Aborted babies go to hell!?!?

[vames]

Second, the Church has not contradicted itself. It merely now says she entrusts unbaptized infants to the mercy of God. That is not incompatible with the theories presented above.

But of course she has contradicted herself. True, hell or limbo for unbaptized children weren’t proclaimed as a dogma, but that’s what every Catholic was taught by their priests since childhood. My mother was told to believe in limbo, I was taught too. And neither priest did add “see, it’s only a hypothesis”.

As for a previous comment that says “Limbo has never been denied by the Church and seems to be the best solution” , this is an absurdity. Nobody teaches anymore that unbaptized babies go to limbo!
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm
cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=4686

 

[EphelDuath]

But of course she has contradicted herself. True, hell or limbo for unbaptized children weren’t proclaimed as a dogma, but that’s what every Catholic was taught by their priests since childhood. My mother was told to believe in limbo, I was taught too. And neither priest did add “see, it’s only a hypothesis”.

2 priests = the Catholic Church?

Source for “EVERY” Catholic being taught this since childhood?

 

[shocktrooper]

But of course she has contradicted herself. True, hell or limbo for unbaptized children weren’t proclaimed as a dogma, but that’s what every Catholic was taught by their priests since childhood. My mother was told to believe in limbo, I was taught too. And neither priest did add “see, it’s only a hypothesis”.

As for a previous comment that says “Limbo has never been denied by the Church and seems to be the best solution” , this is an absurdity. Nobody teaches anymore that unbaptized babies go to limbo!
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm
cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=4686

Here is a priest that still teaches it.

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/06/nativity-of-st-john-baptist-and-limbo.html

I don’t think it is absurd. The only option besides limbo is hell since the Church has already said that unbaptized people do not go to heaven.

The Catholic Church has taught, as certain and unshakable doctrine, that no one (not even a child) who dies in the state of original sin can possibly go to heaven. “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).

 

[vames]

2 priests = the Catholic Church?

Source for “EVERY” Catholic being taught this since childhood?

Oh, sure, ALL the other priests of the world, even before VII, were enlightened enough to carefully hide the teaching about limbo and those 2 were the only exceptions. Sorry, I should have realized that.

 

[Holly3278]

I have always believed that aborted babies go to Purgatory but for only a very short time. The reason being is because without baptism one still has original sin on their soul. God is so infinitely holy that He cannot tolerate any sin, even original sin.

I think that the problem some people have with aborted babies going to Purgatory is they think that Purgatory is all about suffering. But we are not considering what eternity is like here. The suffering they may have in Purgatory may be very light.

Or consider this. Perhaps God, in His mystical ways, accepts the suffering of the babies which they suffered during abortion as purifying them of original sin?

Nevertheless, we should all remember that not only is God infinitely just, He is infinitely merciful, and He is also infinitely love. So another possibility is that He simply forgives the aborted baby for original sin and they immediately go to Heaven.

I hope that others will give (name removed by moderator)ut on my theory here.

 

[EphelDuath]

Oh, sure, ALL the other priests of the world, even before VII, were enlightened enough to carefully hide the teaching about limbo and those 2 were the only exceptions. Sorry, I should have realized that.

So either they ALL taught that limbo is the official teaching of the Church or they ALL taught that it is an unofficial hypothetical belief?

Middle ground, where art thou?

 

[vames]

“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).

Well, the Church doesn’t exclude anymore the possibility of salvation for unbaptized adults. “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery”, says the current CCC when it talks about unbaptized adults. And it’s only fair, since if the Church postulates that ONLY baptized people can be saved, then it follows that God’s hands are completely tied, that He simply isn’t allowed to save someone who is not baptized, that He is obliged to"immediately" send to hell each and every soul of an adult or child who dies in original sin.

 

[mikee]

All those who die in mortal or original sin only go to hell, period. That is Catholic dogma.

What we don’t know is whether infants do, in fact, die in original sin, or whether they are somehow given sanctifying grace extra-sacramentally before they die.

If they die in original sin, they will forever be excluded from the beatific vision, but since they committed no personal sin, theologians have speculated that they enjoy a natural happiness and do not suffer what’s commonly called “the pain of sense” (hell fire). If they are cleansed from original sin, it will have to take place sometime before their death. There’s quite a bit of speculation about how this can happen, but we know nothing for sure from revelation.

 

[porthos11]

But of course she has contradicted herself. True, hell or limbo for unbaptized children weren’t proclaimed as a dogma, but that’s what every Catholic was taught by their priests since childhood. My mother was told to believe in limbo, I was taught too. And neither priest did add “see, it’s only a hypothesis”.

As for a previous comment that says “Limbo has never been denied by the Church and seems to be the best solution” , this is an absurdity. Nobody teaches anymore that unbaptized babies go to limbo!
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm
cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=4686

No dogma, no contradiction. That priests, nuns and catechists were not prudent in qualifying it does not make it dogma as priests, nuns and catechists are not the Magisterium. Limbo was always just a hypotehesis and never defined. And yes, it is also not denied because it is a most reasonable hypothesis. It remains permissible to accept or reject it.

