Do babies go to hell?

[Mijoy2]

Dan-Man916:

I think we can safely assume that God’s will is not thwarted by statistical chance.
If it is true that God desires that all be saved, then that means that he must therefore, give the grace necessary to every single person to be able to be saved, for without grace we cannot be saved.

Therefore, one way to think of this, is that if one didn’t make it to later in life, then they did not freely respond to God’s free gift of salvation in grace because they did not cooperate with the grace which they have surely been given.

Thus, they are lost not out of God’s will being thwarted, but by their lack of cooperation with God’s gift of grace, which we know he gives to everyone.

This is one way in which it was presented to me. I can accept this explanation once someone has reached the age of reason, however, I have problems with it for infants.

the way that was explained to me was that God foresaw their demerits (sin), and did not give them the grace of final perseverence based on their sin, not on God’s will to predestine them to salvation.
That one is a little harder for me to understand because it brings us into predestination and God’s grace to predestine one and allow another to be reprobate.
The explanation that an unbaptized infant was lost due to their forseen de-merit.

If i understand correctly, this is the position of the followers of Fr. Feeney. I know that name makes people go all crazy, but i think that presented in that light, it is not contrary to the Church’s teaching on predestination and salvation.

This topic is one that has been, for me, of great interest and very difficult to understand.

I was 47 (or so) before I gave my faith so much as a passing interest. Prior to this I can think of many times where I came very close to death. Mostly because of my elected lifestyle. I often wonder if I was the benefit of the luck of the draw, or did God know I would come to faith at 47 years of age and spared me?

Think of the logistics of such a thought. During a natural (or man made) disaster of which many thousands of people perish. Are there some people, if the event didn’t occur would have eventually turned from a very sinful life to one of a strong obedient holy life eventually? Odds are the answer is yes. Does God arrange it so that these people are not in harms way this particular day and only allows the lost and the saved to perish?

I don’t think there is an answer to this that would be satifactory. I think it need be left a mystery of which, hopefully, someday we will understand.

 

[Dan-Man916]

Jasny:

St. Ignatius advises not to speculate on predestination, that good for me. What I want to follow is the Church’s teaching that has been proclaimed. To deny Limbo would do damage to already established teachings as in :

I agree. However, predestination is not simply an open field of opinion.
The Church has consistently taught that those who are saved are saved on account of God’s election of them without forseen merits, and those who are not saved are reprobate on account of their forseen demerits, so that salvation is purely a free gift of the elect, and that damnation is because of the sins of the lost.

I don’t deny what the Denzinger statements are saying. The question becomes, how are they to be applied, and in what sense is the meaning of hell, is it hades or the lake of fire? hades is the abode of the dead which will cease to exist at the general judgement who have yet to be purified. the lake of fire is the permanent hell that satan will be cast into.

 

[Jasny]

Dan-Man916:

I agree. However, predestination is not simply an open field of opinion.
The Church has consistently taught that those who are saved are saved on account of God’s election of them without forseen merits, and those who are not saved are reprobate on account of their forseen demerits, so that salvation is purely a free gift of the elect, and that damnation is because of the sins of the lost.

I don’t deny what the Denzinger statements are saying. The question becomes, how are they to be applied, and in what sense is the meaning of hell, is it hades or the lake of fire? hades is the abode of the dead which will cease to exist at the general judgement who have yet to be purified. the lake of fire is the permanent hell that satan will be cast into.

Are you saying there are some who have gone to Hell (place of the dead?) and after purification will go to heaven?

This was the heresy of Origen wasn’t it?

 

[Dan-Man916]

Jasny:

Are you saying there are some who have gone to Hell (place of the dead?) and after purification will go to heaven?

This was the heresy of Origen wasn’t it?

No. Just that limbo may not be a permanent place. As Abraham waited in sheol for Christ to liberate them, it may be possible that those in limbo may also be liberated at the general judgement.
The member named, Matt16-18, put forth this idea in a few other threads on limbo.

 

[johnpaullover]

No. Did you really, genuinely beleive that a man, regardless of age, can be stripped from free will? Isn’t that rather stupid?

 

[johnpaullover]

JGravel:

I know that it has probably been discussed many times but I tried searching, albeit quickly, but can’t find a thread on this subject.

