Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Darcy on November 15, 2011, 04:00:52 PM
-
Because an aborted baby is not baptized, it is believed that it cannot go to Heaven.
What I am wondering is where Jesus says "Unless a man be born again..." John 3:3
An aborted baby has not been born so is there any argument, doctrines, biblical or ecclisiastical teaching that can support the above statement that aborted babies go to Heaven?
-
Because an aborted baby is not baptized, it is believed that it cannot go to Heaven.
What I am wondering is where Jesus says "Unless a man be born again..." John 3:3
An aborted baby has not been born so is there any argument, doctrines, biblical or ecclisiastical teaching that can support the above statement that aborted babies go to Heaven?
To be born again doesn't refer to physical birth but to spritual birth. An unborn baby still has a soul. It has been conceived in sin (meaning that it has Adam's sin on its soul) so, inorder to be become a child of God, its soul must be cleansed through baptism.
But maybe Jesus gives the soul of the unborn baby a chance to accept Him through baptism of desire, just as He saved the Holy Innocents. Which means that an unborn child could possibly go to Heaven. We don't know what the mercy of God will allow.
-
It is true, aborted babies will not see the face of God. But they do not go to hell. It is a place of a natural happiness called limbo. I don't know where it is written, but it is. Those who say an aborted baby has blood baptism, are spreading error.
-
I have the book My Catholic Faith and it confirms what Songbird says. Those children have not been baptized but do not go to hell. This limbo they would go to is a sort of a unknowing happy place.
-
Limbo is part of Hell. The outskirts, as it were. (Limbo means border, or something like that.)
The idea that unbaptised infants who die are given a chance to accept God is nice. But it means they may also reject Him. In which case they would go to the fiery part of Hell, rather than the outskirts which are more pleasant.
I often wonder about miscarriages, and openness to life, in this context, though. If a good Catholic couple are open to life, and want to raise children for Heaven, but most of their conceptions miscarry, therefore their children go to Limbo... It just seems strange. Especially since, women may have many more miscarriages than they even know about, and life begins at conception.
Why be open to life if such a lot, maybe most, of babies conceived end up in Limbo??
-
Why be open to life? What do you mean?
-
Why be open to life? What do you mean?
Perhaps that wasn't the best way of phrasing it.
I'm just thinking, we're meant to be begetting children for Heaven. Yet, in the process women may have lots of mscarriages, that they may not even be aware of, and end up begetting even more children for Limbo.
If Limbo is their destination, that is.
I just find it puzzling.
-
Maybe Limbo is actually what is best for them according to God's infinite mercy in that if they lived a "full" life, then they may have ended up in a much hotter part of hell. If abortion sent babies to heaven, then the devil most assuredly would not promote it. The abortion will send my baby to heaven, so I might as well abort my child logic could be used.
-
Why let my baby suffer and starve in this cruel world, if I could just abort it and send it on wings to heaven?
-
Well with sufficient prayers for baptism of their child even in the case of miscarriage God can intervene.
So for Christian parents, properly taught of the necessity of baptism, there is this hope.
It would be a fallback existing alongside Limbo, rather than doing away with it as some would have done, which is frankly, against the writings of the saints and Revelations of Our Lord Himself.
Generally however, they should be taught as in the paper here:
http://saintsworks.net/Papers%20and%20Information.htm
"How to Baptize in the Case of Miscarriage"
Something which I read is supposed to be standard Catholic teaching for parents.
Which is why I always hope that people will spread the information to other parents.
From the Revelations of St. Bridget:
'First question: Again he appeared on his ladder as before, saying: ”O Judge, I ask you: Why does one infant emerge alive from the mother's womb and obtain baptism, while another, having received a soul, dies in the mother's belly?”
Answer to the first question. The Judge answered: ”Friend, your inquiries are not made out of love but are made through my permission. So I answer you through the likeness of words.
You ask why one infant dies in the mother's belly while another emerges alive. There is a reason. All the strength of the child's body comes, of course, from the seed of its father and mother; however, if it is conceived without due strength, because of some weakness of its father or mother, it dies quickly. As a result of the negligence or carelessness of the parents as well as of my divine justice, many times it happens that what was joined together comes apart quickly.
Yet a soul is not brought to the harshest punishment for this reason, however little time it had for giving life to the body, but, rather, it comes to the mercy that is known to me. Just as the sun shining into a house is not seen as it is in its beauty - only those who look into the sky see its rays - so too the souls of such children, though they do not see my face for lack of baptism, are nevertheless closer to my mercy than to punishment, but not in the same way as my elect.'
