How is Limbo not Hell?

[VociMike]

As long as the Church says that the unborn can receive grace in some other way than baptism, then I have no problem with the Church.

She doesn’t say they can, because that fact has not been revealed to her. But neither does she say they can’t, because neither has that been revealed to her. So she says we must trust in the mercy of God (and nobody will ever be disappointed by doing that). From the 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.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

She doesn’t say they can, because that fact has not been revealed to her. But neither does she say they can’t, because neither has that been revealed to her. So she says we must trust in the mercy of God (and nobody will ever be disappointed by doing that). From the 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.

I am not understanding. Please bear with me until I understand.

When you say can do you mean will? I agree that the unborn are not guaranteed Beatific Vision. But I place the unborn in the same category as – say – the invincibly ignorant or – say – those baptised by desire or in the case of the aborted unborn – those baptised by blood.

It is important for me to be able to say that the aborted unborn are not automatically relegated to Limbo which is a circle of Hell.

It is also important for me to be able to be consistent in regarding the unborn as fully human in everything I say or do. And that the Church is consistent too.

Anything short of that consistency begins to add up for me to remote material collaboration in the manifest evil of abortion. Can you understand my dread?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

bookmark

 

[VociMike]

I am not understanding. Please bear with me until I understand.

When you say can do you mean will? I agree that the unborn are not guaranteed Beatific Vision. But I place the unborn in the same category as – say – the invincibly ignorant or – say – those baptised by desire or in the case of the aborted unborn – those baptised by blood.

It is important for me to be able to say that the aborted unborn are not automatically relegated to Limbo which is a circle of Hell.

It is also important for me to be able to be consistent in regarding the unborn as fully human in everything I say or do. And that the Church is consistent too.

Anything short of that consistency begins to add up for me to remote material collaboration in the manifest evil of abortion. Can you understand my dread?

The Church neither teaches that unbaptized babies definitely do, nor that they definitely do not, have the opportunity to receive the grace necessary to attain heaven. She does not insist that they are relegated to an eternity outside of heaven.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

The Church neither teaches that unbaptized babies definitely do, nor that they definitely do not, have the opportunity to receive the grace necessary to attain heaven. She does not insist that they are relegated to an eternity outside of heaven.

What does the Church say about the invincibly ignorant? Those adults who die with a desire for baptism? Those adults who die defending the faith? Those unborn who die?

Is what the Church say about one of these different from what She says about any of the others?

 

[bilop]

What does the Church say about the invincibly ignorant? Those adults who die with a desire for baptism? Those adults who die defending the faith? Those unborn who die?

Is what the Church say about one of these different from what She says about any of the others?

In all these cases we are talking about extra-ordinary salvation. The ordinary means of salvation is the sacraments, baptism, confession etc., to effect the absolution for original and actual sin. The soul needs to be cleansed of original and actual sin to get to Heaven.

The church recognizes some extra-sacramental means of salvation, but they are unusual, and presumably rare.

Matryrdom is rare. Those invincibly ignorant souls who live a life without actual sin are surely rare. Those who desire baptism, but die before achieving it are few.

So, among the unborn there may be some (many?) who receive extra-sacramental grace to remove original sin. We have no revelation on how this might occur, so can’t be sure.

What we are sure, is that these souls suffer no actual punishment in Limbo, since they committed no actual sins. They are granted eternal natural happiness, which when you think of it, is a great deal, and more than all of us are guaranteed.

As for being Limbo being part of Hell, you have to remember that Hell means simply the after-life that is not part of Heaven. Traditional teaching says there are different regions of Hell, at least 4. 1) The Hell of Torment, which we think of mostly as Hell. 2) Purgatory 3) The Limbo of the Fathers (emptied by Christ) 4) The Limbo of the Infants.

God Bless

 

[Ani_Ibi]

bilop:

In all these cases we are talking about extra-ordinary salvation. The ordinary means of salvation is the sacraments, baptism, confession etc., to effect the absolution for original and actual sin. The soul needs to be cleansed of original and actual sin to get to Heaven.

Yes.

bilop:

The church recognizes some extra-sacramental means of salvation, but they are unusual, and presumably rare.

How rare? Can you give me a ball park?

bilop:

Matryrdom is rare.

How many are we talking about?

bilop:

Those invincibly ignorant souls who live a life without actual sin are surely rare.

Is a sinless life the hallmark of invincible ignorance?

bilop:

Those who desire baptism, but die before achieving it are few.

