Do children go to Hell?

[LaSainte]

You are free to disagree with anything. But that doesn’t change the eternal truth that a soul is created at conception. This is authoritative teaching. If the truth was as you say, then why would the Church be so adamantly against abortion? And why, in the new liturgical translation, would the words of the Nicene Creed be changed from “He was born of the Virgin Mary” to " He was incarnated of the Virgin Mary" -Hint, because he became incarnate prior to birth.

All the Church says is that a fetus is “presumed” to have a soul. It is not authoritative. Abortion would still be wrong because of the potential for a soul.

 

[LaSainte]

The Church clearly believes that it is possible for Children to be condemned, otherwise it would not teach us to baptize infants and it would not require confession prior to first communion in the second grade. That said, it also teaches the baptism of desire, whereby God will perfectly judge whether a person who has not had the opportunity to be baptized would have DESIRED baptism given the chance. It is logical to conclude that this would apply to children who died before baptism, even those in the womb.

Just because the Church may believe that children can go to hell does not mean that they do. It is not dogma and is not infallible. I think there is something wrong with anyOne who actually thinks children can go to hell, and frankly, I think the whole “baptism of desire” thing is a way around the fact that it was taught for years that these people go to hell. It’s basically backpedaling.

 

[paul_c]

All the Church says is that a fetus is “presumed” to have a soul. It is not authoritative. Abortion would still be wrong because of the potential for a soul.

Why do you say that its not authoritative? What is your source for such a statement?

 

[paul_c]

Just because the Church may believe that children can go to hell does not mean that they do. It is not dogma and is not infallible. I think there is something wrong with anyOne who actually thinks children can go to hell, and frankly, I think the whole “baptism of desire” thing is a way around the fact that it was taught for years that these people go to hell. It’s basically backpedaling.

Yes, the church does not know if children can go to Hell but it clearly thinks that there is a possibility of this, your opinion not withstanding.

As for the baptism of desire, its not a new thing at all. Its not backpedalling.

 

[LaSainte]

Why do you say that its not authoritative? What is your source for such a statement?

From Dominum Vitae, 1987

This Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person. The Congregation recalls the teachings found in the Declaration on Procured Abortion: “From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence…modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the program is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time…to find its place and to be in a position to act.” (25) This teaching remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted.

Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable. (26)

Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.

 

[paul_c]

From Dominum Vitae, 1987

This Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person. The Congregation recalls the teachings found in the Declaration on Procured Abortion: “From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a new life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth. It would never be made human if it were not human already. To this perpetual evidence…modern genetic science brings valuable confirmation. It has demonstrated that, from the first instant, the program is fixed as to what this living being will be: a man, this individual-man with his characteristic aspects already well determined. Right from fertilization is begun the adventure of a human life, and each of its great capacities requires time…to find its place and to be in a position to act.” (25) This teaching remains valid and is further confirmed, if confirmation were needed, by recent findings of human biological science which recognize that in the zygote resulting from fertilization the biological identity of a new human individual is already constituted.

Certainly no experimental datum can be in itself sufficient to bring us to the recognition of a spiritual soul; nevertheless, the conclusions of science regarding the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of this first appearance of a human life: how could a human individual not be a human person? The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable. (26)

Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life.

How do you reconcile what you have posted above with the point we originally objected to:

:
Originally Posted by LaSainte
perhaps babies don’t have souls until they are born.

?

What you have quoted is a bit frustrating in its opagueness. It says definitively that human life begins at conception and that at that point, it must be treated as being complete (bodily and spiritually, as marked in red). But I agree that it leaves the slightest bit of wiggleroom for the point of ensoulment, which it rightfully says can’t be measured.

 

[LaSainte]

Right. In other words, the Church gives the fetus the benefit of the doubt. Either way, it is to be TREATED as a human person with all that such implies, but there is no authoritative or definitive teaching as to when ensoulment actually occurs. We are free to believe whatever we want, but we must TREAT the fetus as if it has a soul. It is still quite possible that God doesn’t actually grant a soul until birth.

 

[John_Odeh]

Well, the teaching is more of a “tie goes to the fetus” scenario. It is not an authoritative teaching. We are free to disagree.

The Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the beginning of life (and yes by that they mean without any equivocation at all, the beginning of life with an immortal soul) starts a conception. As such it is wrong for you to state that the “…teaching is more of a “tie goes to the fetus”…,” since there is a clear winner in this argument, and no tie! The Catholic Church is very clear on this matter, and all the Popes, Bishops, Priests, Nuns, and approved Lay Theologians, have always very clearly taught that human life starts at conception. This is one of the main reasons, for the Church’s vehement and unshakeable opposition to the evil practice of human abortion.

We as faithful Catholics therefore are not as you have incorrectly stated, “…free to disagree.” Of course if you are speaking merely from an individual human’s point of view, and not a believer in (and/or teacher of) the doctrines of the Holy Roman Catholic Church (i.e. you are speaking of your own individual/personal/non Christian beliefs), then you are free to believe in whatever you want. But do not mislead readers of this blog by your incorrect statement above into believing that a devout Catholic is “…free to disagree…” with the clearly pronounced and taught doctrine of the Catholic Church, which states quite unambiguously that all human life in all its totality (i.e. including the presence of a spiritual and immortal soul) begins at conception!

 

[jmcrae]

There is no way that there are 7 year olds in hell. A child might technically be able to break a commandment (not honoring their parents, for example) but they cannot understand consequences or matters of life and death. NO way.

And perhaps babies don’t have souls until they are born.

Babies certainly have souls at the very moment of conception; otherwise, they could not grow in the womb. The soul is the life of the body.

The difference between human souls and the souls of plants and animals is that human souls can also survive independently of the body, after death - animal and plant souls cannot.

 

[jmcrae]

All the Church says is that a fetus is “presumed” to have a soul. It is not authoritative. Abortion would still be wrong because of the potential for a soul.

The evidence that the foetus has a soul is that it is alive. All living things have souls, because the soul is the life of the body - it is what prevents the body from decaying, and allows it to grow.

Not all living things have human souls, but foetuses, being human, do in fact have human souls.

 

[John_Odeh]

Right. In other words, the Church gives the fetus the benefit of the doubt. Either way, it is to be TREATED as a human person with all that such implies, but there is no authoritative or definitive teaching as to when ensoulment actually occurs. We are free to believe whatever we want, but we must TREAT the fetus as if it has a soul. It is still quite possible that God doesn’t actually grant a soul until birth.

LaSainte,…I have discussed this very matter with the Arch Bishop of Calabar Arch Diocese, Most Reverend Dr. Joseph Edra Ukpo (in addition to reading many Catholic articles; including the Papal Encyclical by former Pope John Paul II (i.e. Blessed Pope John Paul II) titled “Evangelium vitae”), and quite contrary to what you stated above, the Church’s teaching on this matter is not only clear, but is also very authoritative/definitive. The Catholic teaches with absolute authority that human life (including the life of the soul) begins at conception. As such what you have been stating on this blog about this subject is contrary to church teaching and also very misleading if not outright heretical), so please go and do more research into this matter, in order to avoid misleading innocent people!