HELP! Unbaptized infants- change in Church's teaching?

[cvrabel]

I know to some this is ‘old stuff’ to hash over, and I take issue with those not patient enough to discuss and want to dismiss it. From what I see, there has been no definitive answer, so it is still open to discussion.
Last night I saw a program on orphanages from the last century, and how so many children were abused, died so young. No way to know if they had been baptized in the church…doubtful since they were abandoned in one way or other. As a Christian Catholic, I cannot see a good God, who loves children, condemning babies to punishment for eternity…nor those under the age of reason. They have not commited mortal sins. They would be under the ‘baptism of desire’ for those who pray for them. There is no time in eternity. I pray for God’s grace and mercy for those who don’t know better, even for those who end their own lives, and never heard God’s word. I pray for His Grace and Mercy. Hell was created for Lucifer and the fallen angels, for deliberate sins of disobedience, pride, etc. It is also for those who have reached the age of reason, who commit sins that are mortal (first you must know it is wrong, then you must, in that knowledge, do it anyway). That is mortal. The millions of babies aborted, abused, abandoned, killed, murdered, tortured, God have mercy on them all, and bring them to Him. I will never believe they go to hell. I will never believe there is a ‘Limbo’…I believe they open their eyes in eternity and behold the face of the One who created them, and by His grace and mercy, stay with Him for eternity. Hell is for the deliberate sinner, for those who choose it, or with knowledge, turn their backs on God. Not for those who Love Him, have committed their lives to Him, believe and trust in Him. Nor for those innocents, who through the ignorace of those who were given them, died before having a chance to know Him. Do you think the Holy Innocents, slaughtered by Herod’s command went to Hell. Really?! They did not. But Herod did. I am frustrated by the non answers. I am frustrated that my Church cannot give a definitive answer. I have yet to see it. Till I do…the question is unanswered, and non definitive. It is ridiculous to believe unbaptized infants and under the age of reason children would go to Hell.

 

[Camron]

This pretty much sums it up. Why can’t people stop getting their shorts in a knot about this and just give it rest?

I suppose because people have lost loved ones without them being baptized.

It’s just not that easy to accept an answer like “We don’t know” from the very institution which indeed does have the Keys of Salvation for all of humanity. In other words, regarding this particular question, I think it’s a valid expectation to think that the Catholic Church would have more of a definitive answer to this particular question, especially after 2000 years of administering the visible means of Salvation via the Sacraments to all of humanity and declaring that various Saints are indeed in Heaven.

Giving an answer like “We don’t know” is an honest answer. But it doesn’t give much comfort to those who have lost loved ones without them being baptized, especially innocent little babies.

The problem isn’t that we don’t know anything about answering this question. The problem is that we should know much more than what we’ve given so far as an answer to this heart wrenching question.

Why is God still so silent on this issue after 2000 years?

 

[expectthebest]

I agree. It seems to me that a Church that teaches that it has the sole keys to heaven could easily decide this one. In fact, didn’t Jesus give the Apostles the ability to “loose” any sin?

 

[cvrabel]

Yes, one would think so. But I think the phrase used in the Council of Trent, that ‘unbaptized infants’ would go to hell is the sticking point. Because the Council declared it…that is the problem. The Church can’t undo what was done/said. This is what really bothers me. The infallibility in matters of faith and morals …the whole thing is called into question. That is why no one will answer. Frustrating!!

 

[minkymurph]

I suppose because people have lost loved ones without them being baptized.

It’s just not that easy to accept an answer like “We don’t know” from the very institution which indeed does have the Keys of Salvation for all of humanity. In other words, regarding this particular question, I think it’s a valid expectation to think that the Catholic Church would have more of a definitive answer to this particular question, especially after 2000 years of administering the visible means of Salvation via the Sacraments to all of humanity and declaring that various Saints are indeed in Heaven.

Giving an answer like “We don’t know” is an honest answer. But it doesn’t give much comfort to those who have lost loved ones without them being baptized, especially innocent little babies.