How many?

bilop:

As for being Limbo being part of Hell, you have to remember that Hell means simply the after-life that is not part of Heaven.

Is Purgatory part of Heaven?

bilop:

Traditional teaching says there are different regions of Hell, at least 4. 1) The Hell of Torment, which we think of mostly as Hell. 2) Purgatory 3) The Limbo of the Fathers (emptied by Christ) 4) The Limbo of the Infants.

Can you give me the links to this so that I can catch up?

 

[bilop]

How rare? Can you give me a ball park?

No one can really, but rare in relation to the billions who have lived, the hundreds of millions of miscarriages, still-births and abortions in history.

Sorry, it was from a sermon. Next time I speak to that Priest, I’ll try and get the source.God Bless.

 

[Ghosty]

How rare? Can you give me a ball park?

This isn’t something we can pin down, because there’s no way to measure it in any way. It’s impossible to know how many are invincibly ignorant, for example. This is why the “don’t worry about it” advice is the best. You said you believe that it would be a remote cooperation in evil to not worry about it, but how so? You aren’t allowing for the damnation of people by letting this issue go, since the invincibly ignorant are outside your purview entirely. It would be like worrying about the fate of souls on another planet you don’t know exists.

The Church teaches that we don’t know the answer to these questions. We don’t know if the unborn receive Grace or not, we can only trust in the Mercy and Providence of God. That’s the end of the matter, really. As VociMike said, we don’t know one way or another, and the Church doesn’t say “can” or “can’t” in this case. Like the time of the Final Judgement, this is something not given to us to know.

If Limbo is not a part of Hell, then of what is it a part?

It is part of Hell. That’s always been the understanding, and it’s what the word “Limbo” means. There’s never been a popular theory that puts Limbo outside of Hell.

As for free will being a part of human nature, that’s true, but the exercise of that will isn’t a necessary part of being human. Talking is part of human nature as well, but a mute is just as human as I am. Likewise, an infant in the womb who has never had the chance to think is equally human with me. We can’t make actions the criteria for humanity.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ghosty:

This isn’t something we can pin down, because there’s no way to measure it in any way.

Then with all due respect no claim should be made about it. That is, one cannot claim that it is rare or that there are few cases.

Ghosty:

It’s impossible to know how many are invincibly ignorant, for example. This is why the “don’t worry about it” advice is the best.

It may be the best if you discount the possibility that it is remote material collaboration with a manifest evil (abortion).

Ghosty:

You said you believe that it would be a remote cooperation in evil to not worry about it, but how so?

Sigh. I’ve already explained how. Could you go back and review what I have posted already? Thank you.

Ghosty:

You aren’t allowing for the damnation of people by letting this issue go, since the invincibly ignorant are outside your purview entirely.

I do not understand what you are claiming about my purview. However I am allowing for damnation. I am using the word ‘can’ with respect to attaining the Beatific Vision. I have said that ‘can’ does not mean that the Beatific Vision is guaranteed and in fact I have said it several times now.

Ghosty:

It would be like worrying about the fate of souls on another planet you don’t know exists.

How so? I know that approximately 45 million unborn have died due to abortion. How can I not know that?

Ghosty:

The Church teaches that we don’t know the answer to these questions. We don’t know if the unborn receive Grace or not, we can only trust in the Mercy and Providence of God. That’s the end of the matter, really.

The Church needs to know that it is not the end of the matter for folks who are working on the front of lines of the pro-life struggle.

Ghosty:

As VociMike said, we don’t know one way or another, and the Church doesn’t say “can” or “can’t” in this case. Like the time of the Final Judgement, this is something not given to us to know.

I have already explained this. I know that we can’t know the final destination of a soul. Except in the case of Saints. But we seem to be much more certain on a scale of certainty about born people than about unborn people. That doesn’t make sense.

Ghosty:

It is part of Hell. That’s always been the understanding, and it’s what the word “Limbo” means. There’s never been a popular theory that puts Limbo outside of Hell.

Yes. Limbo is part of Hell. Hell is something that a soul chooses. How can the Church be sure that the unborn dead have chosen Hell when the Church cannot be sure of anything else concerning the unborn except that sometimes they are human.

Ghosty:

As for free will being a part of human nature, that’s true, but the exercise of that will isn’t a necessary part of being human.

I am afraid it is.