 

[vames]

So either they ALL taught that limbo is the official teaching of the Church or they ALL taught that it is an unofficial hypothetical belief?

Middle ground, where art thou?

My bad, I should have added this emoticon - Or maybe even this But I thought it was already clear that it is not my belief that ALL priests did hide the teaching about limbo.

 

[porthos11]

Oh, sure, ALL the other priests of the world, even before VII, were enlightened enough to carefully hide the teaching about limbo and those 2 were the only exceptions. Sorry, I should have realized that.

What’s wrong with you? Why are you posting in such a snarky manner?

 

[bzkoss236]

If they go to hell, as in the land of the dead as is taught in the OT, is there the chance that, because of God’s infinite mercy, that they are kept in Abraham’s Bosom? Albeit, it isn’t purgatory, so they wouldn’t make it to heaven, but in Abraham’s Bosom, they would be protected from the sufferings of hell. And I see no indication in the NT that Abraham’s Bosom was “dismantled” or anything. If it was good enough for those who died in God’s favor before Christ, wouldn’t it still be good for the unbaptized? Maybe as a resting place until the End of Days and Day the Resurrection?

 

[vames]

What’s wrong with you? Why are you posting in such a snarky manner?

I don’t want to be rude towards anyone, it’s only that I really don’t understand why can’t be honest here. How can anyone imply that maybe only some isolated, misguided priests used to present limbo as the Catholic teaching on unbaptized dead babies? I am perfectly aware that it wasn’t a dogma. Yet, there are various teachings of the Church which weren’t officially proclaimed as dogma, but are nevertheless part of the commonly accepted and taught Catholic teaching, as opposed to a simple matter of private revelation or theological opinion. This limbo wasn’t a matter of private revelation or theological opinion, as in “you are free to believe it or not”. Now we are free to believe it or not. Pope Benedict publicly endorsed the opinion that the idea of a limbo reflects an “unduly restrictive view of salvation”. If it’s not a change of teaching, then what is it?

 

[tominrichmond]

Limbo is still (and always must be) an admissible, supportable theological position. An International Theological Commission paper in 2007 concluded that while the traditional teaching on Limbo “never entered into the dogmatic definition of the Magisterium…. it remains a possible theological hypothesis.” Moreover, “The theory of limbo remains a possible theological opinion…” and “has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the Church.” More: “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.” and “was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-twentieth century.”

In my view, it would be reckless to discount a common Catholic teaching with such a long and universal pedigree.

The worst part about this modern attempt to mollify peoples’ emotions about the destination of unbaptized babies who die, is that it seriously undercuts the Church’s insistence on prompt infant baptism. Why, after all, rush if we simply can trust that God will take care of things? Why not wait until the age of reason?

This newfangled notion also is an attack on the doctrine of Original Sin and the necessity of baptism for salvation. It’s simple: Our Lord Himself said that no one enters into heaven without Baptism (‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]), and the Church has always taught that Original Sin is the death of the soul (Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. ii), and a “privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception” (Sess. VI, cap. iii). In other words, it is a bar to entry into heaven, a bar that can only be removed by the Sacrament of Baptism… at least until this new idea of God suspending all the foregoing considerations, His own economy of salvation, and dispensing with Baptism and the means appointed for removal of the bar of Original Sin.

Lastly, let’s all remember that Limbo is a place of perfect natural happiness, not a place of torment. The souls there know no pain, no suffering, no want. Think of the happiest moments of your life on earth–these souls enjoy that kind of happiness eternally. It’s not mean or unkind to be humble enough to accept the providence of God in granting these souls such an eternal destination. It’s hubris pure and simple to think that we could or should devise a different end for souls than God Himself has arranged.

 

[Moore11]

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.

 

[porthos11]

I don’t want to be rude towards anyone, it’s only that I really don’t understand why can’t be honest here. How can anyone imply that maybe only some isolated, misguided priests used to present limbo as the Catholic teaching on unbaptized dead babies? I am perfectly aware that it wasn’t a dogma. Yet, there are various teachings of the Church which weren’t officially proclaimed as dogma, but are nevertheless part of the commonly accepted and taught Catholic teaching, as opposed to a simple matter of private revelation or theological opinion. This limbo wasn’t a matter of private revelation or theological opinion, as in “you are free to believe it or not”. Now we are free to believe it or not. Pope Benedict publicly endorsed the opinion that the idea of a limbo reflects an “unduly restrictive view of salvation”. If it’s not a change of teaching, then what is it?

