Can we believe in infant damnation?

[PhanxicoXavier]

It leads to damnation of those who carry out and support this evil practice.

Two birds with one stone then - the babies and the parents/doctor.

This is the problem – if you die without baptism, then you go to Hell. Even if you believe in Baptism of Desire (note: I am neither denying nor confirming my belief therein) then how can a baby, below the age of reason, desire baptism? Isn’t one tenet of Baptism of Desire that the soul in question has to sincerely desire baptism? If someone else desires baptism for him, then the whole world would be saved!

 

[peregrinator_it]

Two birds with one stone then - the babies and the parents/doctor.

This is the problem – if you die without baptism, then you go to Hell. Even if you believe in Baptism of Desire (note: I am neither denying nor confirming my belief therein) then how can a baby, below the age of reason, desire baptism? Isn’t one tenet of Baptism of Desire that the soul in question has to sincerely desire baptism? If someone else desires baptism for him, then the whole world would be saved!

To you and to the OP: I’m suppose you can believe in infant damnation, but why on earth would you want to?

We simply cannot know the answer to this or other knotty problems of salvation certainly. However, we can and do know that God’s justice is not our justice (thinking of Isaiah 55:8 and the parable of the laborers for hire in Matthew) and that God’s mercy transcends our understanding.

If Christ came and sought out and brought to repentance (i.e. saved) (and not to mention suffered and died for) prostitutes and tax collectors who were guilty of great personal sin as well as still carrying the stain of original sin, (as all did at that time- guilty of great personal sin or not) why would He withhold His salvation from those who are victims of violence or simply die of natural causes before they can even be baptized, much less commit personal sin?

I simply see no good coming from a belief in infant damnation-- it seems to me an attempt to put limits on God’s mercy (albeit sometimes out of a perfectly correct concern that evil be perceived as evil.)

 

[PhanxicoXavier]

Its not so much that I want to believe it, but in my opinion, the best option is just to say “From what we know, yes babies that die without baptism go to Hell, but that’s just what we know, maybe God sends them somewhere else.” My main problem with this however, is that it leads to so much confusion like “well if we don’t know that babies go to Hell, then what about virtuous pagans? What about Gandhi? What about all the nice non-Catholic people we meet every day that we can’t imagine going to Hell?” – see what I mean? Allowing one inch of the dogma EENS to move, no matter how well-intentioned, leads to all sorts of confusion and chaos, culminating in outright denial of EENS.

I don’t know though. I’ll just stick to EENS, and I apologize if my posts in this thread have hurt anyone that has gone through this experience personally (because I have not, and God-willing I will not…).

 

[Marc_Anthony]

God wants us to baptise infants so that they could see the Beatific Vision quicker. Here’s my theory (theory only, but I do believe it is theologically sound. If it isn’t, please correct me and I will revise it.):

The souls of baptised infants go to the same area of Hell that those righteous who died before Christ went to. At the second coming Christ he will descend into Hell to rescue those infants and bring them into Heaven.

Sound okay? I’m not really sure.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I suppose I am revising my reply a little…

Its not so much that I want to believe it, but in my opinion, the best option is just to say “From what we know, yes babies that die without baptism go to Hell, but that’s just what we know, maybe God sends them somewhere else.”

I don’t think the above is quite accurate. The Church does not teach certainly that the unbaptized infants go to hell. If that were so, She would not permit funeral rites for them.

CCC 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.”

While I’m fairly sure you may privately believe that unbaptized infants are damned, I do not believe you may present this as Church teaching.

My main problem with this however, is that it leads to so much confusion like “well if we don’t know that babies go to Hell, then what about virtuous pagans? What about Gandhi? What about all the nice non-Catholic people we meet every day that we can’t imagine going to Hell?” – see what I mean? Allowing one inch of the dogma EENS to move, no matter how well-intentioned, leads to all sorts of confusion and chaos, culminating in outright denial of EENS.

I think the fear of “give an inch and they’ll take a mile” is a very human fear. Certainly, the Church has the duty and responsibility to be clear and accurate in teaching the truth. However, I don’t think that includes defining the truth more narrowly on purpose to avoid people “taking advantage.”

Anyone who is moderately intelligent can handle the teachings about personal responsibility for accepting the faith and can understand the ideas of vincible and invincible ignorance (which would apply to Gandhi and the pagans.)

I am certain that God does not fear to give an inch lest we take a mile in His mercy.

