Do aborted babies go to Heaven?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Palm_Tree
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ll be honest. I have no idea where aborted babies go. But we do trust them to God’s mercy so I suspect that they either go to Heaven or to a Limbo-like place where they will be in a perfect state of natural happiness for all eternity. 🙂
 
Many maintain that Scripture is silent on this issue. This is very true in the
explicit sense but maybe not in the implicit sense. St. Paul mentions a very mysterious
verse that I have yet to hear any good explanation about.

It is the following:

“Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?” (1 Cor. 15:29)

Why is Paul mentioning this bizarre type of baptism? What is its historical context?
Could this be a baptism of desire for the dead manifested by the Church?

Some maintain that this is simply spiritual exegesis but I don’t buy it. The context is
discussing our life and resurrection in Christ.
 
mattwcu said:
I’ve thought about this quite a bit, and it seems to me that the only viable solution to “where do aborted babies go” is Limbo. To say they go to heaven effectively denies the punishment due to Original Sin. But to say they burn in Hell in torments is not just, and our Lord is not cruel.

Can God do a work that we are unaware of? Sure! But wouldn’t we have to, since Tradition of the Church is monumentally against the unbaptized (except Catechumens, etc…) receiving the Beatific Vision, concede that unborn, unbaptized, aborted children going to heaven is the *exception *to the rule rather than its norm?

But can you blame people for wanting the unborn aborted children to go to heaven? Can’t we see the desire for hope that they would?

Sometimes I hear people say all aborted babies go to heaven. Some might even use that aformentioned recent document from the CDF to prove their point. I think that is dangerous.

Not to mention - I fail to see what the problem is with Limbo to begin with. Is it that people were upset with the teaching or practice of the Church regarding funerals that it fell out of favor? Was it because of human respect?
Click to expand...
We cannot lose site of the fact the God can do WHATEVER he wants. The traditional debte regarding babies who die before being baptised is driven by our human need to answer every little nuance of at question. Perhaps that is why the Church now includes the word HOPE in so many of its teachings and the Pope’s letters.

As soon as one starts to suggest that there are levels of salvation, then the tendency is to believe we all will actually have “different houses” with the Father in Heaven. We really do need to recognize that our minds cannot understand these complexities, AND that Jesus really doesn’t want us to get all tangled up in them.

His message of salvation if for all, and we HOPE that all our questions will be answered postively. So we live our lives as best we can, walking our own pathways of holiness

bruce
 
Synod of Carthage 418 – Denial of Limbo

Canon 3a:
3a. It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my house there are many mansions” [John 14:2]: that it might be understood that in the kingdom of heaven there will be some middle place or some place anywhere where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, which is life eternal, let him be anathema.

romancatholicism.org/jansenism/augustine-approvals.htm

"Only professed Augustinians like Noris and Berti, or out-and-out Jansenists like the Bishop of Pistoia, whose famous diocesan synod furnished eighty-five propositions for condemnation by Pius VI (1794), supported the harsh teaching of Petavius. The twenty-sixth of these propositions repudiated

“as a Pelagian fable the existence of the place (usually called the children’s limbo) in which the souls of those dying in original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire”; and this, taken to mean that by denying the pain of fire one thereby necessarily postulates a middle place or state, involving neither guilt nor penalty, between the Kingdom of God and eternal damnation, is condemned by the pope as being “false and rash and as slander of the Catholic schools” (Denz. 526).

It seems both Pius VI (1794) and Synod of Carthage 418 denied the existence of Limbo.

The second thing to note is that not a single mystic in the entire 2000 year history of
the Church has ever discussed limbo for children. Emmerich and Agreda discussed
Abrahams bosom also known as Sheoul, but there is not one single mystical account
of ANY Great saint where they report seeing unbaptized babies in limbo. Hell, Purgatory, Heaven, Abraham’s bosom pre-Christ yes but no Children’s limbo. If it exists, and you virtually have hundreds of these afterlife accounts in writings from many saints from Faustina all the way back to early Church Fathers and yet not a single mentioning of childrens limbo. I find that this is very strong evidence that it is simply a theological speculation to accommodate the Church’s understanding of baptism. It was first postulated by St. Albert the Great and is simply a scholastic novelty with no credibility to it.
 
Jesus said: “See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 18:10

Yes, aborted babies go to heaven.
 
I agree. I don’t believe in limbo bc. of the previous Church statements. I believe all
‘aborted children’ go to heaven.

However, this doesn’t deny baptism either. A recent article posted by a Vatican official speculated on the topic. Of course what he argues is not magesterium, but he argues that the ‘unbaptized’ children undergo a type of baptism by desire on behalf of the Church.

