Is eternal suffering pointless?

[PumpkinCookie]

Those who believe the Catholic Church teaches that unbaptised children don’t go to Heaven(!) ignore this clear statement by Jesus. Not only that. How could any rational person misinterpret His actions? Taking children in His arms, placing His hands on them and blessing them? It doesn’t make sense but they persist in their false unChristian accusations.

Right. Jesus said precisely nothing about original sin, purgatory, Limbo, or babies being doomed. Your quarrel is with Trent, Augustine, Florence, Carthage, the Baltimore Catechism, and tons of other popes, saints, miracle-workers, theologians, and doctors of the RCC.

I have always interpreted this passage to mean that only the credulous and innocent can enter the kingdom of heaven. Children will believe anything, and are uncritical and trusting. They’re also not morally guilty. Jesus would clearly be appalled at the teaching coming out of Carthage.

 

[tonyrey]

Just had a thought relevant to the controversy regarding infants. The theology of Limbo tells us that man can be perfectly happy without God. /]Think about it: if the infants are deprived of the vision of God, or experience no remorse or knowledge of the lack of God, and yet are perfectly happy, what does that say about the relationship of God and man? It says we don’t need God to be happy.

How is this substantially different from the similar tenant of secular humanism, that man’s fulfillment is reachable without any divine transcendence or interference as they might put it?

However, if the infants are eternally miserable without the knowledge of or vision of God, well what does that say? He is punishing the innocent. If the 1993 Catechism tells us that the chief punishment of hell is the absence of God’s presence (which doesn’t make sense intrinsically but I digress) then infants are subject to this chief punishment as well? Punishment for what? Just being a human being of course.

Limbo has never been a Catholic doctrine. Although St Augustine has often been accused of teaching that only adult Christians go to heaven his great admiration for Plato proves otherwise:

Who, then, but the most miserable will deny that he is blessed, who enjoys that which he loves, and loves the true and highest good? But the true and highest good, according to Plato, is God, and therefore he would call him a philosopher who loves God; for philosophy is directed to the obtaining of the blessed life, and he who loves God is blessed in the enjoyment of God.

newadvent.org/fathers/120108.htm

Obviously infants who die before they reach the age of reason cannot understand what love means but they are not penalised for their ignorance. When they die they have the opportunity to love God and there is no reason to suppose they reject His love. That is why Jesus called them blessed. In a sense they are martyrs because they have been deprived of a full life in this world but they have the advantage of not being exposed to temptation like us and cannot possibly go to Hell! They fulfil the words of Jesus:

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Matthew 5: 8

 

[tonyrey]

Right. Jesus said precisely nothing about original sin, purgatory, Limbo, or babies being doomed. Your quarrel is with Trent, Augustine, Florence, Carthage, the Baltimore Catechism, and tons of other popes, saints, miracle-workers, theologians, and doctors of the RCC.

I have always interpreted this passage to mean that only the credulous and innocent can enter the kingdom of heaven. Children will believe anything, and are uncritical and trusting. They’re also not morally guilty. Jesus would clearly be appalled at the teaching coming out of Carthage.

You have not cited any infallible doctrines of the Church to the effect that children do not go to Heaven.

NB “credulous” is pejorative, meaning “gullible” and “easily deceived”. It is not usually used to describe children because “innocent” is a more appropriate term - in keeping with Christ’s words “of such is the kingdom of Heaven”.

 

[tonyrey]

Right. Jesus said precisely nothing about original sin, purgatory, Limbo, or babies being doomed. Your quarrel is with Trent, Augustine, Florence, Carthage, the Baltimore Catechism, and tons of other popes, saints, miracle-workers, theologians, and doctors of the RCC.

I have always interpreted this passage to mean that only the credulous and innocent can enter the kingdom of heaven. Children will believe anything, and are uncritical and trusting. They’re also not morally guilty. Jesus would clearly be appalled at the teaching coming out of Carthage.

Perhaps you don’t know that the passage about infants in the Council of Carthage 419 is suspect:

(The following, says Surius, is found in this place in a very ancient codex. It does not occur in the Greek, nor in Dionysius. Bruns relegates it to a foot-note.)

Also it seemed good, that if anyone should say that the saying of the Lord, In my Father’s house are many mansions is to be understood as meaning that in the kingdom of heaven there will be a certain middle place, or some place somewhere, in which infants live in happiness who have gone forth from this life without baptism, without which they cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, which is eternal life, let him be anathema. For after our Lord has said: Unless a man be born again of water and of the Holy Spirit he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven, what Catholic can doubt that he who has not merited to be coheir with Christ shall become a sharer with the devil: for he who fails of the right hand without doubt shall receive the left hand portion.

