Baptizing an infant after death

[thistle]

This is wrong. The Limbo of Infants has been (and still is) a Church teaching that describes one of the possible fates of unbaptized infants. The other possibilities are hell and Heaven.

What you probably meant to say is that the existence of Limbo has never been dogmatically defined.

No. The Church has NEVER taught Limbo for Infants.

 

[Will_S]

No. The Church has NEVER taught Limbo for Infants.

If that is the case, then the Church has taught that unbaptized infants go to hell for the last 1950 years. That was the teaching of the Fathers of the Church.

 

[TrueLight]

No. The Church has NEVER taught Limbo for Infants.

Hi Thistle,

What do you think of this passage from the Baltimore Catechism?

Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

 

[thistle]

As you know Catholics are BOUND and MUST ACCEPT ALL Church teachings, both infallible and non-infallible.
If Limbo for Infants was a Church teaching we would be bound to accept it. However, Catholics have always been free to believe in Limbo for Infants or not. Tradition with a small “t” or common teaching is not a Church teaching.
The other issue is that a teaching of the Church cannot be cancelled. Limbo is not a Church teaching because it never has been.

Here is a quote from the Vatican paper (publication authorised by Pope Benedict XVI) titled The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized:

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.** It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis**. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children…

1. The idea of Limbo, which the Church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without Baptism,** has no clear foundation in revelation**, even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching…

24…As for the expression “Limbo of Infants”, it was forged at the turn of the 12th-13th century to name the “resting place” of such infants (the “border” of the inferior region)…

26…Together with Catholic theologians of the Augustinian school, the Jansenists vigorously opposed the theory of Limbo…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…

90**…A major weakness of the traditional view of Limbo is that it is unclear whether the souls there have any relationship to Christ**; the Christocentricity of the doctrine seems deficient. In some accounts, the souls in Limbo seem to have a natural happiness that belongs to a different order from the supernatural order in which people choose for or against Christ…

1. Where sin abounded, grace superabounded! That is the emphatic teaching of Scripture, but the idea of Limbo seems to constrain that superabundance. (The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized. The International Theological Commission, Vatican City, April 20, 2007. at campchabad.com/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html#_ftn2 viewed 02/07/09)

Thus, the Vatican does not really want to teach that there is a place called Limbo, admits that it is not in the Bible, admits that it came about in Middle Ages (hence was not an original teaching of the church), and that it does not know what prophecy teaches about what will happen to babies who die without baptism.

 

[puzzleannie]

if you want to debate limbo why not go to one of the existing threads?
OPs question is more about what should a lay minister do in a similar situation.

 

[halleone]

‘It may be added that the fact that a fetus does not breathe is no proof it is dead.** It is not unusual for a full-term child not to breathe for an hour or longer after birth. **These are valuable hints for those concerned. Who are they? After the mother’s death, when the Caesarean section is not only permissible, but required in order to baptize the child or fetus, a surgeon is to be called in to perform the operation. He should not be easily believed if he asserts that the child is dead. In that case any one else who has the skill and courage to extract the fetus may be invited, provided it is not against the law. Whether the fetus is certainly alive can be discovered by diagnosis in the earlier stages of pregnancy, and by breathing in the later stages, although, as stated above, non-breathing is not an absolute proof of death. At any rate, as long as putrefaction has not set in, conditional baptism is to be administered.’

Rev. P. Chas. Augustine, A Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law

Shin, I realize this is a quote from another source, but believe me, as a Registered Nurse, certified in Obstetrics, and who has worked very hard at resuscitating numerous newborns who are not breathing, or are struggling to do so, the statement above simply 'taint so. It is truly a battle to resuscitate these little souls, especially if there is meconium present (baby poop); it gums up their lungs and is very, very serious. Having worked in a state-of-the-art University Hospital, Level Three Unit, where the best of the best sometimes couldn’t successfully resuscitate a baby after 5 - 10 minutes of hard work, an hour of no breathing just seems totally unfeasible to me.
And again, I realize you are just quoting someone else, so I hope you are not offended.

