Abortion and dying in original sin

[Gorgias]

Nimeniton,

Thanks for bringing your questions here for discussion and reflection! Certainly, the question of what happens to babies who are not baptized before they die is a difficult one, and has been debated throughout the history of the Christian Church. As many have pointed out, there have been a variety of opinions, by a variety of people, and with a range of authoritative force. It seems that you’re asking a couple of basic questions; among them, you seem to be asking whether there is a fundamental disagreement between Florence and the contemporary Church. There are other interesting questions to be asked and answered, to be sure, but would you mind if I focus in on this one for a moment?

You stated, in your original post, that the “current teaching”, as found in the recent ITC document, “has not always been the case” – in particular, that the council of Florence taught something different. I’m not certain that I would agree with that analysis. Let’s take a look at what Florence says, and then ask whether the ITC is in conflict with it.

Florence mentions a number of issues in the context of the quote you provided:

• those who have “acts and omissions” and have not made “satisfaction”, yet are penitent, are cleansed. (Later, we see this referred to as “cleansed … outside their bodies”.)
• This cleansing is felt by these people, and the “sacrifice of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion” on the part of the living “give relief” to these souls.
• Those who are baptized and die without incurring the stain of sin are straightaway received into heaven.
• Those who sin and are cleansed are likewise received straightaway into heaven. This cleansing may take place while they are alive (“in their bodies”) or after their death (“outside their bodies”).
• Those who “depart in actual mortal sin”, though, “go down straightaway to hell”.
• Those who “depart this life… in original sin alone”, likewise, “go down straightaway to hell”.
• These two groups, however, suffer “unequal pains”.

This is a fair enough summary of what Florence is teaching, wouldn’t you say?

OK, then… without getting into discussions of ex cathedra pronouncements, ecumenical councils, or other issues of authority, let me ask you a question: Was Abraham saved? That is, can we say that Abraham is in heaven?

On one hand, we can go to Scripture, and find that Abraham “put his faith in the LORD, who attributed it to him as righteousness” (Gen 15:6); this faith leads us to understand that “Abraham was justified” (Romans 4:2), and Paul discusses from whence this justification proceeded (from faith or from works). Yet, we know that Abraham was not baptized!

So, where does this place Abraham in the taxonomy outlined by Florence? Well, having not been baptized, he must have died “in original sin” at the very least, if not in actual sin, right? So, perhaps he was cleansed… but how could he be cleansed and go to heaven, if there’s no means to avoid hell without baptism?

Perhaps, then, we need to consider Florence’s statements in a more subtle way. We know that God wishes all to be saved, and yet, we know that there was no baptism prior to Pentecost, and no baptism after that to unevangelized peoples; the Church doesn’t teach that all who lived before Christ or never heard of him are in hell. We know that Abraham wasn’t baptized, yet we know that he was justified and is in heaven. Therefore, we know that there are clear exceptions to Florence’s statement about the unbaptized.

Yet, how are we to make sense of these exceptions? Do Vatican II and the recent ITC declaration break with the teaching of the past? Not at all! Let’s look at what they say in light of a Gospel teaching. In Matthew 12:8, Jesus identifies himself as “the Lord of the Sabbath”. As someone mentioned up-thread: although we humans are constrained by God’s law, God himself is not constrained by his law. He does as he wishes. So, Jesus could licitly allow his disciples to harvest grain on the Sabbath; likewise, God could licitly allow the unbaptized to enter heaven. Could it be the case that God does so? Both Vatican II and the ITC frame up the answer subtly: yes, we can hope that this is the case. We know the one way that salvation can be assured (baptism, and recourse to the sacrament of reconciliation); but, even though we know this one way, it does not imply that God is constrained to this way and this way only.

So, do Vatican II and ITC stand in conflict with Florence? I think not. Florence is telling us about the ordinary ways to salvation (baptism, forgiveness, purgatory), but Vatican II and the ITC speak of hope of extraordinary ways.

Hope this helps…!

Blessings,

G.

 

[Nimeniton]

Nimeniton,

---

From dictionary.com:
bray **2 **— ***vb ***1. ( *tr *) to distribute (ink) over printing type or plates
2. ( *tr *) to pound into a powder, as in a mortar
3. *dialect *( *Northern English *) to hit or beat (someone or something) hard; bang

From Webster.com:
bray: to utter or play loudly or harshly

If we consider definitions from both dictionaries, the word I chose is appropriate. Like Marc Anthony, I was also contacted by you in a PM to continue your relentless debate. You just don’t give up, do you?

