If life begins at conception

[Roseeurekacross]

I see Mary as a huge exception to the born / unborn original sin rule, as I do Jesus. Jesus was baptised though, but that was as an example to us, because Jesus didnt need to be washed of Original Sin.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The “born” idea, with Mary as an exception, would be a way to solve this, but unfortunately this isn’t really consistent with theological teaching. This question is similar to the problem of infants who die natural deaths in the womb or who are born dead or otherwise die without being baptized. The Church used to solve this by saying they all go to Limbo, but that’s completely unsupported by scripture, and seems inconsistent with God’s nature that he would send babies, who have no control over whether they live or die and are not capable of committing an actual sin, to a place other than heaven.

I am not sure if the apologist already posted this as I didn’t see the original response post, but under Pope Benedict this issue was studied and the conclusion was that we can have prayerful hope that babies, including those who die in the womb naturally, those who are aborted, and those who die shortly after birth but unbaptized, go to heaven. The belief that life begins at conception is firmly entrenched. Baptism of an infant, according to the International Theological Commission, would seem to be a way of removing all doubt about the baby’s status in case of death, as well as conveying other spiritual graces.

The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die without Being Baptized, by International Theological Commission

 

[promethian_rule]

The Church used to solve this by saying they all go to Limbo

No, the church did not solve this by saying anything. It was a theological supposition which became popular enough that it ended up being a commonly held belief in the West, but the church never formally declared any dogma regarding the salvation of infants in the womb (or unbaptized babies). In fact, the church still has no formal teaching on this matter, and thus we can only entrust these children to God.

 

[Benadam]

If Jesus believed that individual human life began at conception, and he believed that infant baptism was necessary, or even important, he would obviously have instituted a sacrament of baptism that could be administered to zygotes, embryos and foetuses.

I think Jesus believed life starts at conception, and that infant baptism is a great good. I think Jesus didn’t really want us to concern ourselves over the salvation of unborn children or else He would have inspired that concern at the outset. He didn’t nor did the Apostles.

I t seems to me that whatever happens to them it is good and just. That’s alot of souls entering eternity without personal sin. They could have some unknown role in salvation.God is pretty good at that kind of thing. I know that if their state of life is ever revealed to me, it will be way more just and good than I could have ever imagined.

Since it is something out of our control, it is fitting to trust the matter to God. Trust that in the end, what happens to the unborn in eternity will be very just and good.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

No, the church did not solve this by saying anything. It was a theological supposition which became popular enough that it ended up being a commonly held belief in the West, but the church never formally declared any dogma regarding the salvation of infants in the womb (or unbaptized babies). In fact, the church still has no formal teaching on this matter, and thus we can only entrust these children to God.

You are correct, I made an error there in attributing this to the Church. The Church simply allowed it to be taught in the West without interference. From the link I posted above:

Papal interventions during this period, then, protected the freedom of the Catholic schools to wrestle with this question. They did not endorse the theory of limbo as a doctrine of faith. Limbo, however, was the common Catholic teaching until the mid-20th century.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Since it is something out of our control, it is fitting to trust the matter to God. Trust that in the end, what happens to the unborn in eternity will be very just and good.

We have to accept at some points the limits of our human reason when dealing with matters concerning God and eternity, including this matter. Somebody may come up with a brilliant theological solution in 100 years or 1000 years, or we may never be able to arrive at one. We’re not going to be able to logically explain everything, ever, so this is where faith and hope have to come in.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Its complicated…

 

[FiveLinden]

But this applies to children who are born, but not yet capable of sin. The Church baptises them. I can’t see anything deep and mysterious here. The most simple explanation is that the Church at the outset, and for centuries, did not consider zygotes, embryos and foetuses to be ‘children’ in the same sense as born children. I don’t know of any early belief about them going to heaven. Am I wrong?

 

[Benadam]

The Church has always been against abortion. Believing the gospel accounts describing the Annunciation and the Incarnation, not to mention the response of John the Baptist in the womb to Jesus in the womb made christians well equipped to dignify human life in the womb.

As for there being no early belief of unborn children who died going to heaven. That’s because the Church has always recognized the obstacle of original sin.