Ghosty:

Talking is part of human nature as well, but a mute is just as human as I am.

Name one human being who does not have free will please.

Ghosty:

Likewise, an infant in the womb who has never had the chance to think is equally human with me.

Free will is pre-cognitive. As John the Baptist proved in his mother’s womb.

Ghosty:

We can’t make actions the criteria for humanity.

Ghosty? Do you believe that anyone has thusfar made actions the criteria for humanity?

 

[tdgesq]

She doesn’t say they can, because that fact has not been revealed to her. But neither does she say they can’t, because neither has that been revealed to her. So she says we must trust in the mercy of God (and nobody will ever be disappointed by doing that). From the 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.

The problem here is that it appears the official index to the Latin typical edition, 1261 CCC references limbo. So it’s a little bit difficult to argue that this provision is alluding to some hoped for exception to sacramental baptism. At best it would be ambiguous.

That being said, I know of nothing that would compel the conclusion that there can’t be any exceptions to sacramental baptism for infants other than those or extensions of those that we already know exist (blood and desire). I am open to the possibility. The issue I have is this: what would this exception be, and how is it supported by Scripture, Tradition, and the teachings of the Church? I’m not necessarily asking you for an answer (unless you have some ideas ), it’s just that we do know that no one can enter the Kingdom without the grace of baptism and that without this grace one is immediately destined for hell.

Anyway, that’s part of the reason why I’m not willing to give up on the notion of limbus infantium. Given what we know, I think it’s even possible that further exceptions to sacramental baptism exist and that limbo of the children also exists.

 

[Brendan]

Then with all due respect no claim should be made about it. That is, one cannot claim that it is rare or that there are few cases.

And likewise, it would be imprudent to claim that most or many of such infants are so Graced.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

And likewise, it would be imprudent to claim that most or many of such infants are so Graced.

Brendan? Has anyone said that they are so graced?

 

[Ghosty]

Then with all due respect no claim should be made about it. That is, one cannot claim that it is rare or that there are few cases.

Which is why I don’t make claims about it.

It may be the best if you discount the possibility that it is remote material collaboration with a manifest evil (abortion).

How is it even close to being remote material collaboration with abortion? I don’t understand how simply shrugging one’s shoulders at an impenetrable mystery is remote cooperation with anything.

If you’ve explained it, I’ve missed it. Mind pointing out your explaination to me?

How so? I know that approximately 45 million unborn have died due to abortion. How can I not know that?

But you can’t know their fate in any way, shape, or form. Also, you have no power to affect their fate so far as we know, so you can’t be held accountable for anything, not even remotely.

How does this issue affect the pro-life argument? An answer might be nice to soothe the minds and hearts, but an answer isn’t possible, and it’s not needed for the pro-Life battle, IMO. There’s absolutely nothing more the Church can definitively say; it can’t make up Dogmas out of thin air.

However I am allowing for damnation. I am using the word ‘can’ with respect to attaining the Beatific Vision. I have said that ‘can’ does not mean that the Beatific Vision is guaranteed and in fact I have said it several times now.

What I meant is that nothing you are doing is allowing for the damnation of people, i.e. you aren’t causing them to be damned.

But we seem to be much more certain on a scale of certainty about born people than about unborn people. That doesn’t make sense.

Why doesn’t it make sense that we are more certain about things when we can know at least some of the factors that go into it, versus those things of which we know nothing? It seems perfectly sensible to me that we’d be more certain of the fate of those who have made choices versus those who haven’t.

Yes. Limbo is part of Hell. Hell is something that a soul chooses.

This is where your definition of Hell is a bit off. Hell is not fundamentally something the soul chooses, it’s the absence of the presence of God. For sinners it is something chosen, and this we can be sure of. We don’t know what the status is for those who have not committed personal sin, but apparently die without Grace. The Church has definitively said that those who die with Original Sin go to Hell; that is Dogma. The question is whether or not God cures Original Sin in the unborn: we don’t have any answer to this. What you won’t find is any Dogmatic teaching that says Hell is a positive choice; perhaps it is for every soul that ends up there, perhaps it isn’t.

I am afraid it is.

Then you’ve already declared the unborn as unhuman, because by definition they can’t utilize free will in any way. Same goes for much of infancy, and for those in a coma. If infants did have the use of free will, it would be illegal to Baptize them without their consent, for example. You have just ruled out a huge segment of the population by saying that use of free will is a required part of the definition of humanity.

