced by many signs:
  peccati originalis in humano genere probabiliter quaedam signa
  apparent (S.c.G. IV 52). Such signs are the frightful moral
  aberrations of humanity, and the many lapses from belief in the True
  God (polytheism, atheism).  
  
  § 22. The Nature of Original Sin
  
  1. False Views
  
  a) The view of Peter Abelard that Original Sin consists in eternal
  punishment (“reatus poenae aeternae) is false. According to the
  teaching of the Council of Trent, Original Sin is a true and proper
  sin, that is, a guilt of sin. Cf. D 376, 789, 792. St. Paul speaks of
  a real sin. Rom. 5:12: “All have sinned.” Cf. Rom. 5:19.
  
  b) Original Sin does not consist, as the Reformers, the Baians, and
  the Jansenists taught, in: “The habitual concupiscence, which remains,
  even in the baptised, a true and proper sin, but is no longer reckoned
  for punishment.” The Council of Trent teaches that through Baptism
  everything is taken away which is a true and proper sin, and that the
  concupiscence which remains behind after Baptism for the moral proving
  is called sin in an improper sense only. D 792. That sin remains in
  man, even if it is not reckoned for punishment, is irreconcilable with
  the Pauline teaching of Justification as an inner transformation and
  renewal. The justified man is saved from the danger of rejection
  because the ground for the rejection, the sin, is removed. Rom. 8:1:
  “There is now, therefore, no condemnation to them that are in Christ
  Jesus.” As concupiscence, in consequence of the composition of human
  nature out of body and spirit would be present, as natural evil, even
  in the pure state of nature, it cannot be sinful in itself, for God
  has created everything well. D 428.
  
  c) Original Sin does not consist, as, among others, Albert Pighius (†
  1542) and Ambrosius Catharinus, O.P. († 1553), taught, in a mere
  external imputation of the sinful deed of Adam (imputation theory).
  According to the teaching of the Council of Trent, Adam’s sin is
  transferred by inheritance to all the children of Adam, and exists as
  his own proper sin in every single one of them: propagatione, non
  imitatione transfusum omnibus, inest unicuique proprium. D 790. Cf. D
  795. Propriam iniustitiam contrahunt. According to the teaching of
  the Council of Trent, the efficacy of baptism consists in a real
  eradication of sin, not in a mere non-imputation of an alien guilt. D
  792. Cf. Rom. 5:12, 19.
  
  2. Positive Solution
  
  Original sin consists in the deprivation of grace caused by the free
  act of sin committed by the head of the race. (Sent. communis.)
  
  a) The Council of Trent defined Original Sin as the death of the soul
  (mors animae: D 789). The death of the soul is, however, the absence
  [not-being-present] of supernatural life, that is, of sanctifying
  grace. In Baptism Original Sin is eradicated through the infusion of
  sanctifying grace (D 792). It follows from this that Original Sin is a
  condition of being deprived of grace. This flows from the Pauline
  contrast between sin proceeding from Adam and justice proceeding from
  Christ (Rom. 5:19). As the justice bestowed by Christ consists
  formally in sanctifying grace (D 799) so the sin inherited from Adam
  consists formally in the lack of sanctifying grace. The lack of
  sanctifying grace, which, according to the will of God, should be
  present, establishes that the guilt of Original Sin signifies a
  turning away from God.
  
  As the ratio voluntarii, that is the free incurring of guilt, belongs
  to the concept of formal sin, and as a young child cannot perform a
  personal voluntary act, in original sin, the factor of spontaneity
  must be explained from its connection with Adam’s deed of sin. Adam
  was the representative of the whole human race. On his voluntary
  decision depended the preservation or the loss of the supernatural
  endowment, which was a gift, not to him personally but, to human
  nature as such. His transgression was, therefore, the transgression of
  the whole human race. Pope Pius V rejected the assertion of Baius,
  that Original Sin had the character of sin in itself without any
  reference to the will from which it sprung. D 1047. Cf. St.
  Augustine, Retract. I 12 (13), 5. S. th. I II 81, 1.
  