May I make two comments.

1 You have used the second definition of “bray”. The first definition from the Oxford dictionary is

noun
the loud, harsh cry of a donkey or mule:
the mule uttered its insane bray
a sound, voice, or laugh resembling a bray:
he recognized the loud bray of the doctor
verb
[no object]
(of a donkey or mule) utter a bray:
the donkey brayed and kicked
(of a person) speak or laugh loudly and harshly:
he brayed with laughter
[with direct speech]:
‘Leave!’ brayed a voice behind her

In any event your comment seems harsh and has no place in a discussion and amounts to a personal attack whether you are comparing me to a donkey or a loud person. In all events if people persist in personal attacks I report them to the moderator.

As to your second comment that “I just don’t give up” which is hardly a crime, I would point out that I made one maybe two comments on another discussion and then you and Marc Antony replied to me and before I could reply the forum was closed. Are you saying that I have no right of reply by private message when no other alternative is open to me?.Further neither of you have asked me not to reply by private message.

If you are not interested in what I have to say then ignore me. You can even put me on block.

If people choose to counter my arguments with a defense and I see a weakness in that defense, then I will point it out.

 

[Nimeniton]

“The theological commission gives its motives and I am happy to accept them at face value.”
Why then, does he not accept the entire findings of the commission?

Imagine I said. “You agree with Calvin that Jesus is God so why don’t you accept the whole of Calvinism”. You would be quite right to reply that one can agree in part without agreeing with everything they claim. You would not agree with his version of predestination, for example.

So Just because I don’t question that the Theological Commission have good motive for their assertion, it does not necessarily follow that I have agree that their arguments are sound. Their motives whether good or bad do not effect the soundness or otherwise of their arguments.

For example someone can tell the truth because they

1. Want to protect the innocent and are not interested so much in punishing the guilty

or

1. They relish seeing someone punished and are not interested in protecting the innocent

Whatever their motive it does not take away from the fact that the truth is being told and likewise for anything that is untrue.

 

[Nimeniton]

i can hardly blame your mother for keeping hope. i prayed for you yesterday along much the same lines.

Thanks Chaela much appreciated. Mum is lovel,y 79 years old and walks 5 miles a day with dad , also 79, and almost sixty years married. I have much to be grateful to them for.

if i’m sick and whatever is ailing me is beyond my scope to heal, i go to the doctor. my understanding of the medical sciences falls far short of a medical doctors’ and i don’t necessarily understand everything that the doctor does, but i accept the doctor’s diagnosis once i’m confident in the doctor as a professional. i think the same applies here.

And that is a perfectly valid argument which I fully respect I am always having friends give me well meant advice but my faith is in my oncologist:thumbsup:

 

[Nimeniton]

OK, then… without getting into discussions of ex cathedra pronouncements, ecumenical councils, or other issues of authority, let me ask you a question: Was Abraham saved? That is, can we say that Abraham is in heaven?

G.

Hi Gorgias

First of all I would like to thank you for your considered reply which shows that you do your research. You grasped immediately my main question and your question is an excellent one and thought provoking. Certainly scripture places Abraham in heaven Luke 16:19-31. So the answer to your question is yes.

This raises more questions in terms of the Council of Florence and has given me pause for further thought. But Luke precedes the Council of Florence.

I should add that I have waited three years to get such an excellent reply and further done with such grace and consideration. I take my hat off to you - you are an exemplar.

 

[Sirach2]

What a happy breakthrough, Nimeniton!
Consider too, that not only Abraham, but also Moses and Elijah are in heaven, for in the Transfiguration, they appeared with Jesus. Mt. 17:3 They were not baptized either.

 

[Gorgias]

Hi Gorgias

First of all I would like to thank you for your considered reply

I should add that I have waited three years to get such an excellent reply and further done with such grace and consideration. I take my hat off to you - you are an exemplar.

Thank you for the kind reply Nimeniton! I’m glad I could help!

This raises more questions in terms of the Council of Florence and has given me pause for further thought.

Quite right. However, I’m not trying to imply that Florence was wrong; given its status as a council of the Church, I would assert that it proclaims the truth. Since we’ve seen that a surface reading of its pronouncements doesn’t quite work, it’s reasonable to suggest that we need a more considered reading – one that takes into account the context and audiences. After all, councils aren’t convened in a vacuum – they always result from a perceived need to address a certain question or controversy that has arisen. Given that this is the case, it’s also necessary to consider to whom the pronouncements are directed. In this way, by matching controversy and audience to pronouncement, we may hope to get a clearer picture of what the Church Fathers at Florence were attempting to say.