It certainly contradicts the teaching of St Augustine.

 

[arte]

There is no evidence because no one has sinned in those circumstances.
We suffer because we are victims not criminals. No guilt is attached to the effects of original sin.
We are surrounded by evidence that we are not born in a saintly environment but in one that is dominated by selfishness and competition to which we are not immune.

We are also born into an environment that has hate, evil, love, mercy and kindness. Which one(s) is/are more dominant; selfishness, competition, hate, evil, love, mercy and kindness? I would agree that the negative emotions of selfishness, hate and evil are more dominant. I haven’t included competition because it can be both a positive and negative emotion but I agree that it has become more negative in the “win at all cost” mentality of today. Without doubt, the lack of Jesus in people’s lives does bring with it stronger negative emotions. Atheists can be moral, loving and kind to a point but they do not achieve the higher levels that Christians achieve in these emotions.

The Church doesn’t need to state the obvious. Jesus told us that those who **deliberately **fail to help others go to Hell.

It may be obvious to you but it is certainly not obvious to everyone else. There is a very large amount of confusion in this area and it is seen in the posts here and sourcing information from the web. Not sure where: “Jesus told us that those who deliberately fail to help others go to Hell” comes into babies/infants not being allowed into heaven but I firmly believe in: “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me”. Matthew 25:40.

You are overlooking baptism of desire. There is no reason why infants should reject God when they die. On the contrary** they are blessed **because through no fault of their own they have been deprived of the opportunity to live in this world. My wife had a still-born baby girl we called Maria because she had such an angelic expression on her little face. I’m quite sure she is in heaven.

I completely agree, Maria is waiting in heaven for you and your wife. I will mention baptism of desire below.

How can those be saved who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism? Those who through no fault of their own have not received the sacrament of Baptism can be saved through what is called baptism of blood or baptism of desire.* - Baltimore Catechism*

I completely agree. Whether it is “baptism of desire/blood” or “trusted to the mercy of God”, they are far more powerful than any so called infallible doctrine made by the Church.

CONTINUED BELOW

 

[arte]

Sarcasm is inappropriate on a Catholic forum where courtesy is expected…

To be precise we are not discussing history but prehistory. No one has ever recorded the first sin but we know there must have been one because our remote ancestors could not distinguish good from evil. Prior to that sin they were obviously sinless. Is it likely they all committed the first sin at the same moment? Evil entered the world at a definite point in the history of life on this planet - and that was the original sin.

If you deny that you are being totally unrealistic. And if you deny it had any effect on others you are implying that they all lived in separate worlds of their own as isolated individuals who had nothing to do with one another even within their own family. And then suddenly there was an explosion of immorality? Not a very plausible hypothesis…

I sincerely apologise for my last sentence; it is sarcasm and I should not have used it. However, the rest is perfectly acceptable because you were and still are stating a historical fact even if it is pre history because history is the study of past events, particularly in human affairs. I did not want to bring science or evolution into this debate but I feel I have to. I’m not a biologist or scientist of any sort but just interested in science in general. I told you that fully modern humans evolved about 200,000 years ago and knew the difference between right and wrong. You used this to claim that I agreed with you in that original sin is a historical fact because fully modern humans knew the difference between right and wrong. This implies that Adam and Eve must have lived prior to fully modern humans because they didn’t know the difference between right and wrong (good and evil). If this is the case, Adam and Eve lived in a time period of more primitive humans than us – not superior to us which Adam and Eve would be. This time period going back to 500,000 years ago includes Neanderthals! Now you are saying that they lived in the time of pre history. From Wikipedia: “Human prehistory is the span of time since behaviourally and anatomically modern humans (fully modern humans from 200,000 years ago – my words) first appear, and until the appearance of recorded history following the invention of writing systems”. This is the same group I referred to earlier that knew right from wrong and by your reckoning must have been after Adam and Eve. Whichever way you go Adam and Eve did not exist in history; therefore they are not a historical or prehistoric fact. Therefore original sin does not exist.

Not only are Adam and Eve not a historical or pre-historical fact, they are also not a scientific fact.
Genetic data shows no evidence of any human bottlenecks (reduced population sizes) as small as 2 people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of bottlenecks in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago.