The Catholic Encyclopedia was written in 1908, way before your time and even then it was only a hypothesis; just read the entry on Limbo, subsection Limbus Infantium. It even reasonably explains why the Conciliar pronouncements of Lyons and Florence are not binding on the faithful. You cannot therefore claim that the Church has held it as a teaching even if individual priests did. Priests do not constitute the Magisterium. The Pope, however, does. Those priests, if they indeed teach it in a definite manner, did you a disservice by not qualifying it properly.

 

[vames]

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council.​

When the Jansenist Synod of Pistoia (1786) denounced the medieval theory of “Limbo”, Pius VI defended the right of the Catholic Schools to teach that those who died with the guilt of original sin alone are punished with the lack of the Beatific Vision (“punishment of loss”), but not sensible pains (the punishment of “fire”). In the bull “Auctorem Fidei” (1794), the Pope condemned as “false, rash, injurious to the Catholic schools” the Jansenist teaching “which rejects as a Pelagian fable [fabula pelagiana] that place in the lower regions (which the faithful call the ‘Limbo of Children’) in which the souls of those departing with the sole guilt of original sin are punished with the punishment of the condemned, without the punishment of fire, just as if whoever removes the punishment of fire thereby introduces that middle place and state free of guilt and of punishment between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation of which the Pelagians idly talk”.[53] Papal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of Limbo as a doctrine of faith. **Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century. **

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

So there wasn’t only a priest who “did a disservice” to me personally (he was a very good priest anyway and I have nothing but praise for him). And common people, especially before the internet age, had access only to what the priests told them and had no possibility to know the difference between official dogma and what this document recognizes as “the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century”.

 

[porthos11]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

So there wasn’t only a priest who “did a disservice” to me personally (he was a very good priest anyway and I have nothing but praise for him). And common people, especially before the internet age, had access only to what the priests told them and had no possibility to know the difference between official dogma and what this document recognizes as “the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century”.

Common Catholic teaching does not equate dogma of faith. Limbo remains permissible but yes, at the time, there was probably no way for the common man to distinguish theological speculation and dogmatic teaching. And by saying he did you a disservice, I did not imply that he did so with malice or intent to deceive. But he still did you a disservice because now you are now affirming that the Church has now contradicted herself, which is impossible on definitive teaching, when a little research in the Internet age shows us how far back it has only been speculation and never dogmatic.

Further, you bolded the last phrase but not the sentence before it, that it was never pushed as a doctrine of faith. That means people are free to accept it, or reject it without incurring sin.

And if your priest was indeed teaching in the mid-20th century, I have no doubt that he was a good faithful priest.

 

[Aramis]

let me just say this there is NO unforgivable sin, other then blasphemy of the holy spirit, God’s infinite mercy can forgive anything you do even the most horrible of sins are forgiven by God if someone seeks his forgiveness.

about how many people make it to heaven we don’t know that either so to claim that it is for sure that not many make it there is impossible. We can’t know with any certainty on how full heaven is or how hard or easy it is to make it to heaven. Its all speculation when we say most people make it heaven or most people go to hell, simply because we don’t know. WE only know that we either end up in Haven or in Hell.

We know a minimum number - the canonized saints are known to the church to be in heaven already. The rest of us may or may not get there before the final judgement at the end of time… and might be denied entry if not repentent.

 

[Moore11]

Limbo is still (and always must be) an admissible, supportable theological position. An International Theological Commission paper in 2007 concluded that while the traditional teaching on Limbo “never entered into the dogmatic definition of the Magisterium…. it remains a possible theological hypothesis.” Moreover, “The theory of limbo remains a possible theological opinion…” and “has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the Church.” More: “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.” and “was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-twentieth century.”

In my view, it would be reckless to discount a common Catholic teaching with such a long and universal pedigree.

The worst part about this modern attempt to mollify peoples’ emotions about the destination of unbaptized babies who die, is that it seriously undercuts the Church’s insistence on prompt infant baptism. Why, after all, rush if we simply can trust that God will take care of things? Why not wait until the age of reason?

This newfangled notion also is an attack on the doctrine of Original Sin and the necessity of baptism for salvation. It’s simple: Our Lord Himself said that no one enters into heaven without Baptism (‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]), and the Church has always taught that Original Sin is the death of the soul (Council of Trent, Sess. V, can. ii), and a “privation of justice that each child contracts at its conception” (Sess. VI, cap. iii). In other words, it is a bar to entry into heaven, a bar that can only be removed by the Sacrament of Baptism… at least until this new idea of God suspending all the foregoing considerations, His own economy of salvation, and dispensing with Baptism and the means appointed for removal of the bar of Original Sin.

Lastly, let’s all remember that Limbo is a place of perfect natural happiness, not a place of torment. The souls there know no pain, no suffering, no want. Think of the happiest moments of your life on earth–these souls enjoy that kind of happiness eternally. It’s not mean or unkind to be humble enough to accept the providence of God in granting these souls such an eternal destination. It’s hubris pure and simple to think that we could or should devise a different end for souls than God Himself has arranged.