Aborted babies go to hell!?!?

[Jeanne_S]

Can you truly argue that a child, conceived and put in place by God, who is taken by that same God naturally before birth, is punished for it? What was the point to their creation then, if not to serve God in the invisible realm? I have always been under the impression that our God, the one I worship and adore and give my whole self to, is not a cruel one.

Agree.I also have to believe this applies to babies lost to a abortion. Additionally,If God is merciful and forgiving of the women and men,or anyone complicit in an abortion,who are contrite,would He not then extend that mercy to the most innocent victims?

 

[Debora123]

I believe they all go to heaven.

It’s not against Church teaching to think so.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I believe they all go to heaven.

It’s not against Church teaching to think so.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Well, we know that God in his Divine Providence knew that these children will die as babies, aborted, infanticide or by natural means.

One could say that God knows the truth about these persons had they been allowed to live and God will reward them based on that knowledge. So God knows baby X would have become a good Catholic and persevered to the end so he will be sent to heaven. Baby Y on the other hand would grow up to be a bad person and never repent and therefore be sent to hell.

I personally do not like that view because it seems to be like God will just be satisfied with rewarding us entirely based upon our contingent activities. But if he was satisfied with such a methodology, it would seem that our entire existence is meaningless. God could have just created all of us in heaven or hell based on this contingent knowledge without having us actually go through the earthly lives. So I feel that God does indeed want us to perform these contingent acts and actualize them. He does not merely reward/punish us based on our contingent acts. In this way, I think the idea that he will just decide the fate of the babies on contingent acts as unlikely.

One could also argue that Babies will be saved based on the faith of the parents. The idea here is that the baptism and its graces are indeed given to the infant as the result of the act of faith by the parents. The infant does not intellectually participate in anyway in the baptism ritual other than by being there. So I feel that one can argue that just as in the case of the Paralyzed man (Matthew 9:2) Jesus will look at the parents and cure the child of the original sin though proper form and items (holy water) are missing.

But yet again, it does feel like the decision rests on contingent actions but it also seems to rest more on actuality i.e. faith of parents and their desire to baptize the child. After all, the extraneous circumstance of a non-believer being baptized without proper form being considered as having received a valid baptism is also based on the idea that if the situation had been different, he would have received baptism properly i.e. a contingent act.

So I feel that the infants may indeed be saved in this way by the faith of their parents.

However, it does mean that in the case of an abortion, it might no longer be possible to use this argument that the parents desired to baptize the child.

One could then argue that this is reasonable i.e. the infant has lost salvation because of the negligence of the parents who procreated him/her. We could argue that it is not a stretch to say that as well. After all, there are many in the world who went astray because their parents didn’t do a good job raising them and catechizing them. If an adult could lose salvation because of the ills of a society and his/her parents, it seems possible to say that so too can the infants who are aborted.

In all of this, I think it shows the gravity of the act of abortion and the harm it causes. Abortion is not just the murder of ones own child but the parents are also responsible for the negligence of the duty to give the child to God.

 

[meltzerboy]

Well, we know that God in his Divine Providence knew that these children will die as babies, aborted, infanticide or by natural means.

One could say that God knows the truth about these persons had they been allowed to live and God will reward them based on that knowledge. So God knows baby X would have become a good Catholic and persevered to the end so he will be sent to heaven. Baby Y on the other hand would grow up to be a bad person and never repent and therefore be sent to hell.

I personally do not like that view because it seems to be like God will just be satisfied with rewarding us entirely based upon our contingent activities. But if he was satisfied with such a methodology, it would seem that our entire existence is meaningless. God could have just created all of us in heaven or hell based on this contingent knowledge without having us actually go through the earthly lives. So I feel that God does indeed want us to perform these contingent acts and actualize them. He does not merely reward/punish us based on our contingent acts. In this way, I think the idea that he will just decide the fate of the babies on contingent acts as unlikely.

One could also argue that Babies will be saved based on the faith of the parents. The idea here is that the baptism and its graces are indeed given to the infant as the result of the act of faith by the parents. The infant does not intellectually participate in anyway in the baptism ritual other than by being there. So I feel that one can argue that just as in the case of the Paralyzed man (Matthew 9:2) Jesus will look at the parents and cure the child of the original sin though proper form and items (holy water) are missing.