 

[Genesis315]

It has been repeated many times by the Magisterium that the punishment for original sin is not the same as the punishment for actual sins. We all must believe at least that much. However, we are free to hold there is a possibility that dying unbaptized infants are given sanctifying grace by God by a kind of privilege, by vicarious desire, etc. We are also free to believe they do not. It is in the realm of free opinions. No one has ever been condemned for holding for either possibilities–nor are we free to condemn one who holds to any of these opinions.

 

[hockeyfighter21]

Listen to some of these responses!!! Just type it out and see how it sounds. “God will send babies who died without baptism to keep the company and torments of satan and demons for all eternity. they will cry non-stop in complete agony longing for their mothers forever.” THIS IS RIDICULOUS. KNOCK IT OFF. Christ’s message calls us to make a choice. Christ also summed up all of Christianity in one word. LOVE

 

[IntegraCatholic]

PhanxicoXavier,

You are correct that these infants cannot be saved without baptism, but they go to hell to be punished with different punishments from those who have committed actual mortal sin. This is what the original poster asked about Lyons. As their punishments are different, there has been theologian speculation as the their precise state. The concept of limbo as a place of perfect natural happiness (distinguishing the natural end of man, which is the enjoyment of God without the beatific vision but through the physical world and natural contemplation from the gift of the beatific vision, which is not necessary to the nature of man but a free gift of God) without any pain of sense has become by far the common consensus of theologians and only makes sense teleologically.

 

[mlldrl]

As a side note, one must remember that sentimentality must not obscure our reasoning.

We must also remember that we’re speaking of human beings made in the image and likeness of God. Humans with an soul who are loved and are capable of loving. So we also shouldn’t refer to them the same way we’d talk about some piece of cold machinery.

M

 

[PhanxicoXavier]

Listen to some of these responses!!! Just type it out and see how it sounds. “God will send babies who died without baptism to keep the company and torments of satan and demons for all eternity. they will cry non-stop in complete agony longing for their mothers forever.” THIS IS RIDICULOUS. KNOCK IT OFF. Christ’s message calls us to make a choice. Christ also summed up all of Christianity in one word. LOVE

You’re right, which is why this is just mere speculation based upon the Church’s teaching. However, if non-baptized babies could go to Heaven, wouldn’t that be an affront to God’s justice? Christ didn’t need to be baptized, but He “suffered” it so that He could give us an example of His Justice.

I agree with IntegraCatholic that the punishments reserved to unbaptized infants will be different from those of the rest of the damned, since the damned are punished in accordance to their sins. Maybe the unbaptized children are spared from the fires of Hell, and from its physical punishments, while being fully punished spiritually, by the absence of God.

 

[Brendan]

Jesus did go to Limbo after his death on the cross and lead the righteous ones waiting there for Him into heaven. if Jesus was able to lead these unbaptized people into heaven, why can’t He do the same for the babies? if Jesus baptize them in Limbo, why can’t He baptized the innocents today and let them enter heaven?

like i said, nothing is impossible with God

One thing to keep in mind is that the Limbus Patronium, the Limbo of the Fathers, is a theologic certitute.

It is also closed and no longer exists.

It differes from the Limbus Infantum, the Limbo of the Infants, first in that the Limbo of the Infants is a theologic logiumen. It is the most logical thing knowing what we know about the nature of Salvic Grace.

Secondly, if it exists, it would exist only under the condition that the Grace of Baptism is not granted to those who die with no personal sin.

So your point about Christ entering such a place and Baptizing makes no logical sense.

 

[Brendan]

To you and to the OP: I’m suppose you can believe in infant damnation, but why on earth would you want to?

We simply cannot know the answer to this or other knotty problems of salvation certainly.

Agree that this is not an answer that we can know given what has been reveled to us at this point in Salvation history.

But to answer the question “Why would you want to”, well if that turns out to be the truth, how can we not.

As an example, I don’t WANT to belive that Hell exists, but it does, so I have little choice but to believe.

 

[JJHIII]

Doesn’t St Paul say somewhere that the children of believers are sanctified because of their Christian parents’ faith?

I cannot remember the context but could this be referring to those infants who die without the sacrament of baptism (i.e. miscarriage or death at birth).

 

[aicirt]

i was going to mention baptism by desire but i thought, how is this going to cover non-Christians? if Buddhist parents decided to abort their baby, then there is no desire to baptize from the parents.

Even if they didn’t abort, why would a Buddhist want to baptize his child? My thoughts are the baby, like a pagan, having died would be told about God and that desire to be with Him would be the fullfilment of the baptism of desire.

 

[Victorious]

If the souls of aborted babies are not damned, then why does the Devil support abortion?

Well, the devil likes murder. Plus, I think he’s willing to lose one soul in exchange for however many he gets who participated in the murder of that soul. He could reap a substantial harvest of souls off of one abortion.

