Aborted babies go to hell!?!?

[Eufrosnia]

:ehh::ehh::ehh:

What a strange logic to have.

Same goes for any BAPTIZED child. Does that mean we’re doing baptized infants a favor by committing infanticide?

I don’t follow your point whatsoever.

I think the person has a good point though.

The only issue one can think of is saying but your own soul will therefore go to hell for killing so many. But one could argue that they would rather do that.

So a person might say it is easier to give salvation to all by simply killing all the babies at birth rather than trying to evangelize them and run the risk that they will still lose salvation. Here you will have a case where a man would be “winning” a lot of souls for heaven by jeopardizing his own salvation.

It seems to indicate a contradiction i.e. the greatest act of love is to grant someone an opportunity to be saved. Here you have a way of gauranteeing the salvation of everyone by just killing them at birth. But this greatest act of love requires you to hate your own self. that seems to contradict the nature of love. Hence leads me to believe that the position that all aborted babies go to heaven is not a certainty anyone should have.

This is why I feel that it is incorrect to say “all aborted babies or unbaptized babies that died” are in heaven with certainty. There must at least some other qualifier.

This is why I proposed the qualifier of “Parent’s faith and intent to baptize the child”. In this case, the unbaptized may reach heaven while the aborted seems to go the opposite route. But in any case it is postulation.

I think what we must say is that we are honestly not sure. It does not seem to be certain either way as to where they may have ended up in the case of the aborted babies or those who died where the parents had no intent to baptize them.

 

[Eufrosnia]

None of us deserves Heaven - I see a lot of statements approaching Pelagianism in this thread. These are the things we know:

1. 
   *]Original Sin denies a soul of the Beatific Vision (taught infallibly by the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence, binding on all Catholics)
   *]Those who die with Original Sin along and those who are guilty of personal sin are not punsihed in the same way (Denzinger 693)
   *]Baptism remits Original Sin
   
   We can’t just brush aside infallible teachings. This doesn’t mean that all the souls of those babies who die in utero are sent to Hell, but it seems untenable to claim that they all go to Heaven. Again, none of us deserves Heaven. God commands some of us to be numbered among His elect (according to the Catholic understanding of predestination), but obviously His Will hasn’t been fully revealed to us.
   
   This is why abortion is such a terrible crime. Pope Sixtus V included the idea that these poor souls were denied the Beatific Vision in his 1588 condemnation. This doesn’t rule out the idea of a place of natural happiness like Limbo (which would be properly seen as a part of Hell), but we shouldn’t be so quick to discount the words of so many of the successors of St Peter. Of course we can trust in God to be merciful, but His ways are not our ways.

1. 
   I really like this reply!

 

[devoutchristian]

It makes me mad too.

Well if you’re going to get mad whenever someone disagrees with you then you must have a very sad life.

I believe 100% that your brother is with God.

A Catholic is not permitted to ascribe infallible certainty to mere theological opinion.

 

[Debora123]

Well if you’re going to get mad whenever someone disagrees with you then you must have a very sad life.

You’re picking on me when I wasn’t even the first person to say on here that it makes me mad when people try to tell me I can’t believe babies go to heaven. Especially because it’s perfectly permissible to think so.

PS - Personally Insulting someone else’s “life” because they disagree with you is really not much better.

 

[Debora123]

A Catholic is not permitted to ascribe infallible certainty to mere theological opinion.

Once again, I am perfectly allowed to believe the poster’s brother is in heaven. Seems at this point you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing

 

[chimo]

Being angry about something that is not true is a great virtue and not necessarily a indication of a sad life. Our Lord Jesus was often angry with the Pharisees and we can see this much throughout His ministry and contacts with them. Did He have a sad life? It seems to me those Pharisees were the ones who had lived sad lives. It is correct and right when anyone can make a true and right judgment regarding what our Lord thinks on issues that are important to Him and His Church. The Church is not always right and if we always think she is we can enter the territory by which the Pharisees were in. We need boldness to correct sometimes the Church in line to what Jesus believes. Our measure must be centered on this love and mercy which He has for us and not entirely on what some of the Church seems to believe.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Once again, I am perfectly allowed to believe the poster’s brother is in heaven. Seems at this point you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing

I think he might be worried that you will actually believe that babies go to heaven i.e. put that belief in to action or lead others to action.