  b) According to the teaching of St. Thomas, Original Sin consists
  formaliter in the lack of original justice, materialiter in the
  unregulated concupiscence. In every sin St. Thomas distinguishes
  between a formal and a material element, the turning away from God
  (aversio a Deo) and the turning towards the creature (conversio ad
  creaturam). As the turning towards the creature manifests itself above
  all in evil desire, St. Thomas with St. Augustine, sees in
  concupiscence, which itself is a consequence of original sin, the
  material element of original sin: peccatum originale materialiter
  quidem est concupiscentia, formaliter vero est defectus originalis
  iustitiae (S. th. I II 82, 3). The doctrine of St. Thomas was
  influenced partially by St. Anselm of Canterbury, who sees in the
  nature of original sin only the lack of original justice and partially
  by St. Augustine, who defines original sin as: an evil concupiscence
  with its state of guilt (concupiscentia cum suo reatu) and explains
  that the state of guilt (reatus) is removed by Baptism, while the
  concupiscence persists for a moral test (ad agonem), but not as a sin.
  (Op. imperf. c. Jul. I 71). Most of the post-Tridentine theologians do
  not regard concupiscence as an essential constituent part of original
  sin, but as its consequence.
  
  § 23. The Transmission of Original Sin
  
  Original sin is transmitted by natural generation. (De fide.)
  
  The Council of Trent says: propagatione, non imitatione transfusum
  omnibus. D 790. In the baptism of children that is expurgated which
  they have incurred through generation. D 791.
  
  As original sin is a peccatum naturae, it is transmitted in the same
  way as human nature, through the natural act of generation. Although
  according to its origin, it is a single sin (D 790) that is the sin of
  the head of the race alone (the sin of Eve is not the cause of
  original sin) it is multiplied over and over again through natural
  generation whenever a child of Adam enters existence. In each act of
  generation human nature is communicated in a condition deprived of
  grace.
  
  The chief cause (causa efficiens principalis) of original sin is the
  sin of Adam alone. The instrumental cause (causa efficiens
  instrumentalis) is the natural act of generation, which gives rise to
  the connection of the individual human being with the head of the
  race. The actual concupiscence associated with the act of generation,
  the sexual pleasure (libido) is, contrary to the view of St. Augustine
  (De nuptiis et concup. I 23, 25; 24, 27), neither the cause nor the
  inescapable condition for the reproduction of original sin. It is only
  an accompanying phenomenon of the act of generation, which in itself
  alone is the instrumental cause of the transmission of original sin.
  Cf. S. th. 1 II 82, 4 ad 3.
  
  Objections
  
  From the Christian doctrine of the reproduction of original sin, it
  does not follow, as the Pelagians maintained, that God is the
  Originator of sin. The soul created by God is, according to its
  natural constitution, good. The condition of original sin signifies
  the want of a supernatural advantage to which the creature has no
  claim. God is not obliged to create the soul with the adornment of
  sanctifying grace. God is not to be blamed for the fact that the
  newly-created soul is denied the supernatural endowment, but man is
  who misused his freedom. Again, it does not follow from this teaching
  that marriage is bad. The marital act of generation is good because,
  objectively, that is, according to its adaptation to its end, and
  subjectively, that is, according to the intention of the generators,
  it is aimed at good, namely, the reproduction of the human nature
  desired by God.
  
  § 24. The Consequences of Original Sin
  
  The consequences of original sin are, following Luke 10:30, summarised
  by the scholastic theologians, in the axiom: By Adam’s sin man is
  deprived of the supernatural gifts and wounded in his nature
  (spoliatus gratuitis, vulneratus in naturalibus). The word gratuita
  usually means only the absolute supernatural gifts and naturalia the
  gifts of integrity, which were part of man’s abilities and powers
  before the fall. Cf. S. th. 1 II 85, 1; Sent. II d. 29 q. 1a.2.
  
  1. Loss of the Supernatural Endowment
  
  In the state of original sin man is deprived of sanctifying grace and
  all that this implies, as well as of the preternatural gifts of
  integrity. (De fide _in regar__d to Sanctifying Grace and the_
  Donum Immortalitatis. D 788 et seq.)
  
  The lack of the sanctifying grace has, as a turning away of man from
  God, the character of guilt and, as the turning of God away from man,
  the character of punishment. The lack of the gifts of integrity
  results in man’s being subject to concupiscence, suffering and death.
  These results remain even after the extirpation of Original Sin, not
  as punishment, but as the so-called poenalitates, that is, as the
  means given to man to achieve the practice of virtue and moral
  integrity. The person stained by Original Sin finds himself in the
  imprisonment and slavery of the devil whom Jesus calls “the prince,”
  and St. Paul “the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4). Cf. Hebr. 2:14;
  Peter 2:19.
  