The problem isn’t that we don’t know anything about answering this question. The problem is that we should know much more than what we’ve given so far as an answer to this heart wrenching question.

Why is God still so silent on this issue after 2000 years?

God is silent, and this is no more than my personal opinion, because it could lead us into error. What we are discussing here, is the eternal destiny of individuals, or perhaps a group of individuals ie:unbaptised children, which is something we humans are not entitled to know because it involves judgement. Only God can judge and if we start drawing up a criteria for salvation to cover every situation, we could presume to know how God will judge individuals. God does not deliberatlely withold things from us, but judegement of individuals is reserved solely for him, and only he knows everything. We do not know everything because if we did, we would have no need of faith. What God does tell us, is that it is impossible for him to judge unrighteously in other words, he will not get it wrong and that is our comfort. No one knows if a child would have grown up to be Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler had it lived, only God can know. If someone has lost a child, what if they would have rejected God as an adult, what comfort to them? When we are in heaven, we will have no iffinity with those who have rejected God and that is a very hard thing to comprehend in human terms. When we are made God-like, we will see everthing through the eyes of God. That is why we don’t understand everything now, we have to wait, but as it says in scripture, ‘will not the judge of all the earth do right?’

 

[cvrabel]

Yes, that is a comfort, to remember that God is in control and He can only judge righteously. I guess what got me upset, was being told how they would be judged, and as you say, we cannot know. And trusting God with this is what I will have to do.

 

[rwoehmke]

this is why I’m worried the official teaching of the Church is that unbaptized infants go to hell…is there any evidence to show that this is not the case except for the new CCC?

Did you read my previous post?

Your information is flat wrong. I have a CCC over 60 years old and it does not say that unbaptised infants are going to hell.
It says the same as the CCC does today. Again, the Church teaches that it does not know what happens as scripture is silent on their state.

The CCC, Catechism of the Catholic Church was not even being written 60 years ago. You must have a different catechism. In any case, it pays to be very careful when reading documents from old Church Councils, partcularly so if they are a translation. It is not a whole lot different than private interpretation of Scripture. A point also made above is that it is not always obvious that the Pope actually confirmed the Councils particular decision being cited, because without confirmation or approval by the Pope the Council may not teach that particular article infallbly.

The new Catechism of the Catholic Church, also now translated requires care also. One important difference between it and some older sources is said to be the fact they are written in such a fashion that the real true meaning of the source documents is easier for the contemporary person to grasp. What appears to be a change from the old is that the new makes more obvious what the old was actually saying. At least saying what the Church actually has taught and is still teaching.

An example from the Baltimore Catechism like the question: Why did God make us.? To know him, love him and serve him in this world and to be happy with him forever in heaven.
Sounds like pretty plain language, but people have written books on just single words from that statement. Things are never as uncomplicated as they might seem. We pray for God’s light that we do not stumble in the dark.

 

[minkymurph]

Yes, that is a comfort, to remember that God is in control and He can only judge righteously. I guess what got me upset, was being told how they would be judged, and as you say, we cannot know. And trusting God with this is what I will have to do.

I’ve recently been reading up on the Paschal mystery as I’m taking a course in Theology in order to enter teacher training. I read that when Jesus was on the cross, he had to completly commit his life to the Father when he experienced the separation of body and soul. This was a tremendous demonstration of faith and trust. Death is so final. For those of us who are baptized into the Paschal mystery, we need no less faith and trust as at the point of death, we are completely in the hands of the Father. I mentioned Hitler in my previous post, Hitler was baptized Catholic. Therefore, a person can be baptized but choose not to live their baptism. Baptism is not in itself a guarantee. We have not entered into a secular contract that God can’t get out of and I’m sure everyone here will understand what I mean. Death is so final. I have known many who have lost a child and any form of comfort will always be inadequate. No ruling by the Church or theological development will ever change that. It is building faith and trust in God to the point where we know we can trust him implicitly even with our own children. My own two young children who are 6 and 4 along with their Father, my husband, were in a fire at the weekend and where rescued. I thank God they where. I it had have been otherwise, I don’t believe I could be anywhere near as objective as I am being at the moment. I emphathize with anyone who has to face such a test of faith. God cannot have less empathy than a human.