Blessings,

G.

 

[Richca]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Quote:
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.
Perhaps the best way to answer the question is what the International Theological Commission had to say in its address The hope of salvation for infants who die without being baptized:
Quote:
The conclusion of this study is that there are theological and liturgical reasons to hope that infants who die without baptism may be saved and brought into eternal happiness, even if there is not an explicit teaching on this question found in Revelation”. quoted from the apologist section

It should be noted that this is current teaching and has not always been the case.

1. Take* “But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains”* is a definition from .ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF FLORENCE (1438-1445). ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm

This states 3 things to those who die in original sin alone. a. They are punished,b they go straight to hell c. the punishment is less for those than those who have committed mortal sin. This is not a description of limbo but hell. This is the fate of infants and the aborted.

A second historical teaching of the church is that abortion is wrong because the aborted foetus loses not only its life but it soul “Who will not detest such an abhorrent and evil act, by which are lost not only the bodies but also the souls”? quoted from The Apostolic Constitution “Effraenatam” of Pope Sixtus V against abortionists. This teaching assumes the existence of limbo. (Popes believe in the limbo of the little ones") iteadjmj.com/aborto/eng-prn.html

St Peter and by extension Popes are permitted to change teachings**".I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
**Mattew 16:19

Reply to point 1:
-----As the ITC paper says (#37), that definition from the Council of Florence doesn’t oblige us to think that infants or little children who die without baptism necessarily die with original sin, that there is no other way open to them for salvation.
-----the definition for those who die with original sin only must be interpreted according to the common doctrine of the time on this issue, which doctrine had not been made a matter of faith (ITC paper #37).
----According to the mind of the church, this definition contains a matter that has not been definitively defined by the church i.e. the fate of upbaptized infants and children who die with original sin only (ITC #34).
-----The loss of the beatific vision as the punishment for original sin is a matter of faith (ITC #36).
----The definition must be reconciled with Pope Pius IX, in “Quanto
conficiamur moerore,” August 10, 1863 (DS 2866) “God in His supreme
goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be punished with
eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary fault.” It must be reconciled with the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well (#1261).

Reply to question about limbo:
The concept of limbo isn’t a matter of faith ( ITC paper #38, #40).

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I have heard accusations that the church is being populist with regard to the idea that unbaptised babies may go to heaven. I have not repeated them and I have a dislike for searching for motives mainly because they smack of ad hominem attacks. The theological commission gives its motives and I am happy to accept them at face value.

Glad to hear it! That was a general statement, not a specific condemnation of you.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Well, we agree on that so I wonder if you could have a word with my mother. I was in the hospital the other day having one of my chemo sessions when the nurse started asking me questions just as my mother popped in. “Religion” asks the nurse. “None” I try to reply when my mother interjected, “He’s a lapsed Catholic, once a Catholic always a Catholic” The truth is I am an apostate but I did not want to tempt fate by saying so

Your Mother’s playing the odds I guess.

 

[Nimeniton]

Glad to hear it! That was a general statement, not a specific condemnation of you.

Hi Marc Anthony. I understood that you were merely anticipating a familiar argument and did not take it as a condemnation. I just wanted to assure you that I was not going to go down that road

 

[Nimeniton]

What a happy breakthrough, Nimeniton!
Consider too, that not only Abraham, but also Moses and Elijah are in heaven, for in the Transfiguration, they appeared with Jesus. Mt. 17:3 They were not baptized either.

Indeed I consider that (Moses and Elijah are in heaven)as well as what an exemplar Gorgias in making his point, gentle, well mannered, patient and carefully reasoned. We can all learn from others and also the best way to teach. Forum members should observe him closely. I wish you similar breakthroughs.

 

[Nimeniton]

:. Given that this is the case, it’s also necessary to consider to whom the pronouncements are directed. In this way, by matching controversy and audience to pronouncement, we may hope to get a clearer picture of what the Church Fathers at Florence were attempting to say.

Blessings,

G.

It would certainly be an interesting project to look at the history of that time in order to identify context and audience… Not something that can be done in 24 hours. Energy and time permitting, it might be something I could look at in the coming months. If you can refer me to any resources to get me started, I would much appreciate it.

I know a little of the context in that it was a turbulent time in the church with much opposition to Pope Eugenius, There had been some illegal councils set up prior to Florence and yet he sought in the Council to heal the rift between east and west. However, it does not tell me much as to the context for defining the fate of those who die in particular states etc.