Free will is pre-cognitive. As John the Baptist proved in his mother’s womb.

St. John the Baptist didn’t engage in any free use of the will in the womb, and there’s no reason to presume that he did. Contrary to your notion, free will is is the ability to choose what is apprehended and rationally selected, and that can’t be pre-cognitive. If it were pre-cognitive, then animals would have free will as well. I don’t see any way that free will can be pre-cognitive, but maybe you can explain it better to me.

Ghosty? Do you believe that anyone has thusfar made actions the criteria for humanity?

I believe that’s what you’re doing, because using free will is an action, and you’ve said it’s a requisite for humanity. Perhaps you can clarify your position for me.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

May apologies. I realized I didn’t respond to this post:

Does it? I honestly don’t know the theological definition of “supernatural”, I do know that in the general understanding, “supernatural” is not limited to Divine things.

Yeah, in theological terms “supernatural” means Divine. Angels aren’t supernatural, they’re natural. Supernatural can also refer to what goes beyond one’s own nature, so a rock speaking is supernatural because speaking is beyond the nature of a rock, but typically this definition isn’t used, or when it is it’s always in reference to God’s actions, i.e. miracles. That brings us back to theological definition #1 above, with supernatural being Divine.

Yes, we’re in full agreement here. But why wouldn’t “perfect natural happiness” be the most that a human being could want, could experience, if we are only natural beings? Why wouldn’t “perfect natural happiness” be synonymous with heaven? There seems to be a contradiction here.

Because the “natural happiness” isn’t the perfect happiness possible for a human, but is the perfect happiness possible from human nature. The Beatific Vision is the most perfect Happiness possible for a human, but it’s not “natural”, it’s supernatural and Divine. Humans and angels are in a high-stakes situation by virtue of our natures: we are capable of receiving Divine Happiness, and our natures are designed to receive It, but we don’t HAVE it by nature (and it’s impossible for any creature to have Divine Happiness by nature; only the Divine Persons can have Divine things by nature).

A dog can have its absolute perfect natural happiness from within the created world, but a human can’t. We can have the proportionate perfect natural happiness in the created world, i.e. comfort, good food, good music, sunsets, ect, but our natures are capable of so much more. We’re built with a God-shaped hole in our nature; we’re capable of the Infinite, but we’re not assured the Infinite. It is this very hole that makes us capable of receiving God, and being Divinely Happy, but it also means that we are not absolutely perfect in our own natures (which is why losing Grace caused the deformity of human nature in the Fall).

We’re like a balloon that loses its perfect shape when the air is let out, but it’s the fact that it is stretchy and flabby that allows it to have a “balloon” shape at all.

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

bilop:

The church recognizes some extra-sacramental means of salvation, but they are unusual, and presumably rare… Matryrdom is rare… Those invincibly ignorant souls who live a life without actual sin are surely rare… Those who desire baptism, but die before achieving it are few.

Ani Ibi:

Then with all due respect no claim should be made about it. That is, one cannot claim that it is rare or that there are few cases.

Ghosty:

Which is why I don’t make claims about it.

Ghosty? Can you see that my post was in response to bilop’s post and not to yours?

Ghosty:

How is it even close to being remote material collaboration with abortion? I don’t understand how simply shrugging one’s shoulders at an impenetrable mystery is remote cooperation with anything.

Ghosty? I have explained this now several times. We simply disagree.

Ghosty:

If you’ve explained it, I’ve missed it. Mind pointing out your explaination to me?

My explanations (plural) are scattered all over this thread. And you have responded to them, so you cannot say that you have missed them. We simply disagree, that’s all.
Ani Ibi:

I know that approximately 45 million unborn have died due to abortion. How can I not know that?

Ghosty:

But you can’t know their fate in any way, shape, or form.

On this we disagree. We cannot have certainty as to the specific fate of specific babies who die due to abortion. But we can have an idea about what is possible in a general sense for the general population of babies who die due to abortion. That idea about what is possible is formed by the Catholic doctrines of Invincible Ignorance, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood.

Ghosty:

Also, you have no power to affect their fate so far as we know, so you can’t be held accountable for anything, not even remotely.

On this we disagree. If Catholics refuse to do anything to stop the wholesale destruction of innocent lives, then Catholics are in remote material collaboration with this destruction. That is a mortal sin and we will be held accountable.

Ghosty:

How does this issue affect the pro-life argument?

