You used very mild and gentle words. Why not use the correct phrases? Unbaptized zygotes, fetuses or children either go to heaven for eternal bliss or burn in hell forever? Don’t be shy, and call a spade a spade. All of a sudden it is not a “minor” question any more.
If the Church cannot answer a question of such importance it is not much of a source of information…
Again, the fact that you really don’t understand theology is wreaking havok with your arguments. The correct answer is, we don’t know what happens to an aborted child. All we do know is that whatever the solution is, it’s the perfect and only solution. For our part, we hope in and place these childeren upon God’s mercy.
Nice try.
Perhaps they spend a brief moment in purgatory to expiate the stain of original sin. Perhaps He, as the Ultimate Judge, discerns their inherent qualities and if so desired, they are granted the baptism of blood. Perhaps aborted children are considered martyrs of the faith.
(Surely you aren’t trying to make Him conform to your rules…are you?)Trust God to do His job as far as unbaptized children of ANY age. He made the rules; I’m sure He knows how to abide by them. Spend the energy you’d otherwise use pondering their judgment to affect your own. Obviously, it’s of great concern to you.
There are around 7 billion people on the planet, and I can’t definitely tell you whether any of them are going to heaven or hell. Somehow I manage to survive.
Well, we need to remember that Shakespeare was in Anglican England, so even though he was probably Catholic he was presenting the play to Anglicans, and I don’t know Anglican theology. Beyond that, as I said, Hamlet wasn’t exactly a bastion of morality.
R Daneel’s question is completely legitimate and intelligent, although Catholicism does not actually uphold the premises that he uses in his theological argument.
I agree that the question of what happens to the souls of the unborn who die is legitimate. I assume that is the question you are referring to?
I don’t think such personal judgments can be made based on internet posts. I think the main point of contention in that statement is that the claim that limbo is “of great importance” is not really accurate.
What is the big deal? I said “imo”, or “In my opinion”. Others have accused him of trolling.
The problem I have is that the OP is making an obviously silly claim that the Church is not much of a source of information if it can’t tell him where those souls are going.
Ok. My point is this. There are two possibilities, the zygote, fetus, child (all 3 are important) which “die” due to any cause (natural or volitional events) are either admitted to heaven, or are condemned to hell (there is no Biblical support for the purgatory, and it is supposed to be “way-station” anyhow). Jesus said: “no one gets to the Father, except through me”, which is a very strong indication that they will end up in hell (along with all those who never heard of Jesus, or lived before him). This presents a serious moral problem vis-a-vis God’s “justice” (and also love). Those beings do not “deserve” to go either heaven (no one ‘deserves’ to get there, allegedly) and they do not “deserve” to be tortured forever (since they, personally, did not commit anything). Of course, the Church does teach the “invincible ignorance” - offically. Which clearly indicates that those “babies” will get to heaven.
None of those unanswerable questions have “moral” implcations. None of those sciences claim that they have the ultimate authority, and infallibility answering their problems. The Church “claims” to be the sole source and arbiter of “moral teachings”. It claims to be infallible on moral matters. This is why the dilemma is different.
Well, this commandment is supposed to say: “thou shalt not murder”. Murder is the intentional taking of a human life. Yet, there are exceptions to this (self defense, war, etc…) - so the rule is not absolute. Maybe the intentional taking of a human life is ok, if the sole aim is “help” that being to eternal bliss. After all the Catholic Church tortured the alleged witches until they renounced the devil, and then the Church burned them while they were in the state of “grace”. So this practice was conducted by the Church.
This is what abortion is, intentional taking of innocent human life.
Nonsense. Pure, unadulterate nonsense.
There is no moral dilemma here – murder is wrong. The question of what happens to the souls of unbaptized infants is theological, not moral. The answer in no way affects your salvation. You could live your life never knowing, and it wouldn’t change whether you’d be a saint or a scoundrel.
The Church has done no such thing. Perhaps individual Catholics. See the example about the Conquistador.
The known ends of man are heaven and hell. This does not mean that there are not other ends, it is just that they are unknown.
Please look up “baptism of blood,” a teaching of the Church regarding those unjustly killed but are not baptized.
You don’t understand what the teaching of Original Sin pertains to. It is the reason why man is inherently sinful, not a pre-judgment. Perhaps you are not aware that Christ is the expiation for our sins?
Time to go to bed, so I’ll answer quickly. I agree with the general sentiment that Catholics tend to overstate their authority/knowledge. Nevertheless, you haven’t demonstrated with any clarity that not knowing the final destination of the those souls is of any significant detriment to the Church. If God exists, then obviously he knows the answer. And I think it is pretty obvious Christians don’t need to know the answer to live a fulfilling Christian life. The answer may be as boring as God already knows those souls and whether or not they deserve heaven, even though they did not live out their lives on earth. And if that is the answer, it doesn’t affect anyone’s life in the slightest. If God felt it important for us to know, he could have spelled it out for us. But he didn’t, and I would dare say it would be disobedient of us to second guess God and act like this issue is of vital importance to us when we are perfectly capable of getting along without knowing.