And then Pope Sixtus V:
'For who would not detest a crime as execrable as this — a crime whose consequence is that not just bodies, but — still worse! — even souls, are, as it were, cast away? The soul of the unborn infant bears the imprint of God's image! It is a soul for whose redemption Christ our Lord shed His precious blood, a soul capable of eternal blessedness and destined for the company of angels! Who, therefore, would not condemn and punish with the utmost severity the desecration committed by one who has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God? Such a one has done all he or she could possibly have done to prevent this soul from reaching the place prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of this His own creature.'
I think Clare your statement:
"The idea that unbaptised infants who die are given a chance to accept God is nice. But it means they may also reject Him. In which case they would go to the fiery part of Hell, rather than the outskirts which are more pleasant."
Is very strikingly and reminds me of some of what I have read in the past, but do not have sufficient information on.
-
Maybe Limbo is actually what is best for them according to God's infinite mercy in that if they lived a "full" life, then they may have ended up in a much hotter part of hell. If abortion sent babies to heaven, then the devil most assuredly would not promote it. The abortion will send my baby to heaven, so I might as well abort my child logic could be used.
Maybe the Devil promotes abortion because he knows that those involved stand of good chance losing eternal salvation, not necessarily the aborted baby.
I know that the traditional understanding has been that none of us deserve heaven. If God denies some the beatific vision, He is in no way being unjust. However, there never has been nor is there any official Roman Catholic doctrinal position or teaching on the existence of or state of limbo. I like what the Catechism teaches on the subject of limbo.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 1261
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
-
Maybe Limbo is actually what is best for them according to God's infinite mercy in that if they lived a "full" life, then they may have ended up in a much hotter part of hell. If abortion sent babies to heaven, then the devil most assuredly would not promote it. The abortion will send my baby to heaven, so I might as well abort my child logic could be used.
I have always understood Limbo to be a pious theological opinion, not a dogma, and have generally not believed in it. However, this is a really good argument for it, and I will have to rethink my position.
-
I have always understood Limbo to be a pious theological opinion, not a dogma, and have generally not believed in it. However, this is a really good argument for it, and I will have to rethink my position.
The dogma is that Baptism is necessary for salvation and that stain of original sin will condemn a soul.
Limbo is the belief that God allows those only guilty of original sin to be in a state of natural happiness after death. To disbelieve in it is to accept an outcome that might jeopardize faith in God's mercy and justice, that's why St. Thomas Aquinas supported it in opposition to the Augustinian position.
-
I once set myself to gathering a good deal of quotes on the subject after listening to an Audio Sancto sermon on Limbo which basically condemned the ITC and its paper on the matter.
Limbo is the lighter view, in many ways, historically. It is better than Hell proper.
Here from my notes, I have not looked at these in awhile so do not recall much, I have some of the source citations second hand I think, but do not doubt them, fwif:
'Whoever says that infants are alive in Christ even when they depart this life without being baptized is really both opposing the Apostolic preaching and condemning the whole Church which runs hastily with infants to the baptismal font because it is believed without any doubt that otherwise these infants cannot possibly be alive in Christ.'
St. Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church, 'Doctor of Grace' (a letter to St. Jerome (no. 27))
'The common teaching of the scholastic theologians is the within the earth there are four inner chambers: one for the damned, another for those being purged of sin, a third for those infants who have died without receiving Baptism, and a fourth which is now empty but once held those just men who died before the passion of Christ.'
St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621), Doctor of the Church
'It will happen, I believe . . . that those last mentioned [infants dying without baptism] will neither be admitted by the just judge to the glory of Heaven nor condemned to suffer punishment, since, though unsealed [by baptism], they are not wicked. . . . For from the fact that one does not merit punishment it does not follow that one is worthy of being honored, any more than it follows that one who is not worthy of a certain honor deserves on that account to be punished.'
St. Gregory Nazanzien, Father and Doctor of the Church, [Orat., xl, 23]
'If you want to be a Catholic do not believe, do not say, do not teach that infants carried off by death before being baptized can obtain the remission of original sin."
St. Augustine, Father and Doctor of the Church 'Doctor of Grace' (III de Anima)
Q. Where do infants go who die without baptism?
A. Infants who die without baptism go to Limbo, where they do not enjoy the sight of God but also do not suffer, this is because having original sin and this alone they do not merit Heaven but neither do they merit purgatory or Hell.
- Catechism of Christian Doctrine
'For there be some that are withdrawn from the present light, before they attain to shew forth the good or evil deserts of an active life. And whereas the Sacraments of salvation do not free them from the sin of their birth, at the same time that here they never did aright by their own act; there they are brought to torment. And these have one wound, viz. to be born in corruption, and another, to die in the flesh. But forasmuch as after death there also follows, death eternal, by a secret and righteous judgment "wounds are multiplied to them without cause." For they even receive everlasting torments, who never sinned by their own will. And hence it is written, Even the infant of a single day is not pure in His sight upon earth. Hence "Truth" says by His own lips, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Hence Paul says, We were by nature the children of wrath even as others.