I’ve already explained this several times. We simply disagree.

Ghosty:

An answer might be nice to soothe the minds and hearts, but an answer isn’t possible, and it’s not needed for the pro-Life battle, IMO.

Ghosty? If there is nothing wrong with the notion that babies who die due to abortion, then what need is there to soothe minds and hearts?

Ghosty:

Why doesn’t it make sense that we are more certain about things when we can know at least some of the factors that go into it, versus those things of which we know nothing? It seems perfectly sensible to me that we’d be more certain of the fate of those who have made choices versus those who haven’t.

We do know that unborn babies make moral choices. John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb. And it is written that he leapt for Joy. That is a choice for God and therefore it is a moral choice. He could afterall have injured his mother out of Rage. That would have been a choice against God.

Ghosty:

This is where your definition of Hell is a bit off. Hell is not fundamentally something the soul chooses, it’s the absence of the presence of God.

And people arrive in Hell because they have chosen to exist in the absence of God.

Ghosty:

The Church has definitively said that those who die with Original Sin go to Hell; that is Dogma. The question is whether or not God cures Original Sin in the unborn: we don’t have any answer to this.

If the unborn are set apart in this way – and I believe that they are not – then that is a statement that they are not human. That statement contradicts the Church’s Truth that a human being lives from conception until natural death. Truth cannot contradict truth.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ghosty:

Then you’ve already declared the unborn as unhuman, because by definition they can’t utilize free will in any way.

Ghosty? Where have I said that the unborn cannot utilize free will in any way? I believe this is a claim that you have made, not I.

Ghosty:

Same goes for much of infancy, and for those in a coma.

Are you saying that infants and comatose adults go to Limbo?

Ghosty:

If infants did have the use of free will, it would be illegal to Baptize them without their consent, for example.

The assumption is that their childlikeness, their parity with John the Baptist, naturally leads them to Jesus. Jesus says that no one will come to Heaven unless they come with a spirit of childlikeness. Are you suggesting that unborn children are not childlike?

Ghosty:

You have just ruled out a huge segment of the population by saying that use of free will is a required part of the definition of humanity.

Oh it is not just me who thinks this. The Church believes that humans are endowed with free will. See my quotes at the end of this post.

Ghosty:

St. John the Baptist didn’t engage in any free use of the will in the womb, and there’s no reason to presume that he did.

We disagree on this.

Ghosty:

Contrary to your notion, free will is is the ability to choose what is apprehended and rationally selected, and that can’t be pre-cognitive.

Then that rules out comatose patients doesn’t it? As well as the insane. Do the comatose and insane go to Limbo?

Ghosty:

If it were pre-cognitive, then animals would have free will as well.

Are animals human?

Ghosty:

I don’t see any way that free will can be pre-cognitive, but maybe you can explain it better to me.

I have already explained it. We simply disagree. Perhaps if you want to investigate this further, a new thread might help.
Ani Ibi:

Ghosty? Do you believe that anyone has thusfar made actions the criteria for humanity?

Ghosty:

I believe that’s what you’re doing, because using free will is an action, and you’ve said it’s a requisite for humanity.

Ghosty? Nothing I have said could have led anyone to believe that I am using free will as an action. My claim was that humans are endowed by God with free will. The endowment is an action – if you will – but it is God that is acting to endow, not humans.

CCC 295: “We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom.141 It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God’s free will;”

(And we are made in God’s image.)

CCC 407: “By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free.”

CCC 600: “When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace”

(And the following sums up a lot of the points I have made about free will, Heaven, Hell, the least of His, and so on)

CCC 1033 : "We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves… Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren. To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called ‘hell.’ "

If babies have no free will, then they are not human and neither abortion nor remote material collaboration with abortion are mortal sins.

end of post

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Ghosty:

We’re built with a God-shaped hole in our nature; we’re capable of the Infinite, but we’re not assured the Infinite.

At what point in our life cycle does this building of the God-shaped hole take place?

Who is ‘we’? Is this not exactly what I have been saying right throughout this thread? That we’re capable of the Beatific, but we’re not assured the Beatific Vision? Or is ‘the Infinite’ different from the ‘Beatific Vision’? Or does ‘we’ not include the unborn?

Ghosty:

It is this very hole that makes us capable of receiving God, and being Divinely Happy, but it also means that we are not absolutely perfect in our own natures (which is why losing Grace caused the deformity of human nature in the Fall).