 

[expectthebest]

God is silent, and this is no more than my personal opinion, because it could lead us into error. What we are discussing here, is the eternal destiny of individuals, or perhaps a group of individuals ie:unbaptised children, which is something we humans are not entitled to know because it involves judgement. Only God can judge and if we start drawing up a criteria for salvation to cover every situation, we could presume to know how God will judge individuals. God does not deliberatlely withold things from us, but judegement of individuals is reserved solely for him, and only he knows everything. We do not know everything because if we did, we would have no need of faith. What God does tell us, is that it is impossible for him to judge unrighteously in other words, he will not get it wrong and that is our comfort. No one knows if a child would have grown up to be Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler had it lived, only God can know. If someone has lost a child, what if they would have rejected God as an adult, what comfort to them? When we are in heaven, we will have no iffinity with those who have rejected God and that is a very hard thing to comprehend in human terms. When we are made God-like, we will see everthing through the eyes of God. That is why we don’t understand everything now, we have to wait, but as it says in scripture, ‘will not the judge of all the earth do right?’

The Church holds the keys. The Church has defined very explicitly what will get us to heaven and what will get us to hell. The Church has defined sin as mortal or venial. The Church can definately define under what cercumstances a child gets to heaven. It has defined it for everything else. It seems to me the Church already has defined it. It’s hell. And now the Church is trying to go back on what it already said without really changing what it said. Walking a tightrope, if you will. I think the Church knows it can’t go back on what it said because of the ramifications involved for the believe in infallibility. The question is, if the Church new it was wrong in the past, would it correct it? But I guess that’s a mute point because the Church can’t be wrong.

 

[cvrabel]

Thanks, Minkymurph…Thank the good Lord your family was rescued! You are right, God cannot have less empathy than a human. Trusting Him in these unanswered questions. It is difficult to not have an answer, for a suffering friend, or our own doubts. Yes, baptism is not a guarantee…I didn’t know Hitler was a baptized Catholic…my goodness! I just remember how I comforted my mother, losing two babies at 5 months and 8 months pregnancy, that God knows she wanted them baptized, and she actually crawled to a sink, being at home on her own, to do just that, and worried that he was already dead. I said, 'Mom, God knows you love that baby and would have baptized him, and that is baptism of desire. You desired him to be baptized, and that was your intent. Not to worry, as he is with the Lord." I was 13 at the time. Maybe I had more wisdom then. But, it is the little ones who had no one to love them, that were abandoned. I can only believe they are with the Lord.

 

[jmcrae]

There are several issues to consider with this question.

1. The normal and natural destination of all human beings is Hell; not Heaven. Heaven is a special gift; not an entitlement.
2. Babies are not “innocent” in every sense of the word - they have Original Sin. We are not born “saved” and then lose our salvation at the age of accountability: rather, we are born hell-bound, and gain our salvation by means of the right use of the Sacraments of Christ’s One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
3. We are bound to the Sacraments; God is not. God can do anything.

3a. My favourite scene from The Passion of the Christ is the look on the Devil’s face when Hell suddenly empties out at the moment of the Crucifixion, and he is left entirely alone. It is my hope and prayer that this is what God will, in fact, do. But we have no way of knowing if this will, indeed, be the case. I think this is purposeful on God’s part - a healthy fear of Hell motivates a great many good works.

1. God gave us the Sacraments, not for something fun to do as a family or community tradition, but as means of grace for salvation.
2. No one comes to the Father except through Christ.

5a. Christ could make Himself known to anyone, without them knowing His name.

1. We know as a Divinely revealed fact that babies come to Christ in the Sacrament of Baptism.
2. Everything else is speculation.

