Fate Of Unbaptized Infants

[noorez]

Peace and blessings be unto all!

My question now comes (as a result of the last discussion I had on Original Sin) on the fate of infants who die unbaptized. Now, I know that this is an age old discussion on Limbo, however, I would like to perhaps approach it from a different angle.

In Islam, everyone is born in the natural state of fitra: as per wikipedia:
“According to Islamic theology, human beings are born with an innate inclination of tawhid (Oneness), which is encapsulated in the fitra along with compassion, intelligence, ihsan and all other attributes that embody what it is to be human. It is for this reason that some Muslims prefer to refer to those who embrace Islam as reverts rather than converts, as it is believed they are returning to a perceived pure state.”

Therefore, everyone in Islam would generally agree that if an infant died “before accepting Islam”, there would be no question as to his fate. As he committed no sin worthy of being sent to hell he would be given entry into paradise. Obviously, the discussion changes once he reaches the age of reason.

In Islam (and obviously as well in Christianity), God knows what the time of death will be for all persons. Thus, it seems somewhat strange to me that (according to the church), the fate of the soul of an unbaptized infant would be “uncertain”. Why uncertain? If someone dies immediately after being born, I (and Islam) would say agree that it was that person’s time to die. Therefore, there is no fault at all here on this person that they did not accept the religion. (Heck, say even after may years after having reached the age of reason. If a proper understanding of the faith is not delivered and the person does not accept Islam as a result, most Islamic theologists would agree that there would be no fault in not accepting the faith.)

Once again, no actual question here. It would be nice though if people could respond to my thoughts.

 

[The_Blunt_Brig]

That’s interesting. Thanks for the info.

 

[MarcoPolo]

it seems somewhat strange to me that (according to the church), the fate of the soul of an unbaptized infant would be “uncertain”. Why uncertain?

The reason is because, in Christian understanding, divine revelation is emphatic on the necessity of baptism in order to make a soul just for the heavenly reward. The Church is subordinate to the teaching of divine revelation. And since unbaptized infants are just that––unbaptized––the Church is “unaware” of how they might be saved. That is different than asserting that unbaptized infants are NOT saved. And this is why the Catechism states:*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.*So the matter of uncertainty pertains to the Church not having received or recognized the means by which such unbaptized infants might be saved. But as the Catechism states, the Church retains “hope,” which is itself a virtue, for these infants because God is merciful and desires the salvation of all.

Besides Limbo, theologians have sometimes postulated other “theories,” such as that the infant’s soul, beyond the threshold of this world, will experience something similar to the extra-temporal choice given the angels. But, the bottom line is, the Church is “uncertain” of the means, and thus must admit a certain “agnosticism” on the matter, if you will.

 

[noorez]

The reason is because, in Christian understanding, divine revelation is emphatic on the necessity of baptism in order to make a soul just for the heavenly reward. The Church is subordinate to the teaching of divine revelation. And since unbaptized infants are just that––unbaptized––the Church is “unaware” of how they might be saved. That is different than asserting that unbaptized infants are NOT saved. And this is why the Catechism states: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.So the matter of uncertainty pertains to the Church not having received or recognized the means by which such unbaptized infants might be saved. But as the Catechism states, the Church retains “hope,” which is itself a virtue, for these infants because God is merciful and desires the salvation of all.

Besides Limbo, theologians have sometimes postulated other “theories,” such as that the infant’s soul, beyond the threshold of this world, will experience something similar to the extra-temporal choice given the angels. But, the bottom line is, the Church is “uncertain” of the means, and thus must admit a certain “agnosticism” on the matter, if you will.

Hmmm…

Is there a reason perhaps that Jesus never spoke on this matter?. From what I have understood on church teaching, the sacrifice of Jesus redeemed ALL of mankind. An infant now, has not had the opportunity to accept/reject that sacrifice. Is there a reason to assume that that infant would not want a baptism if he had the change?..

(does this make sense, can’t really explain my thoughts better here)…

 

[Genesis315]

In a sense, men are born incorporated into Adam. To attain to supernatural life and partake of the divine nature, they must be incorporated into Christ, who is both God and man. God has revealed that this is achieved through Baptism, where one dies to Adam and is reborn in Christ. God has not revealed another way, but He has the power to achieve it another way if He desired.