But yet again, it does feel like the decision rests on contingent actions but it also seems to rest more on actuality i.e. faith of parents and their desire to baptize the child. After all, the extraneous circumstance of a non-believer being baptized without proper form being considered as having received a valid baptism is also based on the idea that if the situation had been different, he would have received baptism properly i.e. a contingent act.

So I feel that the infants may indeed be saved in this way by the faith of their parents.

However, it does mean that in the case of an abortion, it might no longer be possible to use this argument that the parents desired to baptize the child.

One could then argue that this is reasonable i.e. a person has lost salvation because of the negligence of the parents who procreated the child. We could argue that it is not a stretch to say that as well. After all, there are many in the world who went astray because their parents didn’t do a good job raising them and catechizing them. If an adult could lose salvation because of the ills of a society and his/her parents, it seems possible to say that so too can the infants who are aborted.

In all of this, I think it shows the gravity of the act of abortion and the harm it causes. Abortion is not just the murder of ones own child but the parents are also responsible for the negligence of the duty to give the child to God.

I’m not sure about the validity of your last argument that “a person has lost salvation because of the negligence of the parents who procreated the child” within a Catholic framework. It seems to me akin to saying that a baby may be punished by means of an abortion because its mother was raped, which Catholics do not adhere to. It also recalls the misinterpretation of the Hebrew Bible, which speaks of the sins of parents revisited on their children for several generations. The latter, according to many Hebrew scholars, really means that children of sinful parents are more likely to themselves adopt sinful ways, and not that they deserve to be punished because of the sinfulness of their parents.

The Jewish perspective on this issue, quite different from Catholic belief, is that a baby who may be–in fact, must be–aborted to save its mother’s life and also (here may, not must) be aborted in the cases of rape and incest to spare its mother psychological damage, does return to heaven sans Purgatory, as per G-d’s design. Thus, in this sense, your initial argument based on the baby’s potential life may work in the Jewish context but not, I think, according to Catholic teaching.

 

[Eufrosnia]

I’m not sure about the validity of your latter argument that “a person has lost salvation because of the negligence of the parents who procreated the child” within a Catholic framework. It seems to me akin to saying that a baby may be punished by means of an abortion because its mother was raped, which Catholics do not adhere to. It also recalls the misinterpretation of the Hebrew Bible, which speaks of the sins of parents revisited on their children for several generations. The latter, according to many Hebrew scholars, really means that children of sinful parents are more likely to themselves adopt sinful ways, and not that they deserve to be punished because of the sinfulness of their parents.

The Jewish perspective on this issue, quite different from Catholic belief, is that a baby may be–in fact, must be–aborted to save its mother’s life and also (here may, not must) be aborted in the cases of rape and incest to spare its mother psychological damage, does return to heaven sans Purgatory, as per G-d’s design. Thus, in this sense, your initial argument based on the baby’s potential life may work in the Jewish context but not, I think, according to Catholic teaching.

Well to clarify, I am not saying the sin of the parents are visited upon the child. Rather, I am claiming the more intuitive i.e. sin of the parent has drastic effects on the child.

If a child was born and the parents were to continuously advise him/her day and night to perform sin and remove all inhibitions, then the child will resist religion. His inclinations will always take him or her away from the church. Or if the parents were to kill their child after baptism, the act will still stop the person from meriting and hence deny them of what they could have merited.

It is in this way that I believe the parents can lead to the downfall of their child. If they can be responsible for a born child, I see no reason why they cannot be in the case of an unborn child. Since you are from a Jewish background, I would use the example of Jezebel that lead to the downfall of the sons of Ahab. In that same vein, it seems like not much of a stretch to think of parents affecting their unborn child as well.

As for the first position I presented, I do not think it works even in Jewish frameworks. If that position is indeed true and God is satisfied with simply rewarding based on contingent acts, it would be meaningless to make any of us go through an earthly life. Albeit, it is still possible to maybe argue that he wants us to go through this life because we must feel his love. But then again, that is what we will feel when we reach heaven. Perhaps there is something even for Catholics in this line of thinking depending on what reasons can be said to be that God will choose some to be judged on contingent acts while others on actual acts.