 

[minkymurph]

The Church holds the keys. The Church has defined very explicitly what will get us to heaven and what will get us to hell. The Church has defined sin as mortal or venial. The Church can definately define under what cercumstances a child gets to heaven. It has defined it for everything else. It seems to me the Church already has defined it. It’s hell. And now the Church is trying to go back on what it already said without really changing what it said. Walking a tightrope, if you will. I think the Church knows it can’t go back on what it said because of the ramifications involved for the believe in infallibility. The question is, if the Church new it was wrong in the past, would it correct it? But I guess that’s a mute point because the Church can’t be wrong.

You say it SEEMS to you the Church has already defined it. As far as my knowledge serves me, the has always been undecided. St Augustine taught the concept of Limbo as he couldn’t reconcile himself with the idea of unbapized infants going to hell. As far as I know, the Council of Trent was undecided regarding Limbo and to my knowledge, the Church is still undecided. Therefore, the Church has not infallibly defined what happens to every individual for an infinite variety of complex reasons were not baptized, go to hell. The teachings of the Church are infallible teachings of doctrine but the Church itself says, as we do not have the mind of God and do therefore, not know everything. Jesus did say unless you are baptized of water and Spirit you cannot enter the kingdom of God. He did not however say, baptism was all about timing. God exists outside time and it is certainly possble for God to consecrate a child to himself if it’s parents will not have it baptized. In relation to aborted children, man cannot have power over God in that if the life is terminated, there is nothing God can do as there are rules. Would God give man such power as to deny an unborn child eternity? Does that change at the point of birth? I am not invalidating baptism. If are baptized, we know we are baptized, if we are not baptized, we know we are not. For someone who has lost a child by miscarriage, does not God bestow the soul on that child? Therefore, the life belongs to him as God sustains all life. Jesus said in my Father’s house there are many manshions. The Jews believed in Abraham’s bosom which as far as I know, was hell however the faithful were comforted, as told in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus until Jesus released them. Do we know for sure there is only one state of the soul in heaven? Do we know for sure there is no release from that state for all eternity? No one can know this save God himself.

 

[expectthebest]

You say it SEEMS to you the Church has already defined it. As far as my knowledge serves me, the has always been undecided. St Augustine taught the concept of Limbo as he couldn’t reconcile himself with the idea of unbapized infants going to hell. As far as I know, the Council of Trent was undecided regarding Limbo and to my knowledge, the Church is still undecided. Therefore, the Church has not infallibly defined what happens to every individual for an infinite variety of complex reasons were not baptized, go to hell. The teachings of the Church are infallible teachings of doctrine but the Church itself says, as we do not have the mind of God and do therefore, not know everything. Jesus did say unless you are baptized of water and Spirit you cannot enter the kingdom of God. He did not however say, baptism was all about timing. God exists outside time and it is certainly possble for God to consecrate a child to himself if it’s parents will not have it baptized. In relation to aborted children, man cannot have power over God in that if the life is terminated, there is nothing God can do as there are rules. Would God give man such power as to deny an unborn child eternity? Does that change at the point of birth? I am not invalidating baptism. If are baptized, we know we are baptized, if we are not baptized, we know we are not. For someone who has lost a child by miscarriage, does not God bestow the soul on that child? Therefore, the life belongs to him as God sustains all life. Jesus said in my Father’s house there are many manshions. The Jews believed in Abraham’s bosom which as far as I know, was hell however the faithful were comforted, as told in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus until Jesus released them. Do we know for sure there is only one state of the soul in heaven? Do we know for sure there is no release from that state for all eternity? No one can know this save God himself.

What you say makes very good sense. Why wouldn’t the Church confirm something? The Church has this power.

 

[expectthebest]

3a. My favourite scene from The Passion of the Christ is the look on the Devil’s face when Hell suddenly empties out at the moment of the Crucifixion, and he is left entirely alone. It is my hope and prayer that this is what God will, in fact, do. But we have no way of knowing if this will, indeed, be the case. I think this is purposeful on God’s part - a healthy fear of Hell motivates a great many good works.

I don’t recall this part but could you ellaborate on the meaning you believe to be attached with it?

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t recall this part but could you ellaborate on the meaning you believe to be attached with it?