 

[Shin]

Shin, I realize this is a quote from another source, but believe me, as a Registered Nurse, certified in Obstetrics, and who has worked very hard at resuscitating numerous newborns who are not breathing, or are struggling to do so, the statement above simply 'taint so. It is truly a battle to resuscitate these little souls, especially if there is meconium present (baby poop); it gums up their lungs and is very, very serious. Having worked in a state-of-the-art University Hospital, Level Three Unit, where the best of the best sometimes couldn’t successfully resuscitate a baby after 5 - 10 minutes of hard work, an hour of no breathing just seems totally unfeasible to me.
And again, I realize you are just quoting someone else, so I hope you are not offended.

Oh, no, no offense. Most things go right past me, I am not easily moved, and why would I take issue? To offend me one has to knock Our Lady, or the saints, not that I expect you would.

I do not know much about Rev. Augustine, nor the reasons he makes that statement. I’m not disavowing him, I just don’t know. Can tell some more about your experience with these matters?

If you plug something like, “infant not breathing hour presumed dead” into a search engine you’ll come up with some news stories of it happening. Of course the news focuses on the extraordinary. I have no idea what the actual rate of occurrence might be. It would be interesting to look up further.

This all reminds me of how much it matters that the infant is with the mother for it to live too, and how I read once of an infant reviving in its mother’s arms.

 

[BKD]

First of all I would like to thank all of you for looking at this post and for posting replies.

@ ejlo1 – Thank you for responding with both documents. I don’t think either directly addressed my questions, but they were both helpful.

@ shin – Thank you for your posts, especially the post from the Canon Law Commentary. I am curious what defines “putrefaction” though? Coldness of the body? Rigamortis? A stench? Visible rotting? It’s a bit vague. Commentaries are just that… commentaries. Sometimes they are helpful and sometimes they raise more questions.

@ heathernoel, @happymommy, – Reading what ejlo1 posted, vatican.va/roman_curia/co…nfants_en.html might be very helpful.

@ ConstantineTG – Thank you. You are speaking from some practical experience. That is what I am looking for. I am not sure if I agree with the three-hour principle, but I am very interested to know what priests do in these situations. I wish some priests would post here about what they do in these situations.

@ Vincent1984 – Thank you for your post. This document is helpful. For clarification, my friend is acting in the capacity of Article 9, § 1 of the document you mentioned. I’d like to avoid initiating a syntax / semantics debate regarding the term “chaplain” here if possible.

@ Will S. There is a tendency in some circles today to reduce all theology to St. Thomas Aquinas. I’d like to offer a warning against this. About a third of what the Angelic Doctor taught can be considered official Catholic doctrine. Consider for a moment what St. Thomas Aquinas taught about the Immaculate Conception or ensoulment. The Church today holds he was wrong on both matters. St. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Augustine of Hippo for that matter, are essential touchstones, but be careful when appealing them as final and definitive authorities. That’s the role of the magisterium. I mean no disrespect for your zeal for St. Thomas and certainly no disrespect to the Angelic Doctor.

@ True light – The Baltamore Catachism does not have anywhere near magisterial authority of this already mentioned document: vatican.va/roman_curia/co…nfants_en.html

While it’s an important and interesting historical source, we can’t reduce theology or even catechesis to the Baltimore Catechism.

@ thistle – Thank you for your clarification. That was helpful.

@ halleone – Thank you for your post responding to shin’s post. Since you have a lot of experience, what have you observed priests doing in these situations when a child appears to have died? Do they baptize? Do they offer some sort of formulized prayer?

 

[halleone]

First of all I would like to thank all of you for looking at this post and for posting replies.

@ halleone – Thank you for your post responding to shin’s post. Since you have a lot of experience, what have you observed priests doing in these situations when a child appears to have died? Do they baptize? Do they offer some sort of formulized prayer?

Unfortunately, in all the years of being a Labor and Delivery nurse or a Nursery nurse, I never once saw a priest. For a normal delivery, the parents-to-be and friends/family, whoever they want is present. If, as the labor progresses, it is apparent that it will be a “bad” baby/delivery, meaning one that will require resuscitation, or a C-section perhaps, the concern is to get the peri-natologist’s/neonatologist’s ready, the equipment set up, and the OR, if it’s a C-section, etc. It is crucial to act quickly. In the University setting, the babies were moved to NICU as quickly as they could be moved from the delivery room. If there was a priest available to those little ones later, I wasn’t aware of it, as my job was back with the mom’s, post delivery.