 

[klm120861]

This is what I believe, and it is indirectly supported by the Catechism.
One of the types of baptism is the Baptism of Desire. This refers to those who would have chosen to be baptized, but they died before they had the chance to actually be baptized. An example of this would be an unbaptized adult who is seeking to come into the Catholic Church, but who dies before the Easter Vigil. By virtue of their participation in RCIA they clearly would have been baptized at Easter.

For infants, what loving parent would knowingly choose to leave their infant in a state of Original Sin, thereby condemning that baby to hell? The answer is no parent would. If an infant is unbaptized, it is because the parents didn’t understand exactly what is accomplished through baptism. Maybe the parents are lapsed Catholics, maybe they are unbelievers, maybe they are from a Protestant tradition that doesn’t believe in infant baptism. Whatever the case, parents in general all share the common desire of wanting the best for their kids. Even really bad parents love their kids. They just don’t know how to show it.

In my case, my first son passed without being baptized. We were not Catholic and had not been raised Catholic. He was dedicated to God, according to the manner of the Assemblies of God when he was a couple of months old. Is he “in limbo” or whatever? No. I believe he was graced with the Baptism of Desire and is in heaven as I write thiis. Had we known he needed to be baptized, he would have been. I think that is true for most, if not all parents. Had they known their children would pass before them, they would have made certain those precious babies enjoyed the Beatific Vision (seeing God face to face). Jesus told his disciples, “Let the little children come to me.” If he desired to have them close to him while he was on earth, how much more will he want them with him for all of eternity. And perhaps in that instant before death, he offers each baby, each child, that choice. After all, he’s God, I’m sure he can speak “infant”, even if we adults can’t.
Kris

 

[Doxiemom]

Babies go to heaven.Anything else is unjust. Our God is a Just God.

You will never convince me otherwise.

 

[Ignatius]

Peace and blessings be unto all!

My question now comes (as a result of the last discussion I had on Original Sin) on the fate of infants who die unbaptized…

Salam alaikum.
We trust them to the loving care of the All Compassionate and Merciful God.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Is there a reason perhaps that Jesus never spoke on this matter?. From what I have understood on church teaching, the sacrifice of Jesus redeemed ALL of mankind. An infant now, has not had the opportunity to accept/reject that sacrifice. Is there a reason to assume that that infant would not want a baptism if he had the change?..

Jesus did speak on this matter (John 3:3).

Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

 

[codesmith]

I am still confused by all this.

The Council of Florence (infallibly?) stated that those who die without baptism go straight to hell, but that the level of punishment is not certain. From what I can find online, it is not clear to me if that was an infallible statement or not.

Quoting…But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM

If the statement was infallible, what then is one to make of the certainly more “relaxed” instruction of 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.

How does one know which statements of an ecumenical council are considered “infallible”? Or is it all of them? I realize some things are open to interpretation, but the baptism statement seems pretty clear cut. So can a later council override/modify the teaching of a previous council? If so, how is one to understand the intent/workings of the Holy Spirit in such evolution of doctrine?

 

[snarflemike]

Babies go to heaven.Anything else is unjust. Our God is a Just God.

You will never convince me otherwise.

Would it be unjust if they were given a choice, just as we are given a choice?

 

[snarflemike]

Thus, it seems somewhat strange to me that (according to the church), the fate of the soul of an unbaptized infant would be “uncertain”. Why uncertain?

Because, for whatever reason, God did not choose to reveal their fate to us. If it is not revealed, we can’t just make it up. All we can do is speculate, given the nature of God which he has revealed to us. I think most of us would love to say “they all go to heaven” (it would make us feel better, and the world be more accepting of Christianity), but that is not divine revelation.

 

[snarflemike]

How does one know which statements of an ecumenical council are considered “infallible”? Or is it all of them? I realize some things are open to interpretation, but the baptism statement seems pretty clear cut. So can a later council override/modify the teaching of a previous council? If so, how is one to understand the intent/workings of the Holy Spirit in such evolution of doctrine?