Because if you do, it means that you could end up killing babies so that you can get them directly to heaven without any risk of losing salvation. I think that is what he must mean when he says that it is dangerous to believe with certainty that babies who die are all in heaven.

What you could do is HOPE that they make it to heaven. It is honestly only God’s knowledge at this point whether they actually make it to heaven. Until such a time that the Church decides, we can only HOPE. We probably shouldn’t believe in the fact because believing that in this case does lead to some weird and contradictory ideas.

 

[Debora123]

Being angry about something that is not true is a great virtue and not necessarily a indication of a sad life. Our Lord Jesus was often angry with the Pharisees and we can see this much throughout His ministry and contacts with them. Did He have a sad life? It seems to me those Pharisees were the ones who had lived sad lives. It is correct and right when anyone can make a true and right judgment regarding what our Lord thinks on issues that are important to Him and His Church. The Church is not always right and if we always think she is we can enter the territory by which the Pharisees were in. We need boldness to correct sometimes the Church in line to what Jesus believes. Our measure must be centered on this love and mercy which He has for us and not entirely on what some of the Church seems to believe.

Thanks Chimo.

Honestly, I’m not angry that people here disagree with me about unborn babies going to heaven… I’m really not. They are allowed to believe the unborn go to Limbo, and they’re even allowed to believe they go to Hell. And that’s exactly the point - as Catholics, we are allowed to have our beliefs regarding unbaptized children.

What makes me mad is people trying to tell me I’m NOT allowed to believe they go to Heaven… and even going as far as saying it’s heretical to hold such belief.

I remember, perhaps close to a year ago… there was a thread here started by a lady who has been struggling with depression and a lot of regret because of her decision to have an abortion when she was young. She said she prayed to her unborn child all the time, and said she took solace in knowing that her child is with God. Well, a poster figured he’d take it upon himself to start writing posts after posts trying to convince this lady, and everyone else, that this child was definitely NOT in heaven. Yes, that infuriated me. I don’t think I have a sad life at all.

 

[Debora123]

I think he might be worried that you will actually believe that babies go to heaven i.e. put that belief in to action or lead others to action.

Because if you do, it means that you could end up killing babies so that you can get them directly to heaven without any risk of losing salvation. I think that is what he must mean when he says that it is dangerous to believe with certainty that babies who die are all in heaven.

What you could do is HOPE that they make it to heaven. It is honestly only God’s knowledge at this point whether they actually make it to heaven. Until such a time that the Church decides, we can only HOPE. We probably shouldn’t believe in the fact because believing that in this case does lead to some weird and contradictory ideas.

No, I pretty much believe they all go to heaven. I’m allowed to believe that.

And the whole thing about killing babies is just… well, let’s just say I don’t even think it deserves a response.

 

[RyanBlack]

Well if you’re going to get mad whenever someone disagrees with you then you must have a very sad life.

Are you always this rude?

 

[shocktrooper]

Once again, I am perfectly allowed to believe the poster’s brother is in heaven. Seems at this point you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing

Debora,

Can you please explain what you mean when you write or say “believe”? “Believe” has a few different meanings and I think it would help me understand your position better if you did so. When I say or hear the word “believe” when talking faith, I think of it in the context of “Amen”, “I believe” or “so be it”, so option 1 below is more in line with me thinking.

Here is what Merriam-Webster has on the word “believe”.

1:a : to have a firm religious faith
b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real

2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something

3: to hold an opinion : think

God bless.

 

[Debora123]

Debora,

Can you please explain what you mean when you write or say “believe”? “Believe” has a few different meanings and I think it would help me understand your position better if you did so. When I say or hear the word “believe” when talking faith, I think of it in the context of “Amen”, “I believe” or “so be it”, so option 1 below is more in line with me thinking.

Here is what Merriam-Webster has on the word “believe”.

1:a : to have a firm religious faith
b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real

2: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something

3: to hold an opinion : think

God bless.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here.

I acknowledge the fact that the Church has said She has no authority to claim where these souls go. We are free to have our own convictions regarding this topic, and like everyone else, I have shared mine.

I think we are all aware of the meaning of the word “believe” and I think it applies to all your definitions above.

 

[Eufrosnia]

No, I pretty much believe they all go to heaven. I’m allowed to believe that.

And the whole thing about killing babies is just… well, let’s just say I don’t even think it deserves a response.