If the parents of a baby are non-practicing Catholics, and the baby passes on, where does the baby pass on to?
Because of original sin, does it go to hell?
Because of original sin and the fact that the parents are not practicing Catholics, does the baby go to hell?

I know I’m asking alot, but:
If the parents were not practicing Catholics but intended to have the baby baptised because they somehow knew it was the right thing to do or because the rest of the family pressured them, and the baby dies, where does he or she go?

I’ve heard it said that the soul is in limbo. ??? Where is limbo?
Or does the baby go to purgatory?

Generally speaking, Limbo is legitamate. It faces the problem I have stated before. If the baby is baptized, it probably goes to heaven. Original sin is simply non-existant. If it is not baptized, then it either is given the option or the soul is transferred to another body. Just a theory. It is rather strange though.

 

[Eileen_T]

Fr. Stephen Scheier, the priest who stood before the Judgment Throne of God and was then permitted to live, says that he knew he deserved Hell.

They way he tells it, we are the ones who choose where we will spend eternity by our actions during our lives and God respects our decision.

Since a baby is unable to make such a decision due to its age it definitely could not go to Hell.

I once asked a priest about this because I have lost 5 babies, only one of whom was baptised. He asked me, if I was God would I deprive a baby of the beatific vision for eternity due to no fault of its own? My answer was, of course not. He then asked me if I believed I was more loving and compassionate than God.

His response to my question consoled my heart.

BTW Fr. Stephen Scheier tell his story here, last story on the page triumphoftruth.com/Home/tabid/36/Default.aspx It’s really worth listening to. Very powerful.

 

[NonDenom]

The Church teaches that such children rest in the mercy of God. They will not be able to enjoy the beatific vision (because of original sin) but that they will enjoy a natural knowledge of him.

Limbo is merely a theological theory put forward by some theologians to explain the state of the souls unbaptized children. However, the Church has never formally taught it as doctrine.

I’m not sure about the intention to baptize that never was fulfilled. It may be that the desire on the part of the parents may be regarded as a “baptism of desire” for the child. But, if a child is in danger of death anyone may baptize him as long as they use water and use the trinitarian rite: “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Hi All
How is it that the Catholic church has no clue of how long purgatory is or what even happends to the soul in purgatory, but knows that a child that dies before Baptism
will “rest in the mercy of God. They will not be able to enjoy the beatific vision”, as you put it? Both of these senarios happen after death, and the truth of the matter is the Catholic church has no clue. Purgatory is made up and baby’s don’t sin. Catholics use Matt 19:13-14 as a reason for Baptizing baby’s, then turn around and say that a baby who dies without Baptism can’t know the beatific vision of God, sounds like your KEEPING them from coming to Jesus as talked about in Matt 19.
In Him and Only Him.

 

[carol_marie]

johnpaullover:

If it is not baptized, then it either is given the option or the soul is transferred to another body. Just a theory. It is rather strange though.

That sounds like reincarnation. Is that your personal theory or the Church’s theory?

 

[Eileen_T]

Souls can’t transfer to another body. Imagine the confusion at the Resurrection of the Dead with several bodies trying to lay claim to one soul.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

A good thread!

I would point out some semantics here, though:

A child could be baptized by Jesus, directly, any time until death.
Hence, that is the hope – that baptism occurs — and hence heaven is attained.

We are limited by the application of the sacraments, but Jesus is not. It is the free refusal of a sacrament which is the primary reason for damnation.

Exactly how this applies to infants is not known for it was not revealed to the church, and the greatest thinkers – scholastic or other – have no universal consent of the church or tradition.

Sheol – the abode of the dead, was a waiting place before the Gates of Heaven were opened by Jesus’ sacrifice.
Any sort of “limbo” was closed at the resurrection and is presently condemned by the church.

St. Augustine, not perceiving that Jesus could baptize a child without the aid of a physical priest, analyzed the death of infants presuming original sin.
Since, as he notes, there are no actual sins for punishing the infant – they are in the shallowest hell possible. eg. The punisment is as small as possible. But they would not be able to be with Jesus, for they are incapable.

The problem becomes speculative at this point.

In Justice, because of the sin of Adam, at least one infant would be expected to be in hell (I am using the reasoning of Dunns scotus with respect to the Immaculate Conception analogously).
Hence, any given unbaptized infant could be damned.
Hence, not baptizing a child by presuming God’s mercy is just that – presumption.