An interesting premise:

Read below:

catholicseries.com/theologicalreflections.html

We must remember that baptism is the prerogative of God. It is simply the Holy
Spirit transforming the soul so that the indwelling of the Holy Trinity occurs.
Now we say this happens by three methods: by water, by martyrdom, by desire.
These are the only explicit ways So far that have been revealed. This doesn’t mean
necessarily that there may not be other ways.

These 3 ways are not a limitation upon God. For God certainly baptized the Mother of God in a different way than these three. She was baptized the moment of her conception. Her immaculate conception of perfect purity was a baptism which really does not fit into the preceding 3 categories. So this is why the issue of baptism and babies doesn’t really bother me. Just because the 3 ways that have been revealed thus far doesn’t necessarily imply that there are not other mysterious ways of baptism which
have yet to be revealed.

This doesn’t however mitigate the need for baptism by water. For it makes sense that
the normal means of baptism is what God ideally desires for the soul. It marks one’s
beginning entrance into the true Church of Christ - The Catholic Church - from which one receives the rest of the sacraments. Ideally this would occur for most individuals.

Yet the one of desire and martyrdom exist as well as types of baptisms. These are valid as well but should be exceptions not the rule.

In essence, baptism is really up to God. He works through the Church but He is not bound to work in the say way for everybody.
 
I chose no idea because my choice was not listed.

God’s manner of handling these souls has not been disclosed to us, so we are left with hope in the mercy of God. I am comfortable with that.
 
I believe that ALL aborted babies go to Heaven I cannot believe otherwise. My daughter had an Abortion at 8 weeks the turmoil that ensued after this act is to much to talk about. My daughters depression, my depression as a Grandmother to this lost child. Jesus said suffer little children to come unto me. The Church has now categorically stated that Limbo is no longer recognized thank the Lord for that. I learnt whilst doing my Diploma in Religious Studies that the Holy Spirt is revealing things to us all the time but as humans we are to slow to grasp what he is teaching us, sometimes it takes many years to understand what he is saying. As I believe in the theory of Limbo which is now gone. Our Aborted babies are now with him. Our stillborn children, the little ones who didnt get to see the light of this world are all with God rejoicing in his love and so very happy. Praise you Our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.
 
Interesting thread. It’s clear that abortion is a satanic sacrifice. What else could it be? Contraception is also a form of abortion and so also satanic. There is an interesting story about a mother who goes to see St. Jean Vianney for Confession. She is worried because she is pregnant and has a large family already. St. Jean tells her not to worry, that God will look after her and her child. But he also tells her that many mothers are going to hell because they have denied children their right to life. You would think St. Jean, who routinely did 18 hours of daily confession, would have some insight into Heaven and hell. So, it’s important here to consider not only the souls of the babies but also the mothers. The concept of Limbo is necessary in order that we do not give ourselves excuses for abortion or contraception of any kind, making it somehow more palatable by believing its victims shall be with God. Is the present pope really doing Catholics a service by attempting to placate concerns for the souls of unbaptized or aborted infants?
 
“Is the present pope really doing Catholics a service by attempting to placate concerns for the souls of unbaptized or aborted infants?” MrCritic52

You must realize that Limbo has never been an official teaching of the Church.
It has always been a speculative opinion. You must remember that just because
a bunch of people believe in something does not make it true. There is a difference
between ‘false tradition’ and ‘true tradition’ within the Catholic Church. And a
difference between what the magesterium teaches and what members of the Church
teach. Only Peter has the singular gift of ‘infallibility’. Hence every single individual doctor, father, and saint is capable of erroneous opinions. I could compile a list of things
that they held which are currently condemned. And there is such a thing as a tradition of
error in the Church. Hence, the difference between small ‘t’ tradition and large ‘T’ tradition.

For 800 years some of the greatest theologian Saints denied the Immaculate Conception.
They are all WRONG. St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Bernard of Clairvaux,
St. Alexander of Hales, St. Peter Damian St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew)., Albert the Great observes: “We say that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before animation, and the affirmative contrary to this is the heresy condemned by St. Bernard in his epistle to the canons of Lyons” (III Sent., dist. iii, p. I, ad 1, Q. i).

And the preceding are just a few. This means for hundreds of years great saintly teachers
espoused error. A counter tradition arose within the Church espousing the Truth started
initially by Bld. Duns Scotus and held by later great Franciscan saints.

Basically my point is this: A person can deny or affirm limbo? Either position is
acceptable currently at this point in the Church. Neither is officially taught.
And what is taught in the past is not always a correct indication of truth taught
in the present. Only Peter is the rock who can determine what is truth and what
is false.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top