We just don’t know what happens to the souls of babies who die without Baptism. I believe this is kept from us to encourage us to have our babies baptized, and not to fail to do so out of negligence or willfulness.

But there are some things we do know:

1. God is Mercy Itself.
2. God loves babies even more than their parents do.
3. We have a sound basis to hope for the salvation of infants who die without baptism.

I hope that the souls of unbaptized infants are saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. My own personal opinion is that even if they don’t, they must be in a state of perfect natural (as opposed to supernatural) happiness.

 

[bilop]

I hope you people never have to face the agony of losing a child and dealing with this first hand. My daughter Mary Elizabeth died two weeks short of her due date. The cord which kept her alive for 38 weeks in the end killed her. She was to be baptized on Dec. 12 and dedicated to Our Lady. This loss has been followed by two miscarriages.

This may be only be an interesting topic for you people but it’s heart breaking for others. All of my children would have been bapized and raised to know, love, and serve Him yet He allowed them to die. If it is true that these little ones are damned the Calvin must have been right.

M

I am very sorry for your loss, but you must remember what people mean about unbaptized infants not going to Heaven, but instead to limbo.

They DO NOT go to the Hell of the damned. They DO NOT suffer eternal torment b/c they have committed no actual sin.

They would only suffer the loss of the beatific vision, b/c they lacked baptism.

They would still experience natural happiness; i.e. think of the best days of your life over and over again.

Limbo is not a bad place, especially when compared to the likely destination of most of humanity.

God Bless

 

[Hesychios]

Therefore the reward of eternal life would not be God, which is contrary to the Faith. If the reward is other than God, no soul could be eternally happy.

No, you misunderstand what I am saying.

No one can see God.

You and I, as creatures will never be able to see God. We can only approach Him, and be near Him in some sense, we can experience His energies or graces.

To see God, one would have to be God. Impossible, it would destroy us. You and I will never have an eye big enough - spiritually or otherwise - to encompass and comprehend the Almighty divine.

We are creatures, the gap between us and God is eternally unbridgeable. But He loves us.

There is nothing negative about this, salvation is an unqualified delight, the alternative is too horrible to imagine.

 

[Gregory_I]

I put truth first, and my self-seeking psychological squirmies second.

That said, I would love to believe in infant damnation if it were truth, because it is good to hold to the truth, because it is to be in conformity to reality which is the definition of sane.

However, if it were not true, I would not hesitate to relegate it to the trash pile.

 

[JackQ]

Listen to some of these responses!!! Just type it out and see how it sounds. “God will send babies who died without baptism to keep the company and torments of satan and demons for all eternity. they will cry non-stop in complete agony longing for their mothers forever.” THIS IS RIDICULOUS. KNOCK IT OFF. Christ’s message calls us to make a choice. Christ also summed up all of Christianity in one word. LOVE

Amen, Brother!

 

[JackQ]

Can we believe, as Catholics, in infant damnation? Is it still a valid theological opinion for those who take the second council of Lyons and Pope Gregory X seriously?

I’m not sure what your Gregory X reference is, but your Second Council of Lyons reference is clearly to a document that was actually preconciliar. It was a transcription by the eastern emperor of the text of a profession of faith that was proposed to him by the Pope. Although the document was read before the Council Fathers, it was not written at the Council, was not promulgated by the Council, or even discussed by the Council. Thus, the dogmatic impact of the document is questionable at best.

Even if you were to take the document as absolute dogma, it does not consign infants to everlasting damnation. It only talks about what happens immediately after dying in original sin only (as an unbaptized infant), i.e. descent into hell to receive different punishments than those who die in mortal sin. But the same document goes on to talk about the final judgment where everyone will be judged according to their works. You have to remember that there is hell as in Hades, and hell as in Gehenna. Gehenna is the final state of the damned. The document in question refers to those dying in original sin descending into Hades.

On the other hand there is Jesus, who said regarding little children that “their angels always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.” For us to enter the kingdom of heaven, we must become like those little children.

By the way, when I read the Catechism, the only way that I see that one gets eternally damned is to die in mortal sin. Obviously, infants can’t commit mortal sin, and, in the end, heaven or hell are the only options.

So, to answer your question, I’m not aware of any direct prohibition against your holding such a belief. I suppose if you represent this belief as something that Catholics ought to believe, you may turn some away from the faith due to the doctrine’s utter repugnancy. But that wouldn’t be mortal sin in you, I don’t think, because you actually believe in the doctrine. How you can be happy or find motivation for serving God other than fear when you believe such a thing is something I can’t answer.