Evil has been with us ever since the dawn of human life. It’s hard wired into us just like good and any other emotions are hardwired into us. If you deny that and the wealth of historical and scientific evidence that proves we evolved over time and could not have come from just 2 people, you are being totally unrealistic, not me.

Your position on Adam and Eve being pre-historic/historic people is at a very big stretch only a hypothesis whereas my position has a proven scientific theory and historical facts supporting it.

Are we born immune to our moral environment now? If not why not? And when did it all begin? Or has it lasted for all eternity? No one regards apes as having a conscience. If you believe they do you need to explain why they or other animals are not considered innocent or guilty. Why are human beings singled out as morally responsible?

I do not know why you have brought apes into the debate or other animals. Humans are highly advanced intelligent beings. We are so superior to animals on so many levels. We are morally responsible because our minds are far more advanced than animals. What we think about is one of the attributes that makes us far more advanced than animals.

On the contrary. No one has ever recorded the first sin but we know there must have been one because our remote ancestors could not distinguish good from evil.

Our remote ancestors were ape like creatures; hardly the kind of life forms that would fit the bill for Adam and Eve.

 

[arte]

Please cite documentary evidence with the places, dates and names of the clergy who deprived babies of Christian burials in consecrated ground.

I only checked one website and that was enough for me. It is an Irish website. As we all know, Ireland was basically a Catholic theocracy for some time with the Church having a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut into Irish society. This was borne out in the recent sexual abuse of children scandals where Irish bishops “persuaded” senior police officers to drop charges against offending Catholic priests.
irishcentral.com/opinion/others/Injustice-of-unbaptized-babies-denied-burial-echoes-between-Ireland-and-New-York.html

 

[tonyrey]

I only checked one website and that was enough for me. It is an Irish website. As we all know, Ireland was basically a Catholic theocracy for some time with the Church having a lot of (name removed by moderator)ut into Irish society. This was borne out in the recent sexual abuse of children scandals where Irish bishops “persuaded” senior police officers to drop charges against offending Catholic priests.
irishcentral.com/opinion/others/Injustice-of-unbaptized-babies-denied-burial-echoes-between-Ireland-and-New-York.html

If you could have found evidence of this custom all over the world it still wouldn’t prove it is Catholic doctrine. You have given just one example in a largely rural country where priests were sometimes too strict and zealous in their interpretation of the Gospel for reasons of which you must be unaware. Fire and brimstone used to be a common theme in sermons because people were desperately poor and men in particular used to get drunk to escape from harsh reality. The Potato Famine was one of the most terrible events in Irish history, had a profound effect on everyone and inevitably led to immorality on an unprecedented scale with many illegitimate babies who dying at birth. It is hardly surprising that some priests overreacted in a desperate attempt to control their flock and the consequences of their attitude survived until quite recently but I’m sure you won’t find that custom being practised today. It was the exception that proves the rule - unless you can produce evidence to the contrary. The onus is on you to do so; otherwise your argument collapses…

 

[tonyrey]

To be precise we are not discussing history but prehistory. No one has ever recorded the first sin but we know there must have been one because our remote ancestors could not distinguish good from evil. Prior to that sin they were obviously sinless. Is it likely they all committed the first sin at the same moment? Evil entered the world at a definite point in the history of life on this planet - and that was the original sin.

Moral evil didn’t exist until some one realised it was wrong to kill or harm another person grievously. It was like a great scientific discovery but far more important and far-reaching - and hardly surprising that it was a unique event in the history of mankind. To presume it was a widespread, simultaneous event is a preconceived opinion for which evidence is required, quite apart from the fact that it is heretical and contradicts the teaching of the Church.

Are we born immune to our moral environment now? If not why not? And when did it all begin? Or has it lasted for all eternity? No one regards apes as having a conscience. If you believe they do you need to explain why they or other animals are not considered innocent or guilty. Why are human beings singled out as morally responsible?

I do not know why you have brought apes into the debate or other animals. Humans are highly advanced intelligent beings. We are so superior to animals on so many levels. We are morally responsible because our minds are far more advanced than animals. What we think about is one of the attributes that makes us far more advanced than animals.

The issue is still the origin of morality. That is the primary criterion of whether we are human.

On the contrary. No one has ever recorded the first sin but we know there must have been one because our remote ancestors could not distinguish good from evil.
Our remote ancestors were ape like creatures; hardly the kind of life forms that would fit the bill for Adam and Eve.

