And I didn't say it was. I just meant that I wonder if it still has some expiatory value for the person who dies for someone else because of that text.
I for one believe that natural virtue can in fact offset some of the temporal (sensible) punishment in hell for those who practice it. People forget that hell is not a single monolithic place, but admits of varying degrees (this is even taught in one of the dogmatic definitions of EENS). There are probably (IMO) some people who are in hell, strictly speaking, who approach the natural happiness of a limbo due to their practice of natural virtue, who suffer very little, and may in fact be enjoying the equivalent of the "happy hunting ground". God is perfectly just and rewards/punishes each accordingly. One of the greatest pushbacks against the Church dogma of EENS comes from this misconception regarding the nature of hell. Now, if such a one existed who practiced natural virtue nearly flawlessly, why wouldn't God give them the grace of entering the Church? Well, #1 it's a grace, and #2 perhaps God knows that if made this offer the person would reject it and in fact end up with a significantly worse eternal fate. We know also, then, that God is perfectly merciful. We do not find in hell a virtuous Jewish grandmother who gave her life to save her children standing right next to Joe Staling and burning in the same intensity of flame. Yet, regardless of how great natural virtue is, it cannot ever merit sanctifying grace and the beatific vision. No person can merit such a thing, and the privilege belongs only to God and those with whom He wills to share it. In fact, our natures is INCAPABLE of supporting such a vision, since it is beyond the capabilities of our nature, and that is why the souls in limbo suffer not at all, since they can't even begin to understand what is is they are missing, and the lack of this supernatural vision is not in any way a defect of their nature, nor does it compromise their natural happiness.