The scene only lasts a second or two - there is a nano-second of silence while all of the souls disappear from Hell, then the Devil shrieks in horror and agony, and then it cuts to Mary’s reaction.

Anyway, the meaning I attach to it is that Christ’s crucifixion releases all of us from the penalty of Hell, and that the Devil will remain alone in Hell for the rest of eternity.

However, we have no evidence that this will be the case, and plenty of warnings about Hell, so it would be imprudent to presume that all will be saved, including people that we ourselves love. God loves them too, more than we ever could, but it’s still possible that those who are loved could go to Hell.

 

[fineca]

Someone asked why God hasn’t given us more info on this point.
I agree it bothers me, too, but on the other hand it seems quite wise. Assume he said they all go to Hell: that’d raise immense objections against God’s goodness and justice. Suppose he said they all go to Heaven: again the same problem - why would God let anyone live longer than baby-age if that person was to be lost later on? Isn’t it unfair to let others in that easy?

And yet there is some answer/truth to the matter. Both options above seem unjust. What abou the possibility that perhaps those souls never came into existence or were annihilated since they didn’t realise their existence in the first place so it wouldn’t make any difference. I know this sounds very objectionable to many of you and it’s definitely not Church teaching, but since there is no definition on the matter (nor is there such in regard to when exactly an eternal soul is given to the human body -though conception is sort of assumed- nor if it’s possible that God annihilate a soul that never reached the age of consciousness…) couldn’t one hold that view open as well, in fact any view, whatever God in his wisdom knows is right and just…

 

[minkymurph]

What you say makes very good sense. Why wouldn’t the Church confirm something? The Church has this power.

The only answer I can give you is because it can’t. Which like everything else is inadequate. The Church has the power to define infallible doctrine true, but only in the light of the Spirt. Infalliblity is not a right, it is bestowed by God. It is God who decides how much we know and when. For instance, Mary was declared Mother of God way back in the third or fourth century, (my memory fails me on exactly which council and when). The Immaculate Conception was not declared Infallible until the late 1800’s and it had been under discussion for some time prior to that. The Apostles themselves didn’t know everthing. The only other reason I can give you is because it could lead to judegment of individuals and therefore, the Church could lead people into error. The Church was given the power to teach infallible doctrine at God’s discretion. It was never given the power to decide the eternal destiny of individuals. This answer is inadequate and I would say it does little to ease the frustration of those who need and answer but it’s the best I can do.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Church used to say one thing, & act accordingly: so unbaptised babies were buried in unconsecrated ground. It was “known” that they could not enter heaven. Now it has reversed itself. How is the meaning of infallibility not destroyed, when the Church can afform contradictory positions ?​

It acted as though it did know - so it cannot be defended by well-meaning appeals to the limitations of our knowledge of these matters: for it, the limitations appealed to now were not limitations in the past. It’s in a fix of its own making - no one put it there but itself. It cannot deny its past theological tradition without lying or being culpably ignorant, & it cannot disregard it without engaging in mental operations more fitted to Orwell’s 1984 than to a Christian Church.

 

[Camron]

God is silent, and this is no more than my personal opinion, because it could lead us into error.

I just want to preface my answer by noting that I’ve never lost a child, so I cannot begin to imagine how this would feel. To go one step further, I also have not lost a child that has not been baptized either, so I definitely don’t know how this would feel at all.

However, I can try to place myself in the shoes of others who have gone through this and try to feel what they might feel. This is the perspective I am trying to take when pondering this deep question.

Technically, I agree with you that such a teaching could lead into serious error, because even little babies do need to be baptized in name of the Trine God. There is simply no getting around this part from a Catholic perspective.

But I think it is important to tackle exactly which error would come from this kind of teaching, namely the pernicious idea that babies and infants do not need to be baptized, which is exactly what many would conclude if indeed the Church were to make such a formal declaration.

Some could go too far with this and think that baptism is, for all practical purposes, virtually unnecessary precisely because God will ultimately save them even if they are not baptized.