The issue is still the origin of morality.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Limbo has never been a Catholic doctrine. Although St Augustine has often been accused of teaching that only adult Christians go to heaven his great admiration for Plato proves otherwise:

newadvent.org/fathers/120108.htm

Obviously infants who die before they reach the age of reason cannot understand what love means but they are not penalised for their ignorance. When they die they have the opportunity to love God and there is no reason to suppose they reject His love. That is why Jesus called them blessed. In a sense they are martyrs because they have been deprived of a full life in this world but they have the advantage of not being exposed to temptation like us and cannot possibly go to Hell! They fulfil the words of Jesus:

Matthew 5: 8

Right, Limbo was posited as a theological alternative to hell, not heaven! It has never been Catholic doctrine, you are right. But, by tearing down Limbo, you are doing nothing other than making the theological argument that unbaptized children go to hell. No main-stream or orthodox theologian from the time of the fathers through the 19th century argued that unbaptized children go to heaven. The notable exception is Peter Abelard of course, but we all know how that turned out!!

Again, the question remains: why has Rome failed to make an infallible statement regarding the eternal status of unbaptized children? They have had century upon century. If the arguments you present are so persuasive, and the conclusion so obvious: why the deafening silence? Think of all the bereaved parents down through the centuries, fearing the absolute worst! If unbaptized children actually go to heaven, then Rome is guilty of one of the most pernicious frauds in human history, striking terror into the hearts of parents who have lost children. There can be no apology sufficient for what they have done, if you are right. Rome has made infallible statements about the most inane obscurities by way of the most spurious reasoning in the past, why do they refuse to make a pronouncement now, about something (supposedly) much more obvious?

I’ll tell you why, and you can go ahead and tell me why I’m wrong: everyone knows they would be contradicting themselves. They would have to deny that those who die in original sin alone go straightaway to hell to be punished. They would be required to flatly contradict one of their own infallible councils. This contradiction would blow up RC theology. I mean, there are other contradictions as well, but this would be very clear, very obvious, and about a sensitive and disturbing subject.

 

[GodMadeMe]

Again, the question remains: why has Rome failed to make an infallible statement regarding the eternal status of unbaptized children?

Scruples?

 

[arte]

If you could have found evidence of this custom all over the world it still wouldn’t prove it is Catholic doctrine. You have given just one example in a largely rural country where priests were sometimes too strict and zealous in their interpretation of the Gospel for reasons of which you must be unaware. Fire and brimstone used to be a common theme in sermons because people were desperately poor and men in particular used to get drunk to escape from harsh reality. The Potato Famine was one of the most terrible events in Irish history, had a profound effect on everyone and inevitably led to immorality on an unprecedented scale with many illegitimate babies who dying at birth. It is hardly surprising that some priests overreacted in a desperate attempt to control their flock and the consequences of their attitude survived until quite recently but I’m sure you won’t find that custom being practised today. It was the exception that proves the rule - unless you can produce evidence to the contrary. The onus is on you to do so; otherwise your argument collapses…

I have no wish whatsoever to pursue this and** no way was I trying to prove it was Catholic doctrine. **I was merely checking out another poster’s comments because I had never heard of it before. It was also practised in England by Protestants during the Middle Ages and in some areas until the 17th century. From what I have briefly read, the only country in the British Isles that continued using this method of burial was Ireland and purely Catholics. It is not happening today. What concerns me is that you are trying to defend this disgraceful practice and treating me as if I am trying to slander the Church.

“You have given just one example in a largely rural country where priests were sometimes too strict and zealous in their interpretation of the Gospel **for reasons of which you must be unaware”. ** I actually know a lot about Irish Catholicism and the interaction between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland; **right up close and very personal. **. So close and personal that yours and their lives were very much in danger - just an index finger away from being terminated!.

 

[MarkInOregon]

The surest sign of one disinterested in the truth is the unwillingness to confront error.

If their aim is to make Catholicism look bad, what does it say that most of the text is direct quotation of popes, saints, councils, fathers, mystics, visionaries, and highly esteemed theologians?