Well it is a valid point regarding killing babies though.

1. Babies that die before baptism go to heaven
2. If we kill all babies, they all go to heaven
3. The highest act of love we can do is to help someone to heaven
4. Here we can guarantee that someone goes to heaven by killing them as a baby
5. So killing babies would be a charitable thing to do

But I think you realize the absurdity of the conclusion. The correct step might be to recognize that this absurd conclusion is the result of the belief you want to hold. That is why the belief is dangerous.

A better thing would be to just hope. After all, do you agree that God could indeed choose to send these babies to hell for reasons you and I have no idea about? So you cannot in the strict sense ***believe ***that they go to heaven but only ***hope ***they go to heaven.

 

[Debora123]

Well it is a valid point regarding killing babies though.

1. Babies that die before baptism go to heaven
2. If we kill all babies, they all go to heaven
3. The highest act of love we can do is to help someone to heaven
4. Here we can guarantee that someone goes to heaven by killing them as a baby
5. So killing babies would be a charitable thing to do

But I think you realize the absurdity of the conclusion. The correct step might be to recognize that this absurd conclusion is the result of the belief you want to hold. That is why the belief is dangerous.

A better thing would be to just hope. After all, do you agree that God could indeed choose to send these babies too hell for reasons you and I have no idea about?

Ummm don’t know what to say. This is a very twisted way of looking at things, and killing any person just so they can go to heaven is something a mentally insane person would do. It is not, however, mentally insane to believe unbaptized children go to heaven… so I’m not sure what your connection is.

I do think the above post is inappropriate.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Ummm don’t know what to say. This is a very twisted way of looking at things, and killing any person just so they can go to heaven is something a mentally insane person would do. It is not, however, mentally insane to believe unbaptized children go to heaven… so I’m not sure what your connection is.

I do think the above post is grotesque and inappropriate, which is why I’ll be reporting to the mods and letting them handle it.

I don’t know why you would report it to the mods but ok.

The point is that this grotesque view comes about if we truly BELIEVE your position i.e. all babies dying before baptism go to heaven. The connection of the above conclusion to your belief is that it is the resultant conclusion of your belief i.e. killing someone as a baby is the most charitable thing to do.

This is why I said you should hope that the babies be saved rather than believe that they are indeed saved. The belief leads to a “grotesque” conclusion.

 

[meltzerboy]

Well it is a valid point regarding killing babies though.

1. Babies that die before baptism go to heaven
2. If we kill all babies, they all go to heaven
3. The highest act of love we can do is to help someone to heaven
4. Here we can guarantee that someone goes to heaven by killing them as a baby
5. So killing babies would be a charitable thing to do

But I think you realize the absurdity of the conclusion. The correct step might be to recognize that this absurd conclusion is the result of the belief you want to hold. That is why the belief is dangerous.

A better thing would be to just hope. After all, do you agree that God could indeed choose to send these babies to hell for reasons you and I have no idea about? So you cannot in the strict sense ***believe ***that they go to heaven but only ***hope ***they go to heaven.

I think the belief is dangerous only to truly disturbed people. One might also argue that it is good to kill someone immediately after they have confessed their sins since they would then have a very good chance of going to heaven; but who but a disturbed individual would think this is a charitable thing to do?

 

[shocktrooper]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here.

I acknowledge the fact that the Church has said She has no authority to claim where these souls go. We are free to have our own convictions regarding this topic, and like everyone else, I have shared mine.

I think we are all aware of the meaning of the word “believe” and I think it applies to all your definitions above.

The Church has laid out boundaries for us based off the teachings of Christ and other divine revelations. She clearly lays out objectively how one goes to hell and how one is rewarded with heaven.

I think language is important. If you are asserting your own opinion then that is fine as long as you realize it is conflict with what the Church teaches and accept what the Church teaches as truth. If you “believe” (accept as truth) that all unborn children go to heaven, then you are denying a clear doctrine of the Church. Again, as others have mention, it is perfectly acceptable to say you hope and pray that all unborn babies go to heaven and that it is very possible due to the mercy of God But to canonize all unborn babies is dangerous to the deposit of faith. Just as we are not allowed to judge someone to hell because we are not God, we are likewise not allowed to judge someone to heaven because we are not God.

Also, would it be safe to assume that you never pray for the unborn dead since they, in your mind, are already in heaven?