 

[Holly3278]

This has always been an interesting theological topic for me. I have looked at it a couple of ways and it always sets up an interesting conclusion with serious ramifications on each side.

From a PR POV.
We can’t go around telling people that unbaptized babies are in hell. Imagine a woman suffering a late miscarriage and someone telling her “Well, hell just got a little more crowded”
But if we offer a hypothesis of “All unbaptized babies go to heaven” we run the risk of admitting that abortionists may very well be the number one producer of saints…
And hanging our moral outrage on the theological Catholic idea of not commuting evil to obtain good.

From a Biblical and Historical POV

There is not one named Saint since the institution of Baptism of Christians that has not been baptized. Not one. Not the holy innocents. (before baptism of salvation) Not the Thief on the Cross. (Arguably before baptism of salvation and no one knows, He theoretically COULD have been Baptized if indeed Jesus was Baptizing for salvation at that time.)

So the Church is and always has been stuck in this arena of ideas. Limbo, while recently given less weight was a good way to navigate the conundrum.

We KNOW God is merciful.
We KNOW God is willing the salvation of every soul.
We KNOW we can break God’s will.
We KNOW God is fair and just.

We do not know the destination of a soul aborted or killed, or that died in the womb or outside of the womb that is unbaptized.

If salvation of infants in and out of the womb is assured through desire. Well, then frankly infant baptism is just a ritual, a symbol and unnecessary. That does not seem to jive with Church teaching on baptism or the Biblical words of Jesus himself.

We live in a day and age where infant baptism can be a production. A show. It took 8 months for my oldest daughter to be baptized at our parish. Mandated classes, held only so often, a schedule to abide by and a whole party to plan. But yet now that we have established ourselves as a “legitimate” Catholic family all I do is call the Parish office and my youngest 3 were baptized within 2 weeks of birth. There is something not right with that.

Is it possible for an unbaptized baby to go to heaven. Heck yeah it is! our Church teaches that it may happen. However, what we do know FOR SURE is the path to heaven laid out for us by the Saints, the Church, and the Word of God itself. And that should cause us to have an urgency to baptize and evangelize that many Catholics desperately lack.

I personally believe that God’s mercy outweighs His justice when it comes to the issue of aborted babies. I mean, God was so merciful that He sent His only Son to die the most cruel method of torture and capital punishment at the time to die on a Cross for our salvation. If that doesn’t show just how merciful that God is, I don’t know what does.

 

[Moore11]

I personally believe that God’s mercy outweighs His justice when it comes to the issue of aborted babies. I mean, God was so merciful that He sent His only Son to die the most cruel method of torture and capital punishment at the time to die on a Cross for our salvation. If that doesn’t show just how merciful that God is, I don’t know what does.

This thread has two types of replies. Those who seek to understand the theological implications and instructions of the Church and realities and those who have personal beliefs.

In your example God’s “mercy” (as you understand it only in human terms) would have to also be extended to miscarriages, and infanticide outside of the womb and SIDS babies etc… So, if that is the case then no one between conception and the age of reason could go to hell. A Golden ticket to heaven for every person ever created until the age of reason. (which we don’t really have a set date for. (Around 7ish is the modern understanding of this.) That would pretty much make the Church’s teaching on infant baptism obsolete. How do you explain that? Also there is no Biblical evidence for this belief either. And that is where I am not comfortable with proclaiming the belief you have. How odd that this type of blanket salvation to all children under the age of reason would not be revealed in scripture, in historical teaching, and in the Church Herself. We would be talking about billions and billions of souls each with grieving and unsure relatives and parents and siblings. And would not a Just and Merciful God have revealed this to us? And would the Church have taught for thousands of years to baptize infants in order to help them gain heaven? Just think all those priests, speeding to the hospital could have stopped off for a cup of joe and moseyed on over at their leisure.
We hope and pray for those souls. And to be without hope is unchristian. But it is also not sound christian understanding to preach that which we do not know or could not know.

The Church in Her infinite wisdom and compassion instructs us to hope and trust in God’s mercy and we should! But that does not mean that we automatically put theological logic aside.