 

[CommonSense1]

I will be very clear at the start this is my explanation of why life begins at conception.
Once again I use the King James Bible translations for my responses because I am usually addressing a non-Catholic Christian and so not to cause confusion I will use their version of the Bible to prove my Catholic Faith point. I also include Biblical passages because many non-Catholic Christian will only believe something only if it states in the Bible.
Why should a person not interfere with life at conception you should review four different Biblical passages.
First, Genesis 1: 26-27 and the birth of man.

26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

In Genesis 1: 26 God thought about man then in Genesis 1: 27 God Created man male and female. This demonstrates that God had a plan for a birth before the actual birth each human being.

Next review the announcement of the birth of Isaac to Abraham and Sarah in Genesis 18: 9-15.

9And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent.
10And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son. And Sarah heard it in the tent door, which was behind him.
11Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.
12Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?
13And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?
14Is anything too hard for the LORD? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.
15Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.

It is clear, do not doubt that God can do anything even if a person does not think a birth is possible, and to God once again has a plan and do not laugh or think about interfering with the plan. Sarah laughed at the thought of having a child but did not actually verbalize that doubt in words.

 

[CommonSense1]

Next, review the announcement of John the Baptist birth in Luke 1:5-25.

5There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
7And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.
8And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest’s office before God in the order of his course,
9According to the custom of the priest’s office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
10And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
11And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
12And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
13But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
14And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.
16And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.
17And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
18And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.
19And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to shew thee these glad tidings.
20And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.
21And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple.
22And when he came out, he could not speak unto them: and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple: for he beckoned unto them, and remained speechless.
23And it came to pass, that, as soon as the days of his ministration were accomplished, he departed to his own house.
24And after those days his wife Elisabeth conceived, and hid herself five months, saying,
25Thus hath the Lord dealt with me in the days wherein he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.

Now Zacharias actually verbalized in Luke 1: 18 “Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.” This demonstrates that Zarcharias was taking a more active part in stopping or thinking that the birth could not take place and he was punished by the angel Gabriel in Luke 1: 20 “behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.”

 

[CommonSense1]

The final Biblical passage to review is Genesis 38:1-10

1And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name wasHirah.
2And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her.
3And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er.
4And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she called his name Onan.
5And she yet again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bare him.
6And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar.
7And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him.
8And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother.
9And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
10And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

In Genesis 38:8 Onan was advised of his duty and obligation to father a child for his brother. Onan did not want a child that was not his so it committed a physical act to stop that birth because of this drastic act God became angry and struck Onan down.

Now if a people want to go even one step further and say it is ok to terminate even a group of cells, but the Bible shows to think about not having a birth is wrong, to say a birth is not possible is wrong and not to complete the sexual act can result in death, but it is ok to have the act then destroy the result of that act is not even reasonable.

Now I also do not want to offend anyone but Onan was with a woman when he committed this act he was not by himself committing an impure action. When someone commits and impure action it is sinful but it does not rise to the level of Onan act because there is no way a baby can be conceived in a singular act alone. It can also be compared to thinking about the act and even talking about not having a birth. The singular impure act committed alone does not rise to a mortal sin because it is impossible for a birth to be stopped or terminated.

Now, this will also lead to someone saying then is it ok for two men or two women to have sex since it cannot lead to having a child. My answer once again is no and I can give use Sodom and Gomorrah as my example but that will take too long and does not deal with the subject of life at conception. I will also wait a little while before I give my reasons to why Catholics baptize after birth and not wait until a person decides on their own.

 

[Elf01]

In Genesis 38:8 Onan was advised of his duty and obligation to father a child for his brother. Onan did not want a child that was not his so it committed a physical act to stop that birth because of this drastic act God became angry and struck Onan down.

A refutation of this may be that Onan was also lying to Tamar. Not simply not fulfilling his duty which does have a punishment prescribed. Even then that may not have been at the time. I do not think this works as an argument against contraception.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Don’t be so rigid. The fate of everyone regardless of the sacraments rest with God.

 

[anna]

I delivered a still born child… I asked the priest at the hospital to anoint my child, which he did. I had every intention of having my child baptized after she was born.The church use to teach that babies who died before they were baptized went to limbo,now they teaches they are in God’s loving care. There was never any doubt in my mind.