Baptism guarantees entry to heaven, all else is a sinful gamble.

Since baptism increases the gravity (responsibility) of sin, to baptize a child whom the parents will not raise Catholic is to increase the severity of possible damnation of the child, and to squander the gift of the church. (Other opinions?)

 

[Jasny]

Dan-Man916:

No. Just that limbo may not be a permanent place. As Abraham waited in sheol for Christ to liberate them, it may be possible that those in limbo may also be liberated at the general judgement.
The member named, Matt16-18, put forth this idea in a few other threads on limbo.

A child could be baptized by Jesus, directly, any time until death.
Hence, that is the hope – that baptism occurs — and hence heaven is attained.

Maybe the distinction between Limbo and Heaven have been missed. Limbo is part of Hell , which means the inability to have the Beatific Vision. Those in Limbo suffer only the loss of the Beatific Vision not the torment , i.e. fires of Hell. Those with Mortal Sin suffer the torment and the fire.

Everyone will have a particular judgement at death. There are no second chances at the resurrection or the general judgement, once sentenced to hell in the particular judgement, that is all. This means also for those dying only with Original Sin

The general judgement will be to see God’s plan of creation in all its fullness so the saved may praise God all the more.
Other things like the union of our bodies with our souls will complete the perfection of God’s Glory.

There is some Hope though, the famous theologian during the Counter-Reformation, Suarez, thought that un-baptised Babies will not only enjoy perfect Natural Happiness, but that they will rise with immortal bodies and have the Renewed Earth for their Natural Happiness.

The horror of Original Sin is seen more clearly through this teaching. The motivation is more positive than at first sight. We don’t want Babies to miss out on the Beatific Vision. All the more reason to stop abortion!

“It has been decided likewise that if anyone says that for this reason the Lord said: “In my father’s house there are many mansions”(JN14:2): 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 eternal life, ** let him be anathema. For when the lord says :“Unless a man be born of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God”(Jn3:5), what Catholic will doubt that he will be partner of the devil who has not deserved to be a co-heir of Christ? For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left” (Denzinger 102 fn.2; 30th edition)

 

[Jasny]

People shouldn’t take Limbo emotionaly. Many seem to want to force Church teaching to their liking but that will only lead to an unraveling. Pull on thread from a jumper and soon others follow.

 

[Flopfoot]

I know these questions are not really ‘based around Catholic teaching’ and etc., this is just speculation of mine (so please don’t take it as if I was trying to state a theological fact) but I think it is something to consider -

-What has a baby (or indeed any child under the age of reason) who dies without baptism, done to deserve hell?
-Would God, who is loving, make hell the ‘default end’ of man? Don’t you think God would rather not make a person if they could end up in hell just because of being miscarried or an early death?

If hell is not the default end of man then you must do something to deserve it to get there. My speculation is that there are no children under the age of reason in hell.

 

[Eileen_T]

Flopfoot:

If hell is not the default end of man then you must do something to deserve it to get there. My speculation is that there are no children under the age of reason in hell.

I totaly agree.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

You must do somthing to intensify the punishment, but not to deserve hell.
Heaven is a gift, not something which a pure person earns or is entitled to. Being pure is not the reason one enters heaven – it is the love and Gift of God.

Why ought an innocent baby enter this world at all, if it will suffer death? Death and corruption is itself a punishment for sin.
The infant has already suffered for what it did not earn by sinning.

Consider, there are incorruptable saints whose bodies have never rotted – in a display of God’s favor. Yet I have never heard of aborted infants or miscarridges resulting in incorruptable fetal corpses.

God shows us no sign that infants receive special favor.
That does not mean they are damned, but there is not a sign of sainthood either for the vast majority.

I know it doesn’t feel good to say they may be lost – but that is the dilemma that St. Augustine and others have tried to deal with.

We can’t assign a reason for punishment other than evil struck them – original sin is not a sin of commission, but only uses the word as an analogy because if God does not save them – they are damned. Jesus.

There is a real threat that they can go to Hell for they do not have what they need to enter the presence of God.

If you will – theologically anywhere that the beatific vision is not – is more or less Hell.