In a smaller hospital I later worked in, there was an instance for me of resuscitating a baby and trying to keep it stable until the transport team could get there to move the baby to the NICU at Children’s Hospital. It did not look like the baby would live long enough for the team to arrive. The mother was standing next to me as I was working on her child and she understood the gravity of the moment. I asked her if she would like me to baptise her child; she said yes, and I did so with her knowledge. The baby was still alive when the transport team arrived and they left ASAP; I never did hear what became of the little one.

These little people stick in your mind forever, it seems. They are so innocent. I myself had a sister who was stillborn, and I like to think she is in Heaven, praying with me for the repose of our father’s soul, and release from Purgatory. I always thought she might be in Limbo, but my Pastor smilingly told me I had a little friend in Heaven to help me with my prayers, and to pray for me, too. Whether he is right or nor, I don’t know, but it makes me feel better to ask her to pray with me for our Dad.

 

[Shin]

The International Theological Commission has no magisterial authority whatsoever. It’s a purely advisory body. I think the Limbo matter is a discussion for another thread…

So too would be St. Thomas Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception which is not as simple as people like to put it.

 

[heathernoel]

I’ve brought this theme up numerous times. I am praying for help in accepting the idea that somehow I need to accept that my baby is not in heaven but in Limbo. And that he might never get to heaven.

I don’t understand it. It seems so harsh that a loving God wouldn’t accept him into heaven even though he wasn’t baptized through no fault of his and a lack of understanding and proper guidance from us.

 

[halleone]

I’ve brought this theme up numerous times. I am praying for help in accepting the idea that somehow I need to accept that my baby is not in heaven but in Limbo. And that he might never get to heaven.

I wish I could say something that would help you, in your sorrow. My stillborn sister is there also, and, while I would like to think she is in Heaven praying with me for our dad, the probable reality is that she will spend eternity in Limbo. But I receive solace in looking at it as a place of great peace and beauty, where they are in the company of other innocents. And maybe, if/when we are in Heaven, we will be allowed to look in on them from time to time, so we may yet know a little of them and know that they are happy.

 

[heathernoel]

As you know Catholics are BOUND and MUST ACCEPT ALL Church teachings, both infallible and non-infallible.
If Limbo for Infants was a Church teaching we would be bound to accept it. However, Catholics have always been free to believe in Limbo for Infants or not. Tradition with a small “t” or common teaching is not a Church teaching.
The other issue is that a teaching of the Church cannot be cancelled. Limbo is not a Church teaching because it never has been.

Here is a quote from the Vatican paper (publication authorised by Pope Benedict XVI) titled The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized:

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.** It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis**. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children…

1. The idea of Limbo, which the Church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without Baptism,** has no clear foundation in revelation**, even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching…

24…As for the expression “Limbo of Infants”, it was forged at the turn of the 12th-13th century to name the “resting place” of such infants (the “border” of the inferior region)…

26…Together with Catholic theologians of the Augustinian school, the Jansenists vigorously opposed the theory of Limbo…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…

90**…A major weakness of the traditional view of Limbo is that it is unclear whether the souls there have any relationship to Christ**; the Christocentricity of the doctrine seems deficient. In some accounts, the souls in Limbo seem to have a natural happiness that belongs to a different order from the supernatural order in which people choose for or against Christ…

1. Where sin abounded, grace superabounded! That is the emphatic teaching of Scripture, but the idea of Limbo seems to constrain that superabundance. (The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized. The International Theological Commission, Vatican City, April 20, 2007. at campchabad.com/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html#_ftn2 viewed 02/07/09)

Thus, the Vatican does not really want to teach that there is a place called Limbo, admits that it is not in the Bible, admits that it came about in Middle Ages (hence was not an original teaching of the church), and that it does not know what prophecy teaches about what will happen to babies who die without baptism.