 

[De_Maria]

Yup, this is a biggie.

Neh.

The Catholic positions on baptism and the beginning of individual life are not compatible.

Indeed they are compatible and just because you can’t understand it doesn’t mean that it is wrong.

If Jesus believed that individual human life began at conception,

He did and therefore He Teaches this fact through His Church.

and he believed that infant baptism was necessary, or even important,

He does an therefore Teaches this fact, through His Church.

he would obviously have instituted a sacrament of baptism that could be administered to zygotes, embryos and foetuses. He did not. And neither did the Church, despite for many years believing that unbaptised infants went to hell, or, later, limbo.

Non sequitur based on several errors.

1. the idea that unbaptized infants went to hell has never been taught in the Catholic Church.
2. the idea of limbo for unbaptized infants has never been an official Doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Both of the above have been widely accepted errors taught by segments of Catholics for many centuries, but like Arianism, which was a widely held heresy in the ancient Church, they never made into the official Doctrines.

1. The fact that zygotes, fetuses and otherwise unborn children have no danger of being condemned to hell is proof of the Catholic Doctrine that infants must be baptized after they are born to protect remove original sin and protect against the sins that they are sure to commit once they come to the age of reason.

Modern Catholic apologists are unable to address the illogicalities of this one,

Consider the illogicality of your claim addressed and debunked.

and resort to saying that God’s mercy is without limit.

It is.

If so, why bother with infant baptism at all?

1. To wash away Original Sin.
2. To pour in the sanctifying grace of Jesus Christ which:
   a. renews and remakes the child in the image of Jesus Christ.
   b. makes one a child of God
   c. gives one the grace of priest, prophet and king.
   d. marks one with the sign of the Holy Spirit.
   e. makes one a participant in the life of Christ.

What else? Maybe some other Catholics can add to the list.

Anyway, go back to the drawing board.

 

[De_Maria]

But this applies to children who are born, but not yet capable of sin. The Church baptises them. I can’t see anything deep and mysterious here. The most simple explanation is that the Church at the outset, and for centuries, did not consider zygotes, embryos and foetuses to be ‘children’ in the same sense as born children. I don’t know of any early belief about them going to heaven. Am I wrong?

Yes.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Tertullian, for example, recommended delaying Baptism until the age of reason, because the child, having not committed any sins, did not need it.

St. Ambrose explains that original sin is rather an inclination to evil than guilt in the strict sense, and that it need occasion no fear at the day of judgement;

and the Ambrosiaster teaches that the “second death,” which means condemnation to the hell of torment of the damned, is not incurred by Adam’s sin, but by our own.

This was undoubtedly the general tradition before St. Augustine’s time.

St. Augustine, is of course, the author of the erroneous doctrine of the limbo for unbaptized infants.

St. Augustine’s doctrine was accepted by many, you could say even most, Catholics. But the Catholic Church itself, never adopted the teaching. And there were always many Catholics who denied the teaching. Not to mention the fact that the Sensus Fidelis, that is to say, the Catholic people at large, never did get a stomach for that cold blooded doctrine.

So, there you go.

 

[Vico]

St. Augustine, is of course, the author of the erroneous doctrine of the limbo for unbaptized infants.

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION - THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED

16 In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell.

20 So great was Augustine’s authority in the West, however, that the Latin Fathers (e.g., Jerome, Fulgentius, Avitus of Vienne, and Gregory the Great) did adopt his opinion.

41 Therefore, besides the theory of Limbo (which remains a possible theological opinion), there can be other ways to integrate and safeguard the principles of the faith grounded in Scripture: the creation of the human being in Christ and his vocation to communion with God; the universal salvific will of God; the transmission and the consequences of original sin; the necessity of grace in order to enter into the Kingdom of God and attain the vision of God; the uniqueness and universality of the saving mediation of Christ Jesus; and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

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

 

[adamhovey1988]

Let me make a correction to this post, “since life begins at conception”.

 

[De_Maria]

Not really sure what you’re trying to say, but Limbo is an error. The Catholic Church Teaches dogmatically that there are only two eternal destinies. Heaven and Hell. No limbo.

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification594 or immediately,595 – or immediate and everlasting damnation.596