In a sense, this very Earth is hell inasmuch as God hides his presence. Inasmuch as there is communion, it is heaven.
Because of Satan, and Adam/Eve, God must now save us – even infants. It was not God’s doing, but our ancestor’s doing.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

From newadvent.com: in 2 sentences.

St. Augustine … in the course of the controversy he himself condemned, and persuaded the Council of Carthage (418) to condemn, the substantially identical Pelagian teaching affirming the existence of “an intermediate place, or of any place anywhere at all (ullus alicubi locus), in which children who pass out of this life unbaptized live in happiness” (Denzinger 102).

This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned, and the very most that St. Augustine concedes is that their punishment is the mildest of all, so mild indeed that one may not say that for them non-existence would be preferable to existence in such a state (De peccat. meritis I, xxi; Contra Jul. V, 44; etc.).

It is Augustine who is quoted in the CCC regarding original sin not being a sin of commission, but is used in an analogical sense only.

It is key that they exit unbaptized, even by Jesus himself.
So there is Hope.

 

[Flopfoot]

I think that death and corruption is a ‘punishment’ to or result of the imperfection of humanity after the fall, rather than a specific punishment to an individual because of sin. Like how when I get sick it’s because of the imperfection after the fall, but not a punishment for any sin I committed (see the story of the blind man in gospel of John). So the infant suffers death because of original sin, but that’s not the same as suffering hell which is a punishment for actual, mortal sin that he himself commits.

Even though the beatific vision isn’t there, I wouldn’t call Limbo Hell. Hell is a punishment (lots of references about worms not dying and flames never going out) not merely the lack of the vision. Limbo is not heaven either. In a way it makes sense (this is prolly why there has been so much speculation on it) because infants have done nothing to deserve Heaven nor have they done anything to deserve Hell.

On the other hand - God doesn’t always give us what we deserve. But in all cases of this, God never gives us more ‘bad’ than we deserve but only more ‘good’. For example, I’m not worthy to recieve the Eucharist - we say that in Mass right before recieving it. But God allows me to recieve it anyway, even though I don’t deserve it. We didn’t deserve Jesus dying for us either, since He was innocent and we were guilty. But God still gave it. Considering this, isn’t it then likely that if an infant deserves neither heaven nor hell, that God would give the good thing (heaven) out of love just like God gives to us? Or at the very least, God would give what he deserves, and not worse than that. Hence Limbo or something similar.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

So the infant suffers death because of original sin, but that’s not the same as suffering hell which is a punishment for actual, mortal sin that he himself commits.

Yes, the infant suffers what is not earned by it – even by dying.

I wouldn’t call Limbo Hell. Hell is a punishment (lots of references about worms not dying and flames never going out) not merely the lack of the vision.

Unfortunately, to not call it hell but a ‘third’ place is condemned as pelagianism – and heresy. Either God saves them, and they enter heaven – or they don’t and its Gehenna.

Words are deceptive is taken too literally.
That ‘vision’ is to be the only light bulb of the afterlife.

The fires of hell are likely figurative language.
I don’t expect to become a literal lamb or goat at the general judgement either.

In reality, hell (really its Gehenna) was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem where disease carrying items were burned.
The fires pretty much ran round the clock.

When Jesus uses the word Gehenna, everyone knew what he meant – but that does not mean everyone who is damned is literally thrown into the dump outside Jerusalem and then the lake of fire and then…

These are images that would be easily understood. The damned are garbage – and will be treated traditionally. The worse the garbage – the bigger the fire needed. Fire is the ultimate cleaner.

To say the worm won’t die, and the fire won’t quench is to say nothing will make it clean.
But that doesn’t tell us what the actual punishment will consist of, just that it is in proportion to the crime.

 

[Jasny]

Huiou Theou:

From newadvent.com: in 2 sentences.

It is Augustine who is quoted in the CCC regarding original sin not being a sin of commission, but is used in an analogical sense only.

It is key that they exit unbaptized, even by Jesus himself.
So there is Hope.

Sorry, but the Church teaches Original Sin is not an analogy but is real. It is not matter but an inherited privation:
Pius XII
“the sources of revealed truth and the acts of the magisterium of the Church teaches about original sin, which proceeds from a sin truly committed by one Adam, and which is transmitted to all by generation, and exists in each one as his own” (Humani Generis 37).