 

[Eufrosnia]

I think the belief is dangerous only to truly disturbed people. One might also argue that it is good to kill someone immediately after they have confessed their sins since they would then have a very good chance of going to heaven; but who but a disturbed individual would think this is a charitable thing to do?

Well in the case of confession, we don’t really know if the person had a good confession and truly repented. So you can say that there is the element of doubt.

But I guess you could say what about babies that were just baptized… so you seem to have a point

From the Catholic view, one would also argue that one loses their own salvation by doing so and thus it is something no one should pursue. That would indeed mean that the person who thinks and acts this way will have to be deranged enough desire an eternity in hell in trade for the salvation of others.

Just reading up what is available online, I stumbled upon the following

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4050

to quote the conclusion

Given the limitations presented to the aborted infants, such a declaration of categorical salvation would undermine the reality of original sin, the necessity of infant baptism, defy the sacramental means of the Church, and present a universal certainty when indeed one is lacking. Rather, maintaining the traditional stance of the Church, as so beautifully voiced in the Catechism of Pope John Paul II, does much to increase hope in the mercy of God who can indeed admit to the Beatific Vision whomsoever he pleases. This is the very hope echoed by the Angelic Doctor, when, although affirming that the normal means of Baptism are not available to the infant in the womb, they "can nevertheless be subjected to the action of God, in whose presence they are living, in such wise that they achieve sanctification by some privilege of grace, as is evident regarding those who have been sanctified in the womb."26 McCarthy, who maintains that “one can hope that the same grace may also be given to babies, lethally attacked, who have never been enemies of God in mind or in evil works,” reechoes this sentiment.27 **This hope **is a strong and convincing one, but remains only that.

 

[RyanBlack]

I don’t know why you would report it to the mods but ok.

The point is that this grotesque view comes about if we truly BELIEVE your position i.e. all babies dying before baptism go to heaven. The connection of the above conclusion to your belief is that it is the resultant conclusion of your belief i.e. killing someone as a baby is the most charitable thing to do.

This is why I said you should hope that the babies be saved rather than believe that they are indeed saved. The belief leads to a “grotesque” conclusion.

Well, what about this?

Baptism removes original sin.
Infants, when receving baptism, are cleansed of original sin.
Infants are incapable of actual sin.
Since they have been cleansed of original sin and are inacapable of actual sin, baptized infants are guaranteed heaven, until they reach the age of reason, when they are capable of sin.
Killing baptized infants assures them of heaven, so it is the greatest act of love towards a baptized infant.

The fact that some idiot or mentally disturbed person could use the belief that aborted babies go to heaven is a reason why Debora should not hold her beliefs is about as logical as the idea that we should stop baptizing infants bdecause some idiot or mentally disturbed person could use infant baptism to justify murdering baptized infants.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Well, what about this?

Baptism removes original sin.
Infants, when receving baptism, are cleansed of original sin.
Infants are incapable of actual sin.
Since they have been cleansed of original sin and are inacapable of actual sin, baptized infants are guaranteed heaven, until they reach the age of reason, when they are capable of sin.
Killing baptized infants assures them of heaven, so it is the greatest act of love towards a baptized infant.

The fact that some idiot or mentally disturbed person could use the belief that aborted babies go to heaven is a reason why Debora should not hold her beliefs is about as logical as the idea that we should stop baptizing infants bdecause some idiot or mentally disturbed person could use infant baptism to justify murdering baptized infants.

I talked about this in my reply to meltzer boy. I think it is a fair point.

But just to correct one thing regarding the bolded and underlined part of your reply above, the correct comparison would be the belief that a baptized baby upon death will go to heaven. Not baptism itself.

Anyway, it seems quiet ironic that a deranged person who is willing to spend an eternity in hell can actually end up giving a quick ticket to salvation for others… seems somewhat twisted and wrong that it is the case… **Then again, that might be the way in which God brings about the good he wants to achieve by allowing even such deranged individuals to cause such evils. **

However, I also quoted above an article which explains why we should not believe but HOPE that these babies are saved.

EDIT: Just realized, God does allow sick and twisted people who cause evils while he brings about great goods. Jesus Christ was allowed to be tortured and put to death on the cross at the hands of a group of deranged people so that God may save human kind through the atoning sacrifice of Christ. So that sort of clarifies my own question as to why God will even keep such a weird path open I guess…