God's Mercy and Stillborn Babies

[WannabeSaint]

The Church doesn’t have any official teaching on whether unbaptized children go to Heaven when they die. They would go to a place that is eternally peaceful and happy, but short of the Beatific Vision.

How would we reconcile this with stillborn babies? In this situation, why would God create a person knowing that they had absolutely no chance to be baptized? Thus, barring them from the Beatific Vision from the start.

 

[Wesrock]

They would go to a place that is eternally peaceful and happy, but short of the Beatific Vision.

This was the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas, but it’s not the official teaching of the Church. There is no official teaching. The Church has expressed hope (though not certainty) that God through extraordinary measures may welcome them to the beatific vision.

Other than that, the most important thing that I can stress is that it is not contrary to God’s own goodness.

 

[Gorgias]

In this situation, why would God create a person knowing that they had absolutely no chance to be baptized? Thus, barring them from the Beatific Vision from the start.

God doesn’t “create the person.” He participates in the procreative activity of the parents, who set the procreation in motion. God – without mediation – gives to the new life that the parents have created, an eternal soul.

God doesn’t “bar them from the Beatific Vision from the start.” Rather, from the start of their life, He gives them an eternal soul in His image and likeness. And we, as Catholics, trust in His mercy to grant them salvation outside of the sacraments.

 

[Vico]

The Church doesn’t have any official teaching on whether unbaptized children go to Heaven when they die. They would go to a place that is eternally peaceful and happy, but short of the Beatific Vision.

How would we reconcile this with stillborn babies? In this situation, why would God create a person knowing that they had absolutely no chance to be baptized? Thus, barring them from the Beatific Vision from the start.

The is a dogmatic teaching about those that die in original sin only, which means without a state of sanctifying grace.

Council of Lyons II, 1274 A.D., Ecumenical XIV, Profession of Faith of Michael Palaeologus:

The souls of those who die in mortal sin or with original sin only, however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.

Hope, ITC, 2007:

Though some medieval theologians maintained the possibility of an intermediate, natural, destiny, gained by the grace of Christ ( gratia sanans ), namely Limbo,128 we consider such a solution problematic and wish to indicate that other approaches are possible, based on hope for a redemptive grace given to unbaptised infants who die which opens for them the way to heaven. We believe that, in the development of doctrine, the solution in terms of Limbo can be surpassed in view of a greater theological hope.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[Jen7]

Some saint suggested that the parents’ desire for the infants baptism may “count” as the Baptism of Desire for that infant. I wish I could remember who said it. Anyway it’s what I hold into when I think of my Tiny One who I envision being in heaven. He/she would have been baptized without fail had he/she not passed away before birth.

 

[annad347]

God is great and merciful, why would anyone believe God would not be great and merciful to babies?

Mark 10:14 Let the little children come to me; do not stop them; for it is to such as these that the kingdom of God belongs…

 

[StudentMI]

St John Paul II asked that the concept of limbo be investigated again by theologians. Not sure if anyone took him up on the idea. To dismiss limbo because it was never ‘dogmatically defined’ is to dismiss a concept with a long tradition in Catholic theology and teaching.

 

[Anesti33]

Oh, so now we have “teaching” and “official teaching”? How do moral theologians treat “unofficial” teachings? Is an “official” teaching always infallible? de fide? Must they be held? Must they be believed with divine and Catholic faith? What about “unofficial” teachings?

It’s weird, I never read of “official” teachings in the Catechism. Where can I find a definition of “official” and “unofficial”?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Church doesn’t have any official teaching on whether unbaptized children go to Heaven when they die. They would go to a place that is eternally peaceful and happy, but short of the Beatific Vision.

I don’t know where you got the idea the Church doesn’t have a teaching. The Church has such a teaching right in the Catechism (CCC 1261):

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,"64 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.

This teaching is in keeping with the Church’s general teaching that, apart from canonized saints, the Church has no way of knowing for sure who goes to Heaven and who does not.

Babies in the womb are considered the same as babies who are born. Therefore, all unbaptized babies who die, whether after birth, or stillborn, or miscarried, or aborted, are treated the same way and subject to CCC 1261.

St John Paul II asked that the concept of limbo be investigated again by theologians. Not sure if anyone took him up on the idea. To dismiss limbo because it was never ‘dogmatically defined’ is to dismiss a concept with a long tradition in Catholic theology and teaching.

You’re free to believe in Limbo all day and all night if you want, the Church won’t stop you. But the Church doesn’t require Catholics to believe in it, so they’re free to not believe in it. I sure don’t believe in it. If somebody else wants to believe in it, that’s their prerogative.