In this sense, one could move further and further from the Truth and ultimately conclude that one needs to reach an age of accountability before they must ‘decide’ to be baptized, which is most surely a heretical error.

Some could even go further and instead conclude that our baptism is merely symbolic and therefore not really required after all, regardless of how old one gets. This is surely another heretical error.

Some could even go way too far the other way; totally distorting God loving potential for salvation and conclude that they were sending babies to heaven by aborting them in the womb before they have the chance to do an actual sin. This isn’t just another heretical error. This is murder.

And these are just some of the potential dangers associated with this teaching…

 

[Camron]

What we are discussing here, is the eternal destiny of individuals, or perhaps a group of individuals i.e., unbaptized children, which is something we humans are not entitled to know because it involves judgment.

True. But now consider the flip-side of the argument.

For example, I think that God does allow us to know that the Holy Innocents who suffered in Christ’s name during the reign of King Herod are considered Saints in Heaven. They certainly were not baptized by any visible sacrament of baptism that I’m aware of. And yet the Church venerates these children as martyrs (flores martyrum) because they are the first buds of the Church killed by the frost of persecution. They died not only for Christ, but in His stead

Only God can judge and if we start drawing up a criteria for salvation to cover every situation, we could presume to know how God will judge individuals.

But we’re not presuming to know the criteria for Salvation. Our Church really has had it revealed to her the criteria for Salvation. This is exactly what we do believe, that the Church has both the ability and the authority, given by God Himself, to teach those things which are required for Salvation.

She has been given the Keys to Heaven, she Binds and Loosens according to God’s Revealed Will, she guards the very Gates which hell will not prevail against, she has announced the name of the Saints who very much are in Heaven too.

God does not deliberately withhold things from us, but judgment of individuals is reserved solely for him, and only he knows everything.

I can’t speak for others. But I’m not saying that we “deserve the right” to declare the salvation of unbaptized babies, for the dangerous reasons I’ve already noted above. I am, however, saying, that the more erroneous aspects of these teachings, such as the idea that unbaptized babies go to hell, should be more thoroughly dealt with in their proper context.

I mean no offence, but it simply smacks one of a monstrous and ineffective deity if one really promulgates the idea that God is really powerless to save an unbaptized infant from hell. Indeed, if one does make this proclamation, then they really are saying that the Church is more powerful than the God who created her, precisely because they are saying that God cannot save these babies if the Church fails in her mission.

This idea is very frightening and needs to be more forcefully pushed back so that, given the warnings noted above, a clearer answer concerning this quesiton can be seen in the revelation that God has given so far.

We do not know everything because if we did, we would have no need of faith. What God does tell us, is that it is impossible for him to judge unrighteously in other words, he will not get it wrong and that is our comfort.

I generally agree with this, although I would note that faith is reasonable and not based on the things we do not know.

No one knows if a child would have grown up to be Mother Theresa or Adolf Hitler had it lived, only God can know. If someone has lost a child, what if they would have rejected God as an adult, what comfort to them?

This is the part that I do not generally agree with.

While I can see your point, I can also see the perspective of a mother who does raise a person who turns terrible and dies in mortal sin. It’s true that we may not know for sure the eternal fate of the person. But if they died unrepentant, for example, during the act of trying to kidnap a child, it truly seems highly unlikely that the mother’s child who is now “grown up” will ever be comforted with the idea that her son will meet her in Heaven.

There are many examples of this and the list that could be generated from these kinds of scenarios would be too large to include in this post.

When we are in heaven, we will have no affinity with those who have rejected God and that is a very hard thing to comprehend in human terms. When we are made God-like, we will see everything through the eyes of God. That is why we don’t understand everything now, we have to wait, but as it says in scripture, ‘will not the judge of all the earth do right?’

I think we all agree that God will judge with perfect clarity and do right by judging with perfect righteousness.

The question isn’t, “Will not the judge of all the earth do right?”
We all know He most certainly will.

The question is, “How will the judge of all the earth judge these unbaptized infants?”