Setting facts and Theology aside and taking a page from your book. Let me share my personal beliefs.
I believe that with these infants that Gods perfect mercy and Justice is merciful and just. I may not understand it. It may not be what I think mercy and Justice are but it is truly what they are. I am not to judge who goes to heaven. I have the saints, the Church and the Lord Himself to tell me how to get there. That is what I am concerned with for myself and my family. That is why I baptize my children. That is why I pray for the dead.

God is not bound by the sacraments. This is true.
BUT that does not mean that He discounts them either.
And it does not mean we can canonize a baby who died in the womb unbaptized.

We only have two real things to go on.
Our Trust that God is Merciful and Just. And our Church’s direction and teaching through the historical record, Bible, and Magisterium. What our Church teaches is that we baptize. What our Church teaches is that abortion is one of the most horrific crimes. Perhaps this is the case because it is not just murder, but murder of an innocent and not just murder of a defenseless innocent that is voiceless and victimized but also prevents said victim access to the sacraments.

When and If I make it to heaven, I would not be dissapointed to find aborted babies there, I also would not be devastated if there were not.

It is important to not extend knowledge of God’s mercy past the extent of the Church Herself.

 

[Dorothy]

I believe that God is infinitely perfect, and everything he does reflects that.

God is Love…let us trust Him!

We do not have to speculate on such details when all it does is cause more confusion about details.

 

[shocktrooper]

This thread has two types of replies. Those who seek to understand the theological implications and instructions of the Church and realities and those who have personal beliefs.

In your example God’s “mercy” (as you understand it only in human terms) would have to also be extended to miscarriages, and infanticide outside of the womb and SIDS babies etc… So, if that is the case then no one between conception and the age of reason could go to hell. A Golden ticket to heaven for every person ever created until the age of reason. (which we don’t really have a set date for. (Around 7ish is the modern understanding of this.) That would pretty much make the Church’s teaching on infant baptism obsolete. How do you explain that? Also there is no Biblical evidence for this belief either. And that is where I am not comfortable with proclaiming the belief you have. How odd that this type of blanket salvation to all children under the age of reason would not be revealed in scripture, in historical teaching, and in the Church Herself. We would be talking about billions and billions of souls each with grieving and unsure relatives and parents and siblings. And would not a Just and Merciful God have revealed this to us? And would the Church have taught for thousands of years to baptize infants in order to help them gain heaven? Just think all those priests, speeding to the hospital could have stopped off for a cup of joe and moseyed on over at their leisure.
We hope and pray for those souls. And to be without hope is unchristian. But it is also not sound christian understanding to preach that which we do not know or could not know.

The Church in Her infinite wisdom and compassion instructs us to hope and trust in God’s mercy and we should! But that does not mean that we automatically put theological logic aside.

Setting facts and Theology aside and taking a page from your book. Let me share my personal beliefs.
I believe that with these infants that Gods perfect mercy and Justice is merciful and just. I may not understand it. It may not be what I think mercy and Justice are but it is truly what they are. I am not to judge who goes to heaven. I have the saints, the Church and the Lord Himself to tell me how to get there. That is what I am concerned with for myself and my family. That is why I baptize my children. That is why I pray for the dead.

God is not bound by the sacraments. This is true.
BUT that does not mean that He discounts them either.
And it does not mean we can canonize a baby who died in the womb unbaptized.

We only have two real things to go on.
Our Trust that God is Merciful and Just. And our Church’s direction and teaching through the historical record, Bible, and Magisterium. What our Church teaches is that we baptize. What our Church teaches is that abortion is one of the most horrific crimes. Perhaps this is the case because it is not just murder, but murder of an innocent and not just murder of a defenseless innocent that is voiceless and victimized but also prevents said victim access to the sacraments.

When and If I make it to heaven, I would not be dissapointed to find aborted babies there, I also would not be devastated if there were not.

It is important to not extend knowledge of God’s mercy past the extent of the Church Herself.

Very good response!

