Destination of abortion victims

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JamesATyler

Guest
Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

I take it mean that children who die go to heaven, in addition to any other meaning found in the verse, which according to the Word of God, is who it belongs to and for this we should give thanks to God who created heaven. Which children?

Matthew 18:10

“See that you do not look down on any of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.”

I take it to mean that children, whose angels are in heaven that always see the face of his Father, go to heaven should they die, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.

So I think it is feasible to believe that should the victims of an abortion have a soul, that these do go to heaven. Any objections to me believing this?
 
I don’t think those provide a definitive answer as the Church has never given this a definitive answer. But it is certainly ok to hope this to be true. St. Thomas Aquinas explained the possible salvation of those who die in the womb this way:
Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.
Click to expand...
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article11
 
The Church does not know what happens to 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. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
 
There is a logical dichotomy between the view of the Church n abortion and the view of the Church on baptism. If a human zygote is a human being with a soul, it should be baptised. But the Church established a form of baptism that could be applied only to born humans (with some very complicated surgical exceptions). If the Church is right about zygotes being human beings, it should have established a sacramental path to salvation for them. But it didn’t.
 
Well… your conclusion is reasonable, but the path you take in getting there is certainly … novel.
JamesATyler said:
Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

I take it mean that children who die go to heaven
Click to expand...
The Church has never explicitly interpreted this verse thus. I think it would be just as reasonable to suggest that rather than meaning “all children go to heaven”, Jesus meant, “it’s wrong to keep children from belief in me, since they (in their innocence) are who should be believing and going to heaven!”. In fact, I think that this verse has better application in the context of infant baptism than it does in a novel theory of “salvation by virtue of age.”

(Nevertheless, we would say that a child who has been baptized but dies before the so-called “age of reason” is incapable of mortal sin, and therefore, will be saved.)
Which children?

Matthew 18:10

“See that you do not look down on any of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.”

I take it to mean that children, whose angels are in heaven that always see the face of his Father, go to heaven should they die, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.
Click to expand...
I think that this interpretation doesn’t do justice to the actual text in Scripture. In Mt 19:14, the word used is ‘παιδία’ (paidia), or literally, “little children”. However, in Mt 18:10, the word used is ‘μικρῶν’ (mikron), or “little (ones)”. So, equating the two doesn’t exactly hold up to reason. As further evidence of this, please note that Jesus uses the term “little ones” in many contexts, and does not mean “children” in these verses (Mt 10:42, Mt 18:6).

So, while I think you’re moving in a reasonable direction, the ‘proof-texts’ that you utilize aren’t saying quite what you say they’re saying.
So I think it is feasible to believe that should the victims of an abortion have a soul, that these do go to heaven. Any objections to me believing this?
Click to expand...
No, no objections… but not for the reasons you’ve presented. See the Vatican document The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die without Being Baptized. The arguments presented there also hold for those who die prior to birth (see paragraph 2 of this document, which states, “the number of infants who die unbaptized is growing greatly… partly a consequence of in vitro fertilization and abortion”).

This document, then, makes the claim that there are “strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.”
 
FiveLinden said:
There is a logical dichotomy between the view of the Church n abortion and the view of the Church on baptism. If a human zygote is a human being with a soul, it should be baptised. But the Church established a form of baptism that could be applied only to born humans (with some very complicated surgical exceptions). If the Church is right about zygotes being human beings, it should have established a sacramental path to salvation for them. But it didn’t.
Click to expand...
Well, isn’t salvation through Jesus a redemptive one?
Luke 5:32 : “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”
A child`s angel in heaven always looks upon the face of his father. But once a child becomes a sinner he is called to Jesus.

So does that mean commandments such as baptism and the Eucharist apply to sinners? Of course, a child’s baptism wouldn’t be out of line because of original sin but Jesus’s statements puts the “total depravity” theory into serious doubt for me. I think advocates very clearly misunderstood original sin and missing Jesus’s straight forward assessment of a child’s relationship with God shows that they were not masters of biblical reading. They shouldn’t have missed these verses. Or am I the one missing something here?
 
FiveLinden said:
If the Church is right about zygotes being human beings, it should have established a sacramental path to salvation for them. But it didn’t.
Click to expand...
Counter-example: If the Church is right about natives in the jungles of the Amazon being human beings, it should have established a sacramental path to salvation for them. But it didn’t.

You can see the error in your reasoning now, can’t you? If a person cannot be reached – and in having been physically encountered, are able to be baptized – then they do not have “a sacramental path to salvation”. However, that does not imply that the out-of-contact person is not a human being. 😉
 
I have to go to work but i have a few more thoughts. Thanks for shining a bit more light on the subject.