He then that adding nothing of his own is mined by the guilt of birth alone, how stands it with such an one at the last account, as far as the calculation of human sense goes, but that he is "wounded without cause?" And yet in the strict account of God it is but just that the stock of mortality, like an unfruitful tree, should preserve in the branches that bitterness which it drew from the root. Therefore he says, For He shall break me with a tempest, and multiply my wounds without cause. As if reviewing the woes of mankind he said in plain words; "With what sort of visitation does the strict Judge mercilessly slay those, whom the guilt of their own deeds condemns, if He smites for all eternity even those, whom the guilt of deliberate choice does not impeach?"'
Pope St. Gregory the Great
.. Basically, I see the current climate an extrapolation of the universal or near universal salvation theme in regards to Limbo.
First one gets rid of the place, then one extends mercy to the extent it does not exist as a state of being, and condemns the past saints and popes statements as antiquated and lacking in hope and mercy.
But, it has struck me that if infants by default went to Heaven, we would have heard about it long before now. Who would not wish to say it -- if it could be said?
-
Council of Lyons II, 1274:
"The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments." (Denzinger 464)
Council of Florence, 1438-1445:
"the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds" (Denzinger 693)
Pope Martin V, Council of Constance, Session 15, July 6, 1415 -
Proposition 6: "Those who claim, that the children of the faithful dying without sacramental baptism will not be saved, are stupid and presumptuous in saying this--- Condemned." Decrees of the Ecuмenical Councils, Vol. 1, p. 422
Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session Va:
"If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema." (Denz. 791)
The Douay Catechism of 1649:
Q. 827. Whither go infants that die without baptism?
A. To a part of hell, where they endure the pain of loss, but not of sense, and shall never see the face of God.
Q. 828. How prove you that?
A. Out of John iii. 5. "Unless a man be born again of water, and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
-
I have several thoughts on the matter.
Even though Limbo is not defined dogma, I am convinced through the writings of saints and Popes that it is theologically sound. In other words, I don't see any reason not to accept Limbo.
As for the babies who die as victims of abortion, I don't think anyone can presume that they go to Heaven at all. Many of these babies are the children of non-believers who are very unlikely to ever come to know God themselves. How could we suppose they would educate their children in such a way? These children would never have been baptized and they all would end up in Hell anyway.
As for the babies of Christians who go the the murder mills to have their babies murdered, I am very confused and saddened. As Christians, especially Catholics, how could they murder their own children and expect God to have mercy or forgiveness? If their babies do go to Heaven, then it would be easy for them to convince themselves that they are showing mercy on their children by murdering them so they will go to Heaven. It would be crazy and it precisely the defense of that crazy Yates woman who drowned her 6 children in the bathtub. Nope. Doesn't make sense at all.
The miscarriage thing, I am not certain about. If the parents are Catholic, then they anticipate the child's baptism when it is born. Wouldn't that count, somehow, as baptism of desire? I would think that, then, those babies by the virtue of their parents, would, by the mercy of God, go to Heaven. (This is just my thinking)
For those who do not offer their children for baptism, I would think the pour souls would indeed go to Limbo.
I do believe that, in many cases, Limbo is God's Mercy. If these children never receive baptism, they will merit Hell for their actual sins---a much worse fate that the eternal bliss of Limbo.
In my opinion, the Church taking the stand that Limbo does not exist is part of the long list of compromises Rome wishes to take to make the Church more "friendly." Once you say that babies go to Heaven without the necessity of baptism, then how can you deny that everyone goes to Heaven? You can't.
Abortion is evil. Truly. And one reason it is so evil is that the people involved are sending these little babies to Hell in a hand basket.
I think it is sentimentality that brings people to believe that these poor babies will go to Heaven.
Perhaps if we told so-called Christian parents that their babies will go to Hell if they murder them before they are born, then more of them will actually get to take a breath of life.
-
There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that any unbaptized child who dies will ever enter into the kingdom of heaven. At all. Ever.
It was the heresy of the Pelagians who first proposed that unbaptized infants who die could have blessedness, but not eternal life.
For over 800 years after Augustine, the Church endorsed and taught, in its ordinary and universal magisterium that Infants who die go to hell where they are tormented not only through the lack of the vision of God, but by the pain of sense. But their torment is the lightest.
Now, before everyone here loses it on me, please consider something:
The scholastics got a lot of things right. However, their methodology presupposes the acceptance of certain philosophical tenets that are not necessarily compatible with divine revelation. We are to accept revelation FIRST, and, ideally, philosophy is supposed to help explicate it.
Now, in regards to this issue there is a fatal flaw I believe people make regarding what is experienced after death. THat is, they often fail to take into account the general judgement as well.