When and for whom did Redemption for Original Sin take place?

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty? Can you see that my post was in response to bilop’s post and not to yours?

You actually quoted me, not bilop.

Ghosty? I have explained this now several times. We simply disagree.

As I said, I’ve read the thread and I haven’t seen where you explained this at all. It’s not a matter of disagreement, it’s a matter of me having NO idea what you’re talking about. How can we disagree when I don’t know what you’re saying?

Please point me to where you stated how there would be remote material cooperation with abortion. If I’ve responded to them, then they haven’t been clear. Rather than just say “I’ve explained it”, would you please consolidate your arguments and make a clear statement about how leaving this question unanswered is remote material cooperation in abortion?

We cannot have certainty as to the specific fate of specific babies who die due to abortion. But we can have an idea about what is possible in a general sense for the general population of babies who die due to abortion. That idea about what is possible is formed by the Catholic doctrines of Invincible Ignorance, Baptism of Desire, and Baptism of Blood.

Then you disagree with the Catholic Church, not with me. I’m simply telling you the straight doctrine of the Church. If you want to go beyond that, that’s your business. Just understand that what you’re putting forward is not Truth, it’s personal sentiment, and nothing you say here will make it more than that.

If Catholics refuse to do anything to stop the wholesale destruction of innocent lives, then Catholics are in remote material collaboration with this destruction. That is a mortal sin and we will be held accountable.

How are you connecting the admission that we can’t know the fate of the unborn, and that we have no power over the fate of their souls, to not fighting against abortion? These are different things that seem to be mixed up in your mind. Perhaps you can explain how they’re connected, but I certainly don’t see how my saying “I don’t know what happens to those babies” affects my opposition to the evil of abortion.

You’ve said that this affects the pro-life argument, but you haven’t clearly set out HOW it affects it. Furthermore, since the Church has been adamantly pro-life since long before there was ever talk about the unborn possibly going to Heaven, I think your premise lacks even historical grounding.

Ghosty? If there is nothing wrong with the notion that babies who die due to abortion, then what need is there to soothe minds and hearts?

I don’t see how you can think I’m saying there’s nothing wrong with babies dying from abortion. There seems to be some serious crossing of distinct wires going on.

We do know that unborn babies make moral choices. John the Baptist leapt in his mother’s womb. And it is written that he leapt for Joy. That is a choice for God and therefore it is a moral choice. He could afterall have injured his mother out of Rage. That would have been a choice against God.

Leaping for joy isn’t a moral choice, though. You can say “we disagree”, but you need to demonstrate that leaping in the womb is some kind of moral action and not simply a response if you want your argument to carry any weight. Simply saying “this is so” doesn’t make it so, and you’re more likely to turn people away by such “arguments” than convince them of a pro-life cause.

So basically, you say that leaping in the womb indicates moral choice for God. I ask that you explain how this is so, since leaping doesn’t itself indicate any act of the will (plenty of things leap with happiness that we KNOW don’t have free will, for example).

And people arrive in Hell because they have chosen to exist in the absence of God.

Some do, but not necessarily all. The Church has never said that the people in Hell had to freely choose Hell. At this point it’s irrelevant that I happen to agree with you on this point, because my own sentiment is NOT Church teaching, and that’s my point. Let’s stick with the Church’s teaching, and keep our own sentiments in their proper place.

If the unborn are set apart in this way – and I believe that they are not – then that is a statement that they are not human.

Only if you have a weak and flawed definition of humanity based on the notion that acts make a person human. The implications of such a definition, which includes making John the Baptist’s leaping a sign of his free will and therefore humanity, are extremely dangerous; this is the exact line of reasoning that many pro-abortion people use to support their cause, and it’s fundamentally flawed.

continued…

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty? Where have I said that the unborn cannot utilize free will in any way? I believe this is a claim that you have made, not I.

It’s a reading in to your definition, but it applies because free-will is by definition a cognitive action. It implies apprehrending an option and taking it; there can be no free will without apprehension, and apprehension is a cognitive act.

You’ve made the claim that there is some other kind of non-cognitive free will. I would like for you to explain this, and explain how it’s “free” without the ability to know what options are available. I fear that this is all the result of very imprecise thinking, but I’m up for being proven wrong.

Are you saying that infants and comatose adults go to Limbo?

Nope.

The rest of your post requires a more clear exposition of what exactly free will means, and can’t be addressed without that.

Peace and God bless!