Jesus, as I understand, is the Word of God. He says that the children “look upon” the face of his father. Do you think we are predisposed to falling away because we do not listen to God. Is this the effect of original sin? In that case it could also make sense that we do not want to prevent children from coming to Jesus so that they can also hear. I know I might be wandering a little away from the topic but I think it is still relevant.
 
JamesATyler said:
Jesus, as I understand, is the Word of God. He says that the children “look upon” the face of his father.
Click to expand...
Are you still referring to Mt 18:10? If so, then it’s not the children who look upon the face of God, but their angels. The implication here, in a Semitic context, is that we have intercessors for us who are in the presence of God always, and they pray for our needs to Him.
Do you think we are predisposed to falling away because we do not listen to God. Is this the effect of original sin?
Click to expand...
The effects of original sin – which all humans (other than Mary and Jesus) are subject to – are many:
  • we have lost the preternatural gifts that our first human parents possessed
  • our intellects are darkened, causing us to want things that are not virtuous to want
  • our wills are weakened, enabling us to choose what is evil rather than what is good
That being the case, we suffer from concupiscence (a fancy word meaning “an inclination to fall to temptation to sin”). I don’t think it has to do with “listening to God” – after all, many people listen to God, but all are sinners. 😉
In that case it could also make sense that we do not want to prevent children from coming to Jesus so that they can also hear.
Click to expand...
I think we can find the meaning in Mt 19:14 from recognizing the cultural context in which it occurs. In Jewish culture in 1st century Palestine, children were not given any opportunities for interaction with adults (other than those in their family). Therefore, in public situations, it wasn’t just “children should be seen and not heard” – rather, it was that children weren’t even to hang around and be seen!

Jesus is responding to that context: rather than allowing parents to shoo their children away, He’s actually reaching out to them! That would have caused quite a stir – a grown man? Not related to a child? Honoring them and spending time with them? It would have been counter-cultural and shocking… 😉
 
There is a logical dichotomy between the view of the Church n abortion and the view of the Church on baptism. If a human zygote is a human being with a soul, it should be baptised. But the Church established a form of baptism that could be applied only to born humans (with some very complicated surgical exceptions). If the Church is right about zygotes being human beings, it should have established a sacramental path to salvation for them. But it didn’t.
Click to expand...
In principle FiveLinden, you could say the same thing about God being “wrong” in the Old Covenant economy.

But God isn’t wrong.

There are some things that are beyond our earthly understanding.

God’s ways are infinitely above ours.

We can understand enough, but not everything.

With an infinite God, you would expect things to be ABOVE reason.
 
Last edited:
JamesATyler said:
should the victims of an abortion have a soul,
Click to expand...
This is not in question. They are living human beings and they each have a soul.

We have had several debates on where unbaptized babies, including the unborn who are either aborted or stillborn, go when they die. The Church has not provided a definitive answer to the question and simply says we may trust and hope in God’s mercy that they go to Heaven. I personally agree with your views expressed above, and see the Scripture as supporting them, although we do not take our Church teaching solely from Scripture.

There are other people on the forum who do not agree that unbaptized babies, which would include the unborn who are either aborted or stillborn, go to Heaven and have expressed their views in a number of the past threads.
 
Limbo. There is no salvation without baptism. End of discussion.
 
Last edited:
whyeyeman said:
Limbo. There is no salvation without baptism. End of discussion.
Click to expand...
Limbo is a “theological opinion”, not a doctrine of the Church. There is salvation without baptism (or else God is a vicious tyrant, who throws into the trash heap all those unlucky enough to have never heard of Christ, through no fault of their own). End of discussion.
 
The problem with this is it makes the sin of Adam more efficacious and powerful than the salvation of Christ, and this contradicts Scripture (see Romans 5:15). The unborn are touched by Adam’s sin, but cannot be reached by Baptism.

In fact, in my prior post in this thread (post #2) where I excerpted a passage from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa, this was the very objection he was responding to when he asserted the possibility of God sanctifying such souls in the womb apart from Baptism.
 
Last edited:
Ok. Thanks to everyone. I think it is sufficient to trust that God is just in this and all matters pertaining to salvation.
 
You are denying the teaching of the Catholic church.

Catechism 1257 : “The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.”

End of discussion.
 
Limbo is not a theological opinion. It has been defined infallibly by the universal ordinary magisterium.
 
The salvation of Christ is not mediated to them if they have not received baptism. If they have not received baptism, then they still have the stain of original sin. This means they cannot enter heaven.

They have no actual sins, though, therefore they cannot be punished. This means they are put into a state of natural happiness, yet separated from God - limbo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top