 

[10gr8kids]

No one can know for sure since as has been pointed out there is no definitive teaching by the Church. I have lost 8 children due to miscarriages and I have thought about this a lot. We do know that God gives everyone freewill. Knowing this it is hard for me to believe an unborn child is gaurenteed of heaven. I also consider the angels, they knew God like we can’t until we go to heaven. Yet, some still rebelled against Him. So knowing these two things I wonder if an unborn child is somehow able to choose God or reject Him in the moments after death. This is how I reconcile my feelings and beliefs. And trust in Gods infinite mercy.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

How can a G-d of love, compassion, and mercy send an infant who was aborted on account of their mother to hell? This makes no sense to me. Then again, Judaism does not believe in original sin, so I’m thinking from a different paradigm.

Yeah, I don’t know, I’ve read a bunch of Catholic material on this topic and similar ones and it seems very contradictory. So then they say to me, “don’t worry about it, it’s a mystery,” or “the wisdom of god is the foolishness of men.” confused

I take those phrases to mean, “don’t think too much, we’ll do your thinking for you.”

 

[Lochias]

Yeah, I don’t know, I’ve read a bunch of Catholic material on this topic and similar ones and it seems very contradictory. So then they say to me, “don’t worry about it, it’s a mystery,” or “the wisdom of god is the foolishness of men.” confused

I take those phrases to mean, “don’t think too much, we’ll do your thinking for you.”

Well, I think that’s a little foolish, to be honest. We know that there are holy mysteries to which we don’t know all of the answers, and the Church has always been up front with that. So we go with what we DO know and has been revealed, and the Church is the caretaker of that revealed knowledge. It’s the Deposit of Faith, and it’s what God saw fit to give to all of us to live and love as we should.

The only reason I can see anyone repeatedly questioning or testing something that works to to futilely try to get it to fail. We know that we are to trust in the love and mercy of God, and that He loves all of his children. It should be elementary enough for ANY CATHOLIC to trust and hope in the Lord’s mercy to his little children.

Case closed.

 

[chimo]

I just read a thread about this topic and I read some pretty disturbing things…

here is the link forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=104494

***Council of Lyons II: “…The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, to be punished with different punishments…-- (Denzinger 464)

Council of Florence: “…Moreover, 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 John XXII: “It (The Roman Church) teaches… that the souls… of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.” (Denzinger 493(a).

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my father’s house there are many mansions”(JN14:2): 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 eternal life, let him be anathema. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left” (Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)***

**St. Augustine … in the course of the controversy he himself condemned, and persuaded the Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of “an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness” (Denzinger 102).

Tradition holds that Zosimus published the canons of Council of Carthage as his own making them infallable in his famous Tractoria", in which Pelagianism and its authors were condemned.

“Thus, finally, the occupant of the Apostolic See at the right moment maintained with all authority the traditional dogma of the Church, and protected the truth of the Church against error.” (catholic Ecyclo. “Zosimus”)That is Why Denzinger 102 under the section of Zosimus in the Denzinger**

There is no way in the world that God will ever condemn babies at all! It was incredible that some believe this to be true. I would like to quote from a sermon by St. John Chrysostom that will help such people who have such views.
“Are we all sinners because of the sin of Adam? Does the stain of sin pass from one generation to another? Does every man, woman, and child on this earth stand condemned by God unless they here and believe in Jesus Christ? To most people this sounds utterly unreasonable and unjust; and indeed it is. To anyone who believes that God loves his creation, and especially loves humanity, it is inconceivable that he should condemn people through no fault on their own. The very idea that an innocent child deserves eternal punishment is monstrous! Yet it is utterly reasonable that we are made good through the goodness of Christ. Although the sin of one person cannot condemn humanity, the radiant love of one man can transform humanity—and is doing so. God waits for our hearts to open to his grace; he waits for an opportunity to reveal to each of us his truth. Then, when we are ready, he ensures that we hear about Christ and about the Gospel; and we find ourselves faced with a choice, which will affect the entire course of life and death—whether to embrace the words of Jesus Christ or to reject them (now the Saint here is referring to those who are adults). If we deliberately reject the Gospel, even when we fully understand it (as did the devil), then we condemn ourselves; if we embrace it, we shall ourselves be embraced by God in heaven.”

What the Saint is saying is babies and children cannot be condemned because of what certain people believed the consequences of original sin were. He wanted to dispell these teachings that were floating around and said they were not true.