Well, for one thing, the Church knows what her councils have said. If she teaches something different, than either (a) it wasn’t an infallible statement, or (b) we misunderstand the statement, or (c) the Church is not what she claims to be.

I have never seen a theological case for “all unbaptized babies go to hell” that rests on anything other than pure fiat (“because God said so!”). It is SO contradictory to everything that God has revealed about himself, that I don’t see how it can be so. I simply cannot process such a contradiction.

Remember that we celebrate the Feast of the Holy Innocents, unbaptized babies who were killed and who are taught to be now in heaven. The Council of Florence knew this.

 

[CaptFun]

Well FIRST off … they’re always dry at the wrong end. :sad_yes:

Second …

Romans 9:14 ** What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not! 15 For he says to Moses:* “I will show mercy to whom I will, I will take pity on whom I will.”*** 16 So it depends not upon a person’s will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy.

17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “This is why I have raised you up, to show my power through you that my name may be proclaimed throughout the earth.”

18 Consequently, ***he has mercy upon whom he wills … ***

 

[Nita]

Would it be unjust if they were given a choice, just as we are given a choice?

It could well be that Our Lord comes to the baby just prior to death and requires he/she to make a choice for or against God.

 

[Zouave]

I know of a couple of converts to Islam who actually say they “reverted to Islam”. Reverted? Yes, you are formed a Muslim in the womb, you are born a Muslim. If you fall away into another religion due to the circumstances of your life, but see the light and return to Islam you are, in fact, reverting to the state you were born into.

But I am not a Muslim; this is only what I was told by Muslim friends.

 

[codesmith]

Hello “snarflemike”,

First, I have taken the same path you have: catholic->atheist->catholic. I can no longer accept atheism, and the arrogance of so many quantum cosmologists, mind/brain/consciousness theoreticians, and the like. But having a background in physics and chemistry myself, perhaps I am overly analytical in my reading of older council documents.

Well, for one thing, the Church knows what her councils have said. If she teaches something different, than either (a) it wasn’t an infallible statement, or (b) we misunderstand the statement, or (c) the Church is not what she claims to be.

I agree. For me, the original statement from the Council of Florence seemed clear cut. So that rules out option “b”. I will not accept “c”. That leaves me with option “a”. which was my question. And that leaves me struggling with the problem that some statements appear to be infallible at one point in history, but modified or at least “toned down” later on.

It is SO contradictory to everything that God has revealed about himself, that I don’t see how it can be so. I simply cannot process such a contradiction.

I agree 100%.

 

[Gwendolen]

Babies go to heaven.Anything else is unjust. Our God is a Just God.

You will never convince me otherwise.

Agreed. No one in this universe will EVER convince me that my babies who died before baptism are anyplace else but in the presence of God, along with the Holy Innocents of Bethlehem. They were made in His image, and died without ever committing a sin. How much closer to God could one get?

I know of nothing in the New Testament that would suggest a rush to baptize right out of the womb so the baby doesn’t go to Hell. Christ himself was baptized as an adult, of his own choice, something I have wondered if protected him somehow when he took on the sins of the world. As far as I can tell, the age in which children were presented for baptism in the time of St. Paul is not really known, only speculated. I trust completely in God’s love and mercy in this matter, if I didn’t, I would not be Christian. I would not worship a God who even considered sending unbaptized infants to Hell. It is completely contrary to my concept of who God is.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Hmmm…

Is there a reason perhaps that Jesus never spoke on this matter?. From what I have understood on church teaching, the sacrifice of Jesus redeemed ALL of mankind. An infant now, has not had the opportunity to accept/reject that sacrifice. Is there a reason to assume that that infant would not want a baptism if he had the change?..

(does this make sense, can’t really explain my thoughts better here)…

I don’t know “why” God has not revealed the explicit fate of babies to the Church, I just know that the Church does not at this point know. As for redeeming all mankind, yes, that is true, but redemption does not trump God’s respect for the will of the individual. A person can choose for or against God. People choose against God for a variety of reasons, such as that they believe in the fork-tongued lies of the devil, convincing them to suppress what they know is right to satisfy some unholy desire. Even the fallen angels, with greater knowledge of their decision than us, were blinded by their own pride. If an infant is granted some sort of choice after unbaptized death, I would presume the choice would parallel that of the angels or other humans. But really, we do not know for certain what mechanism is at work.