Bless you. Thank you! I really appreciate this. I really can’t begin to wrap my head around Him thinking our babies aren’t worth spending an eternity with Him. It doesn’t make sense to me.

I will sleep easier tonight.

 

[Shin]

You have a hard time thinking that God would “do that” to a baby, when “do that” is the equivalent of an eternity in the Garden of Eden?

To me that doesn’t seem bad. Not as good an eternity in the presence of God, but not bad.

I recently spent a lot of time discussing this issue in another thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=567886

There’s an even older thread here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=434120&highlight=limbo

Which has a good deal of source citations from catechisms, Councils, revelations from God, citing Limbo. There’s even more material out there too.

 

[happymommy]

You have a hard time thinking that God would “do that” to a baby, when “do that” is the equivalent of an eternity in the Garden of Eden?

To me that doesn’t seem bad. Not as good an eternity in the presence of God, but not bad.

I recently spent a lot of time discussing this issue in another thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=567886

Well, might not be too bad for you, but not what I want for my child. Yet another thing I have to live with if I plan on staying in the Catholic Church.

 

[Shin]

We can pray and hope. Limbo does not take away hope.

And we do not know how God intervenes in each case.

Revelation is not something we can escape from… Whatever God wills is good in the end.

 

[Will_S]

Bless you. Thank you! I really appreciate this. I really can’t begin to wrap my head around Him thinking our babies aren’t worth spending an eternity with Him. It doesn’t make sense to me.

Traditional Catholic theology says that all people are conceived in original sin and from the first moments of their life are naturally enemies of God and slaves of the devil.

It is exactly this fact that makes the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary noteworthy and important.

An unbaptized infant, therefore, being naturally an enemy of God and slave of the devil, cannot enter into Heaven upon death.

 

[BKD]

Traditional Catholic theology says that all people are conceived in original sin and from the first moments of their life are naturally enemies of God and slaves of the devil.

It is exactly this fact that makes the immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary noteworthy and important.

An unbaptized infant, therefore, being naturally an enemy of God and slave of the devil, cannot enter into Heaven upon death.

Do you think Moses or Elijah are in heaven? They were never baptized…

 

[Evan]

The theory of limbo was an attempt to soften the teaching of St Augustine that all unbaptized infants go to Hell.

Eternity in Paradise (Eden) is better than Hell. It’s no heaven, but considering the alternative???

It’s a theory because God did not reveal the fate of unbaptized infants. This is why no-one can answer the question: where do infants go upon death?

There are 6 choices:

• 1. Hell (biblical support in that only good enter heaven, we are not born worthy of heaven)
• 1. Heaven (baby’s are cute and therefore should go to heaven, especially my baby)
• 1. Limbo (babies are without personal sin, therefore should not go to hell, but not worthy of heaven due to original sin)
• 1. They are given infused knowledge of God and a choice by God to choose self or God; and then judged: some to Heaven some to Hell (our prayers can assist the infants in the choice they make)
• 1. Their souls are destroyed at death (church/bible teaches we have immortal souls, no exceptions)
• 1. They get to try again (church/bible teaches one death, then judgement)

Are there any possibilities I missed? I prefer 4) but it’s up to God, not me. So I don’t get a vote.

Problems

• 1. Hell: Seems unjust
• 1. Heaven: Seems unjust, if true, we should kill all the babies to guarentee them heaven.
• 1. Limbo: just, but we want better (heaven) and not worse (hell)
• 1. Choice: just, but can they learn all they need to make an informed choice?
• 1. Destroy: heresy
• 1. Reincarnation: heresy

 

[Newbie2]

I’ve brought this theme up numerous times. I am praying for help in accepting the idea that somehow I need to accept that my baby is not in heaven but in Limbo. And that he might never get to heaven.

I don’t understand it. It seems so harsh that a loving God wouldn’t accept him into heaven even though he wasn’t baptized through no fault of his and a lack of understanding and proper guidance from us.

I would not hang your hat on a poorly defined (by the Church) understanding of what happens to unbaptized innocents, but rather pray for an understanding of the Almighty’s mercy.

Do you think Moses or Elijah are in heaven? They were never baptized…

…nor was the thief on the cross.