From what the Saint is saying is the best time to learn about Jesus is when you are young and growing up as a child. This time of your life will aways be rewarded with many blessings if you learn about Jesus for it is in these years when it can become the easiest.

 

[ellzeena]

Psalm 139:13-14

You formed my inmost being;
you knit me in my mother’s womb.
praise you, because I am wonderfully made;
wonderful are your works!
My very self you know.

God creates and God is love - He does not destroy. These little ones that die in utero, wheter by an induced abortion or spontaneous abortion…are welcomed into eternal life with the Author of Life, God our Heavenly Father…Abba.

Praise You Holy One who the Heavens could not contain!

God bless you for this post. It is an abomination to even suggest that our God would take the innocent unborn and eternally isolate them from Himself or, worse, subject them to eternal torment. Such a “god” smacks of pagan belief systems, such a “god” requires living sacrifices, such a “god” is whom and what Jesus came to repudiate.

 

[shocktrooper]

There is no way in the world that God will ever condemn babies at all! It was incredible that some believe this to be true. I would like to quote from a sermon by St. John Chrysostom that will help such people who have such views.
“Are we all sinners because of the sin of Adam? Does the stain of sin pass from one generation to another? Does every man, woman, and child on this earth stand condemned by God unless they here and believe in Jesus Christ? To most people this sounds utterly unreasonable and unjust; and indeed it is. To anyone who believes that God loves his creation, and especially loves humanity, it is inconceivable that he should condemn people through no fault on their own. The very idea that an innocent child deserves eternal punishment is monstrous! Yet it is utterly reasonable that we are made good through the goodness of Christ. Although the sin of one person cannot condemn humanity, the radiant love of one man can transform humanity—and is doing so. God waits for our hearts to open to his grace; he waits for an opportunity to reveal to each of us his truth. Then, when we are ready, he ensures that we hear about Christ and about the Gospel; and we find ourselves faced with a choice, which will affect the entire course of life and death—whether to embrace the words of Jesus Christ or to reject them (now the Saint here is referring to those who are adults). If we deliberately reject the Gospel, even when we fully understand it (as did the devil), then we condemn ourselves; if we embrace it, we shall ourselves be embraced by God in heaven.”

What the Saint is saying is babies and children cannot be condemned because of what certain people believed the consequences of original sin were. He wanted to dispell these teachings that were floating around and said they were not true.

From what the Saint is saying is the best time to learn about Jesus is when you are young and growing up as a child. This time of your life will aways be rewarded with many blessings if you learn about Jesus for it is in these years when it can become the easiest.

I think this needs to get to the Vatican now. If they would have read this a long time ago, they would have done away with infant baptisms and put the teaching on Original Sin “back in the shop to be worked on”.

 

[Debora123]

There is no way in the world that God will ever condemn babies at all! It was incredible that some believe this to be true. I would like to quote from a sermon by St. John Chrysostom that will help such people who have such views.
“Are we all sinners because of the sin of Adam? Does the stain of sin pass from one generation to another? Does every man, woman, and child on this earth stand condemned by God unless they here and believe in Jesus Christ? To most people this sounds utterly unreasonable and unjust; and indeed it is. To anyone who believes that God loves his creation, and especially loves humanity, it is inconceivable that he should condemn people through no fault on their own. The very idea that an innocent child deserves eternal punishment is monstrous! Yet it is utterly reasonable that we are made good through the goodness of Christ. Although the sin of one person cannot condemn humanity, the radiant love of one man can transform humanity—and is doing so. God waits for our hearts to open to his grace; he waits for an opportunity to reveal to each of us his truth. Then, when we are ready, he ensures that we hear about Christ and about the Gospel; and we find ourselves faced with a choice, which will affect the entire course of life and death—whether to embrace the words of Jesus Christ or to reject them (now the Saint here is referring to those who are adults). If we deliberately reject the Gospel, even when we fully understand it (as did the devil), then we condemn ourselves; if we embrace it, we shall ourselves be embraced by God in heaven.”

What the Saint is saying is babies and children cannot be condemned because of what certain people believed the consequences of original sin were. He wanted to dispell these teachings that were floating around and said they were not true.

From what the Saint is saying is the best time to learn about Jesus is when you are young and growing up as a child. This time of your life will aways be rewarded with many blessings if you learn about Jesus for it is in these years when it can become the easiest.