 

[Gorgias]

I am still confused by all this.

No worries… it can be confusing…

The Council of Florence (infallibly?) stated that those who die without baptism go straight to hell, but that the level of punishment is not certain. From what I can find online, it is not clear to me if that was an infallible statement or not.

Yes, Laetentur caeli was the infallible statement of the council.

If the statement was infallible, what then is one to make of the certainly more “relaxed” instruction of CCC #1261

I realize some things are open to interpretation, but the baptism statement seems pretty clear cut. So can a later council override/modify the teaching of a previous council? If so, how is one to understand the intent/workings of the Holy Spirit in such evolution of doctrine?

To understand conciliar statements, it’s necessary first to recognize that councils aren’t catechisms – that is, they aren’t simply statements of belief; rather, they’re contextual statements that are made in a given time and place and in a particular historical situation. Once we recognize that this is the case, it becomes a little easier to make sense of a council’s statements…

In Florence, the issue was the reunification of East and West. And, as it turns out, Rome and Constantinople weren’t attempting to reunify solely out of a desire to mend the rift: Constantinople was under duress, since it really, really needed the military help of the west against the Turks, who were breathing down their necks. So, Constantinople approaches this council with the desire to be able to ask western kingdoms for military aid; in order to do so, they needed a unified Christianity.

With this in mind, we see that the main thrust of the document is the notion of the Trinity – this was something that had dogged the Church for ages: does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father, or from the Father and the Son? Once they had come to an agreement on this question, the council fathers briefly addressed a few other issues that had been contentious. One of these was Purgatory (which also had been a sticking point).

So, in the section that you’re quoting, the council fathers are really addressing Purgatory (and attendant notions). Here, in the sentence you cite, they’re essentially reaffirming Augustine against Pelagius: man is not born into a state of perfection, but rather, into original sin. (Hmm… and now, we’re back to the original question of this thread! ) They felt it necessary to add “or in original sin alone” to their statement; without it, they’d have lapsed into the (already denounced) heresy of Pelagianism.

So, they’re accurately reflecting Christian teaching: we’re taught that baptism is necessary. However, they wouldn’t have taken that to the extreme that appears to exist on the surface: Church statements that assert the necessity of baptism are always directed at those who are (or were) Christian, or who had the opportunity of conversion (but had refused). See Sullivan’s Salvation Outside The Church? for a good discussion of this issue.

How are we to understand infallibility, then? Well, this statement does accurately reflect the teaching of the Church: baptism has been held out to us as necessary. (Yet, we know that God wishes all to be saved; so we know that, in ways that haven’t been revealed to us, there must be a way that God allows those who haven’t been touched by the Gospel message to be saved!) This thought doesn’t change the fact that the statement of Florence is free of error: baptism is the way that we know of for sure that leads to salvation.

Of course, this doesn’t preclude the ‘development of doctrine’. The New Catholic Encyclopedia states, “In Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973) the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith made a distinction between the meaning of a dogma, which always remains true, and the dogmatic formulas of the Church, which also are simply true for those who understand them but are perfectible and replaceable when changed historical conceptions make it desirable or necessary.” (WALGRAVE, J. H. “Doctrine, Development of.” New Catholic Encyclopedia. 2nd ed. Vol. 4.) In other words, doctrine and dogma are eternally true: it is the formulation of these into words that make it necessary to address new situations as they occur in history. That is, revelation has been given to us; it is up to us to more fully understand it – this constant movement toward greater understanding is what ‘development’ is. It’s not that we’re changing doctrine, per se – it’s that we’re learning how to more perfectly express it. Along that journey, the Church is protected against expressing it errantly; but that doesn’t mean that it is always expressed in its fullness. (The whole history of the early councils, in the development of the Trinitarian and Christological doctrines, shows this to be true!)

Hope this helps!

Blessings,

G.