Remember, our souls will be reunited to our bodies, and we will be judged before all. In this final judgement, there are only two alternatives, Heaven, and Hell.
Divine Revelation tells us in the book of Revelation what will happen:
Revelation 20:11-15
11And I saw a great white throne, and one sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away, and there was no place found for them.
12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
13And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works.
14And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death.
15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.
So here it is clear that the great and small are subject to the SAME judgement, and the same KIND of torment.
Now, if a person is not baptized, his name is not in the book of life. Therefore, an unbaptized infant, who is a sinner from conception, is NOT in the book of life.
Now, if in the END they share in the eternal suffering of fire with the rest of the damned, why should we believe they suffer less IMMEDIATELY after death in the particular judgement?
It would not be just for God to mitigate their punishment with natural happiness only to surprise them with fire later. They could not do anything to merit FURTHER punishment, so why would it increase in the end?
But since we KNOW the fate of the unbaptized, we must conclude, in the name of justice that those who merit one kind of punishment in the end (the lake of fire) can merit no less in the particular judgement.
Therefore, immediately after their death, unbaptized infants must descend to the fire of hell.
-
'[citing Augustine] In the authority quoted punishment denotes, not pain of sense, but only pain of loss, which is the privation of the divine vision, even as in Scripture the word "fire" is often wont to signify any kind of punishment.'
St. Thomas Aquinas
'Although unbaptized children are separated from God as regards the union of glory, they are not utterly separated from Him: in fact they are united to Him by their share of natural goods, and so will also be able to rejoice in Him by their natural knowledge and love.'
St. Thomas Aquinas
R.P. Pegues, O.P., in his "Catechism of the Summa" puts it thus:
Are there any human beings who at the moment of death are not judged?
Yes. All children who die before attaining the age of reason, or those who though adults never had the use of reason (LXIX. 6).
Is there any allotment at all as regards infants and those who have not had the use of reason ?
Yes, but this is not by reason of their merits or demerits; and it is not made by way of judgment. It comes about by the fact that some have received baptism and others have not. Those that have received baptism immediately go to heaven; whereas those who have not received this sacrament go to a place reserved for them which is called Limbo.
. . .
As regards children that die without baptism what will the state of their bodies be ?
They will rise in the most perfect state of a human being in nature, but without the properties of the glorified body; but they will never suffer any sorrow or pain (cf. Appendix, I. 2).
-
THis all contradicts the plain sense of revelation.
Are unbaptized infants in the book of life? No.
Ergo...
This is a perfect example of putting philosophy before revelation.
-
This is from the XVI Council of Carthage, a regional council presided over by St. Augustine, Ratified by Pope St. Hormisadas, the Coucnil of Ephesus and the COuncil of Nicea II. It therefore enjoys the prerogative of infallibility by virtue of being a part of the churches Ordinary and Universal magisterium, which teaches the following as a truth revealed by God:
3a. "It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions” [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema. For when the Lord says: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God” [John 3:5], what Catholic will doubt that he will be a partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a coheir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left" [cf. Matt. 25:41,46].
The teaching of the Church, albeit unpopular.
-
I wonder how much this question has come about because of mothers who keep asking their bishops and popes (over the centuries) and not because it really makes a difference to our daily activities. It's important not to say something which we cannot be sure of because it may lead mothers and families to not praying for the deceased.
It is certain that the soul of a fetus or embryo is eternal, and it is also certain that places like Purgatory are not going to exist forever, but that there will only be Heaven and Hell (whatever that place becomes after the final Judgement).
So I think wherever the unbaptized but clearly not eternally damned souls go, they are outside of time, they cannot be treated in any way except in accordance with divine and perfect justice.
The question I would want answered is "is it a waste to pray for an aborted foetus?" ... I would say of course not. And that answer proves to me that they eventually go to heaven, since why would we be told to pray for an impossibility?
-
We have to believe the truths that we know. We know that God is all knowing, loving and so on. No matter the judgement, it will be perfect. There was a priest who Maximillan Kloble, who thought, what will happen when there is no limbo, at final judgement. He was of the opinion, that if God asked the angels if they would serve him, would he do the same with those in limbo? We don't always have questions answered. The truths that we do have can help us to come to peace, knowing that God is perfect. Prayers are never wasted. God knows our hearts and when we pray we pray for all those in need. Those in purgatory pray for us and all those in need, and that is an article of Faith and a most consoling one.
-
Listen:
http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20070422-Contra-Sedevacantism-and-the-Recent-Docuмent-on-Limbo.html
-
If aborted babies go to heaven, then how many women will abort with a clear conscience and say, oh, well the baby will go to heaven. No, we can not say it or think it. All we can say, is the truth, that God is perfect and that whatever his decision is, it will be right. A baby aborted is a creature with original sin, and a creature with original sin can not go to heaven. God will decide.