My views exactly. I agree 100% with this saint.

 

[shocktrooper]

“Are we all sinners because of the sin of Adam? Does the stain of sin pass from one generation to another? Does every man, woman, and child on this earth stand condemned by God unless they here and believe in Jesus Christ? To most people this sounds utterly unreasonable and unjust; and indeed it is. To anyone who believes that God loves his creation, and especially loves humanity, it is inconceivable that he should condemn people through no fault on their own. The very idea that an innocent child deserves eternal punishment is monstrous! Yet it is utterly reasonable that we are made good through the goodness of Christ. Although the sin of one person cannot condemn humanity, the radiant love of one man can transform humanity—and is doing so. God waits for our hearts to open to his grace; he waits for an opportunity to reveal to each of us his truth. Then, when we are ready, he ensures that we hear about Christ and about the Gospel; and we find ourselves faced with a choice, which will affect the entire course of life and death—whether to embrace the words of Jesus Christ or to reject them (now the Saint here is referring to those who are adults). If we deliberately reject the Gospel, even when we fully understand it (as did the devil), then we condemn ourselves; if we embrace it, we shall ourselves be embraced by God in heaven.”

This quote and what the Church does teach on the consequences of Original Sin clearly testifies to a state after death that is not “eternal punishment” nor the Beatific vision. Theologians have chosen to call this state/place “Limbo”, which would lie in hell.

Below from the Council of Lyons is doctrine and must be believed by all faithful Catholics.

“As for the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, they go down immediately to hell to be punished with different punishments” (Council of Lyons II).

It seems that the underlining problem is that some think that God owes all humans eternal bliss. This is a sad mistake. No one is “innocent” when we are talking about Original Sin. God owes no one anything, which is why everything He does for us is out of love. But His love is not owed to us either, so we can never presume that it does.

 

[Debora123]

This quote and what the Church does teach on the consequences of Original Sin clearly testifies to a state after death that is not “eternal punishment” nor the Beatific vision. Theologians have chosen to call this state/place “Limbo”, which would lie in hell.

Below from the Council of Lyons is doctrine and must be believed by all faithful Catholics.

“As for the souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, they go down immediately to hell to be punished with different punishments” (Council of Lyons II).

We are free to believe as we wish regarding souls of unbaptized children. We are no longer required to believe in Limbo.

It seems that the underlining problem is that some think that God owes all humans eternal bliss. This is a sad mistake. No one is “innocent” when we are talking about Original Sin. God owes no one anything, which is why everything He does for us is out of love. But His love is not owed to us either, so we can never presume that it does.

You have 0 authority to claim that it is a “mistake” to believe that children go to heaven.

 

[Tigg]

Some church history ( a detailed read):

In the church’s tradition, the affirmation that children who died unbaptized are deprived of the beatific vision has for a long time been “common doctrine.” This common doctrine followed upon a certain way of reconciling the received principles of revelation, but it did not possess the certitude of a statement of faith or the same certitude as other affirmations whose rejection would entail the denial of a divinely revealed dogma or of a teaching proclaimed by a definitive act of the magisterium. The study of the history of the church’s reflection on this subject shows that it is necessary to make distinctions.

The study of history shows an evolution and a development of Catholic teaching concerning the destiny of infants who die without baptism. This progress engages some foundational doctrinal principles which remain permanent and some secondary elements of unequal value. In effect, revelation does not communicate directly in an explicit fashion knowledge of God’s plan for unbaptized children, but it enlightens the church regarding the principles of faith which must guide her thought and her practice.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7529

Link below Includes Dr. Ludwig Ott’s thoughts from his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/BAPTISM.TXT

I believe the traditional understanding of this subject was discussed by the Internat’l Theological Commission, (along with the subject of limbo) but two of the theologians on this study were Fr. Karl Rahner and Fr. Jacques Dupuis (Fr. Dupuis is quoted by many sources as disagreeing with some of the decrees of The Council of Florence.)

I cling to one thing only because I happen to believe in Church approved private revelation. Our Blessed Mother prophesied that certain contradictions would happen with Church teaching. Where exactly, does this leave us on this subject?