  2. Wounding of Nature
  
  The wounding of nature must not be conceived, with the Reformers and
  the Jansenists, as the complete corruption of human nature. In the
  condition of Original Sin, man possesses the ability of knowing
  natural religious truths and of performing natural morally good
  actions. The Vatican Council teaches that man, with his natural power
  of cognition, can with certainty know the existence of God. D 1785,
  1806. The Council of Trent teaches that free will was not lost or
  extinguished by the fall of Adam. D 815.
  
  The wounding of nature extends to the body as well as to the soul. The
  2nd Council of Orange (529) explained: totum, i.e., secundum corpus et
  animam, in deterius hominem commutatum (esse) (the whole man both in
  body and in soul was changed for the worse). D 174. Cf. D 181, 199,
  793. Side by side with the two wounds of the body, sensibility to
  suffering (passibilitas) and mortality (mortalitas), theologians, with
  St. Thomas (S. th. 1 II 85, 3) enumerate four wounds of the soul,
  which are opposed to the four cardinal virtues: a) ignorance
  (ignorantia), that is, difficulty of knowing the truth (opposite to
  prudence), b) malice (malitia), that is the weakening of the power of
  the will (opposite to justice), c) weakness (infirmitas), that is, the
  recoiling before difficulties in the struggle for the good (opposite
  to fortitude), d) desire (concupiscentia) in the narrower sense, that
  is, the desire for satisfaction of the senses against the judgment of
  reason (opposite to temperance). The wounds of the body are caused by
  the loss of the preternatural gifts of impossibility and immortality,
  the wounds of the soul by the loss of the preternatural gift of
  freedom from concupiscence.
  
  There is a controversy as to whether the wounding of nature consists
  exclusively in the loss of the preternatural gifts, or whether human
  nature in addition is intrinsically weakened in an accidental manner.
  The former view, which is that adopted by St. Thomas and by most
  theologians, conceives the wounding of nature as relative only, i.e.,
  by comparison with its primitive condition, while the latter view
  conceives it as absolute and visualises it as a worsening in
  comparison with the pure state of nature. According to the former
  view, the person who is born in original sin is to the human being in
  the pure state of nature as one stripped of his clothes is to the
  unclothed (nudatus ad nudum); according to the latter view, as the
  sick person is to the healthy (aegrotus ad sanum). The former view is
  to be preferred, as the sinful act of Adam, which occurred once only,
  could, neither in his own nature nor in the nature of his posterity,
  effect an evil habit and with it, a weakening of the natural powers.
  Cf. S. th. 1 II 85, 1. However, it must be admitted that fallen human
  nature, in consequence of individual and social aberrations, has
  declined below the state of pure nature.
  
  § 25. Souls who depart this life in the state of original sin are
  excluded from the Beatific Vision of God (De fide.)
  
  The 2nd General Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence
  (1438–45) declared: illorum animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato vel
  solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen
  disparibus puniendas (the souls of those who die in original sin as
  well as those who die in actual mortal sin go immediately into hell,
  but their punishment is very different). D 464, 693.
  
  The dogma is supported by the words of Our Lord: “Unless a man be born
  again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the Kingdom of
  God” (John 3:5).
  
  The spiritual re-birth of young infants can be achieved in an
  extra-sacramental manner through baptism by blood (cf. the baptism by
  blood of the children of Bethlehem). Other emergency means of baptism
  for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and
  desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of
  desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment
  of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God
  (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as
  quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell), are indeed,
  possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation. Cf. D
  712.
  
  In the punishment of Hell theologians distinguish between the “poena
  damni,” which consists in the exclusion from the Beatific Vision of
  God, and the “poena sensus” which is caused by external means, and
  which will be felt by the senses even after the resurrection of the
  body. While St. Augustine and many Latin Fathers are of the opinion
  that children dying in original sin must suffer “poena sensus” also,
  even if only a very mild one (mitissima omnium poena: Enchir. 93), the
  Greek Fathers (for example, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 40, 23), and
  the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that
  they suffer “poena damni” only. The declaration of Pope Innocent III,
  is in favour of this teaching: Poena originalis peccati est carentia
  visionis Dei (= poena damni) actualis vero poena peccati est gehennae
  perpetuae cruciatus (= poena sensus). D 410. A condition of natural
  bliss is compatible with “poena damni.” Cf. St. Thomas, De malo, 5, 3;
  Sent. II d. 33 q. 2 a. 2.
  
  Theologians usually assume that there is a special place or state for
  children dying without baptism which they call limbus puerorum
  (children’s Limbo). Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod
  of Pistoia. D 1526.