Author Topic: St. Augustine's view on the "punishment" of infants who die without baptism (Read 32191 times)

DecemRationis · « **Reply #40 on:** September 12, 2023, 09:45:32 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on September 12, 2023, 08:38:57 AM

It's not just any condemnation, but a damnatio cuм diabolo, condemnation or damnation with the devil, and it's a place of ignis aeternus, eternal fire.

I believe that "condemnation" you speak of (it wasn't in the Latin I looked at posted earlier), actually refers to poena, the actual suffering or affliction or torment part, and not just the condemnation. But I'd have to find more of his Latin to be sure.

But it's important whether the "mildest" refers to the condemnation or the punishment. These are potentially two distinct things. Let's say that two of my children are involved in the same act of mischief. I ground them both for 3 weeks. So they get the same punishment. But I know that the older one was exerting his influence over the younger one, so I am less upset with the younger one than with the older one. Or, another analogy, two people cause $2,000 damage to my car. One of them did so accidentally, the other vandalized the car out of spite. Both owe me $2,000 in damages, and that would correspond to the poena, the penalty, but I'm not upset with the individual who did it accidentally, perhaps even feel sorry for him, but I'm angry at the one who did it deliberately. So there's a distinction between guilt and punishment.

This distinction, BTW, is also the key to understanding Pope Pius IX's famous "invincible ignorance" passages, where he states that those not guilty of actual sin would not be afflicted with punishments, in Latin, the poenis, or penalties, but this does not necessarily mean they will be rewarded with Heaven.

St. Gregory nαzιanzen, in rejecting Baptism of Desire, states that there are some who are not bad enough to be punished but not good enough to be glorified. Our Lord taught that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, but that those who do not believe will be condemned. This leaves a middle ground of those who believe but are not baptized, where they fell into neither category.

Lad,

It is clear, both by Scripture, the Council of Trent, and indeed Augustine's own words, that all men are "condemned" by Adam's sin, and that this "condemnation" falls upon infants who die unbaptized, who endure the "penalty" or punishment of that condemnation, which comes by way of God's "judgment" (again, Rom. 5:16,18).

The condemnation is the judgment; the penalty or punishment is the sentence resulting therefrom.

St. Augustine looked at the relevant Scriptural passages, which indicate a final judgment to the "right hand or the left," to a heaven or hell. He addresses those passages in the cited Sermon 294. As I said, it is accepted by Church teaching that there is "no middle place," and that one ends up either in heaven or hell, whether that place is called "Limbo" for the infants because it is on the border or outer reach of hell or not; it's still part of the one, hell, and not the only other, heaven. Necessarily, and so Augustine quite clearly reasons.

Augustine describes the infants as consigned to the "fires of hell" because that is how Scripture describes hell, i.e., a place of eternal flame. He does not do more than reason, a) there are two eternal resting places, heaven and hell; b) hell is Scripturally described as a place of eternal fire, and c) these infants don't go to heaven, but go to hell, the place Scripture describes as of "eternal fire." I've looked at the passages I think fairly closely, and I do not see him indicating these infants are "tormented," or undergo some punishment beyond deprivation of the beatific vision. I say again, if he says they do, let's see the passages and address them.

What he does say, explicitly, is that the "condemnation" these infants undergo is "the lightest condemnation of all," and he says this with "no doubt" whatsoever. Here it is again:

Quote

But I do not say that children who die without the baptism of Christ will undergo such grievous punishment that it were better for them never to have been born, since our Lord did not say these words of any sinner you please, but only of the most base and ungodly. If we consider what He said about the Sodomites, which certainly He did not mean of them only that it will be more tolerable for one than for another in the day of judgment, 2 who can doubt that nonbaptized infants, having only original sin and no burden of personal sins, will suffer the lightest condemnation of all? I cannot define the amount and kind of their punishment, but I dare not say it were better for them never to have existed than to exist there. But you, also, who contend they are, as it were, free of any condemnation, do not wish to think about the condemnation by which you punish them by estranging from the life of God and from the kingdom of God so many images of God, and by separating them from the pious parents you so eloquently urge to procreate them. They suffer these separations unjustly, if they have no sin at all; or if justly, then they have original sin.

The Fathers Of The Church A New Translation Volume 35 Saint Augustine Against Julian : Roy Joseph Deferrari : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

He says there that he "cannot define the amount" by way of caution and humility, since, as I said, he doesn't know. He is, again, quite explicit about this in Sermon 294:

Quote

I am myself keenly aware of how profoundly problematic this question is, and I recognize that my powers are not sufficient to get to the bottom of it. Here too I like to exclaim with Paul, Oh the depths of the riches! (Rom 11:33). Unbaptized babies go to damnation; they are the apostle's words, after all: From one to condemnation (Rom 5:16).8 I cannot find a satisfactory and worthy explanation-because I can't find one, not because there isn't one. So where, in the depths, I cannot find bottom, I must take account of human weakness, not condemn divine authority. I certainly exclaim, and I'm not in the least ashamed of it, Oh the depths of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments, and untraceable his ways! For who has come to know the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who first gave to him, and will be repaid? Because from him, and through him, and in him are all things; to him be glory for ever and ever (Rom 11:33-36).

So he says he doesn't know what penalty or punishment these infants suffer in "damnation" - again, he feels he must say that because of the plain Scriptural texts, the Word of God, which binds him - beyond saying, again, explicitly and clearly, it's "the lightest condemnation of all." Elsewhere he says it's the "mildest condemnation (or punishment) of all." Again I repeat: the denial of the beatific vision is a condemnation with a "penalty," as Innocent III agrees. Trent recognizes all men as "children of wrath" as a result of the sin of the first Adam, needing rebirth in the second via baptism. These infants, like it or not, are "children of wrath." This is the Scriptural revelation, confirmed by the Church in the highest expressions of its authority (Trent).

So the contention that Augustine consigned children to the "pains or torment of hell," or indicated they endure "torture" or physical suffering, is simply based upon Augustine's acknowledging that these infants go to hell - the only place they can go, other than heaven - and noting that Scripture describes hell as a place of "eternal fire or flames." That's it. He doesn't describe any "torment" or "pains" they suffer; he says whatever they suffer, it's "the lightest condemnation of all," or the "mildest" possible punishment or condemnation; and he adds, he can't say it were better for them not to be born, despite being denied the beatific vision, which is the only "condemnation" he knows they actually receive based upon Scripture. I greatly doubt he would say he could not say it were better for them not to have been born if he believed they suffered torments of the imposition of tangible (so to say) pain in hell.

I say the claim that Augustine consigned these unbaptized infants to "torments" and "suffering" in hell, as if he were some grim theological reaper, is unjust. I say there are assumptions made by many in making that argument, assumptions belied by the "facts" of Augustine's actual statements and thought. I think I've looked at all the relevant texts, and I think my position sound.

I appreciate your discussing this without ad hominem and unneeded rhetoric, and appreciate your input, and look forward to additional thoughts, discussion of other relevant texts, etc.