The study commissioned by Pope JPII resulted in the current Church position, as set forth in the 2005 ITC Document “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Before Being Baptized” which someone already posted upthread.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Some saint suggested that the parents’ desire for the infants baptism may “count” as the Baptism of Desire for that infant.

I believe the current position of the Church is that the parents’ desire for the infant cannot count as “baptism of desire” for the iinfant, so the baby can’t be considered baptized in that manner.

I am happy with the current Catechism teaching as it seems to be the broadest expression of the love of Merciful God which would apply to all babies, including those whose parents have rejected God or are indifferent to having their child baptized. The baby should not have to suffer punishment from God because its parents wouldn’t bother to baptize it, or worse yet its parent doesn’t consider it even a person and is aborting it.

God is great and merciful, why would anyone believe God would not be great and merciful to babies?

Because some people go so far down the apologetics rabbit hole that they lose sight of God’s love and mercy. I don’t understand it either, but it happens.

 

[Gorgias]

I believe the current position of the Church is that the parents’ desire for the infant cannot count as “baptism of desire” for the iinfant, so the baby can’t be considered baptized in that manner.

That rings a bell with me, too, although I can’t recall where I read it.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Para. 29 of “The Hope of Salvation…” says

The proposals invoking some kind of Baptism of desire … involved certain difficulties. On the one hand, the adult’s act of desire for Baptism can hardly be attributed to children. The little child is scarcely capable of supplying the fully free and responsible personal act which would constitute a substitution for sacramental Baptism; such a fully free and responsible act is rooted in a judgement of reason and cannot be properly achieved before the human person has reached a sufficient or appropriate use of reason (aetas discretionis: “age of discretion”).

So basically the person has to have their own “desire” and the baby is of course too young to form one.

 

[Jen7]

So basically the person has to have their own “desire” and the baby is of course too young to form one.

That surprises me since the Holy Innocents are martyrs without their own rational understanding of what it meant to die for Christ! Isn’t it because they enjoyed the “baptism of blood”?

 

[Jen7]

Oh, so now we have “teaching” and “official teaching”? How do moral theologians treat “unofficial” teachings? Is an “official” teaching always infallible? de fide ? Must they be held? Must they be believed with divine and Catholic faith? What about “unofficial” teachings?

It’s weird, I never read of “official” teachings in the Catechism. Where can I find a definition of “official” and “unofficial”?

Yes because some things, although taught by someone within the Church, are not Church Teaching per se. They need to square with Tradition or be part of the magisterium. Otherwise they are just saintly opinion. Like St. Padre Pio’s code of modesty that gets thrown around a lot. (NOT official Church teaching!) But it IS official Church Teaching that Christ multiplied the loves and fishes even if someone’s pastor preaches that some theologian believeJesus just convinced everyone to share their lunch (not official Church teaching). I hope that helps!

 

[BT3241]

I don’t know why anyone would think God would send a stillborn to hell the laws of the Church don’t apply to God. The stalemate is in the Church not with God.

 

[Jen7]

I don’t know why anyone would think God would send a stillborn to hell

Because of Her teaching on the necessity of baptism. We literally can’t know about these babies for that reason. And I say that as the mom of one, so I would LOVE if the Church would make an official statement that expresses their salvation, but I don’t think She can. Trust is needed. And Hope.

 

[BT3241]

So it applies to someone who was never born alive into the world. Thats not the God I know.

 

[Genesis315]

We can’t say for certain, but we can hope and pray that God gratuitously sanctifies them. Below, St. Thomas is answering the objection that original sin is more powerful than Christ’s salvation, since original sin reaches into the womb but baptism can’t. On the contrary, he states:

St. Thomas Aquinas

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.

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Those who receive Baptism (Tertia Pars, Q. 68)

 

[BT3241]

So let me get this right - God is sending people to hell who never even had a chance to live because of the Church doctrine on baptism. You realize your condemning every aborted baby to hell.

 

[Genesis315]

So basically the person has to have their own “desire” and the baby is of course too young to form one.

And yet, an infant cannot have actual faith, but is validly baptized with the faith and free assent necessary for Baptism supplied by proxy as St. Augustine says of infants “He believes by another, who has sinned by another.” (De Verb. Apost., xiv, xviii).

Personally, I don’t think it is necessary a one size fits all situation, which is why God has not revealed what He does in each particular case. The desire of the parents, a gratuitous gift (see my post quoting Aquinas above), an omniscient view of potential merits or demerits, or even a moment of lucidtity and choice are are all possible, have all been proposed by reputable theologians and saints, and none of have been condemned (certainly each has been argued against by others, but so has their possible salvation at all).

The ITC document is just that–a paper by a group of theologians meant to inform debate.