That perhaps they are taken out of context? Would it be possible for us to go back through your posts on CAF and select a bunch of quotes from them to make it sound like you believe completely differently than you do?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[tonyrey]

If you could have found evidence of this custom all over the world it still wouldn’t prove it is Catholic doctrine. You have given just one example in a largely rural country where priests were sometimes too strict and zealous in their interpretation of the Gospel for reasons of which you must be unaware. Fire and brimstone used to be a common theme in sermons because people were desperately poor and men in particular used to get drunk to escape from harsh reality. The Potato Famine was one of the most terrible events in Irish history, had a profound effect on everyone and inevitably led to immorality on an unprecedented scale with many illegitimate babies who dying at birth. It is hardly surprising that some priests overreacted in a desperate attempt to control their flock and the consequences of their attitude survived until quite recently but I’m sure you won’t find that custom being practised today. It was the exception that proves the rule - unless you can produce evidence to the contrary. The onus is on you to do so; otherwise your argument collapses…

Why did you bring up the subject in the first place if it is not Catholic doctrine - which you been attacking throughout this thread? As for the suggestion that I am trying to defend this disgraceful practice I challenge you to quote a single statement to that effect. My explanation of their behaviour in a famine was motivated by compassion not by an attempt at justification.

 

[tonyrey]

Limbo has never been a Catholic doctrine. Although St Augustine has often been accused of teaching that only adult Christians go to heaven his great admiration for Plato proves otherwise:

newadvent.org/fathers/120108.htm

Limbo was not posited as a theological alternative to Hell by the Catholic Church but by individuals who failed to remember the words of Jesus:

People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.” And he took the children in his arms, placed his hands on them and blessed them.

Mark 10:13 -16

Again, the question remains: why has Rome failed to make an infallible statement regarding the eternal status of unbaptized children? They have had century upon century. If the arguments you present are so persuasive, and the conclusion so obvious: why the deafening silence? Think of all the bereaved parents down through the centuries, fearing the absolute worst! If unbaptized children actually go to heaven, then Rome is guilty of one of the most pernicious frauds in human history, striking terror into the hearts of parents who have lost children. There can be no apology sufficient for what they have done, if you are right. Rome has made infallible statements about the most inane obscurities by way of the most spurious reasoning in the past, why do they refuse to make a pronouncement now, about something (supposedly) much more obvious?

I’ll tell you why, and you can go ahead and tell me why I’m wrong: everyone knows they would be contradicting themselves. They would have to deny that those who die in original sin alone go straightaway to hell to be punished. They would be required to flatly contradict one of their own infallible councils. This contradiction would blow up RC theology. I mean, there are other contradictions as well, but this would be very clear, very obvious, and about a sensitive and disturbing subject.

Your elaborate hypothesis is destroyed by one simple fact. Everyone who has read the Gospels knows the example and teaching of Jesus with respect to children. They also know theological speculation is a sheer waste of time and energy when confronted with God’s infinite love and compassion. Above all they understand that original sin does not mean any of us are guilty, let alone children who haven’t reached the age of reason. People often accuse others of their own faults. You have accused the Church of failing to make an infallible statement regarding the eternal status of unbaptized children. You failed to prove that the Church proclaimed infallibly that unbaptised children go to Hell. Any unbiased person with common sense and without an axe to grind knows that infants who die before they reach the age of reason cannot understand what evil means and are not penalised for their ignorance. When they die they have the opportunity to love God and there is no reason to suppose they reject His love. That is why Jesus called them blessed. In a sense they are martyrs because they have been deprived of a full life in this world but they have the advantage of not being exposed to temptation like us and cannot possibly go to Hell. Anyone who has seen a still-born baby knows they go straight to Heaven with souls are pure as when they were created by God. There is no need to speculate about their innocence.The only reason they haven’t been canonised is that they haven’t been tempted like us and have always lived at a higher level than us as if they were in the garden of Eden. The ravages of original sin didn’t affect those who had the misfortune of dying before they were born or before they reached the age of reason for the simple reason that they didn’t know what evil is. “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.”

 

[PumpkinCookie]

That perhaps they are taken out of context? Would it be possible for us to go back through your posts on CAF and select a bunch of quotes from them to make it sound like you believe completely differently than you do?

The peace of Christ,
Mark

Sure. If you take out sentences of my posts where I quote the opposing view at length, or elaborate upon it or describe it, yes. Are you saying they are doing this to Augustine, Trent, or any of the other Popes and Saints they’ve quoted?

 

[PumpkinCookie]

Limbo was not posited as a theological alternative to Hell by the Catholic Church but by individuals who failed to remember the words of Jesus:

Mark 10:13 -16

Your elaborate hypothesis is destroyed by one simple fact. Everyone who has read the Gospels knows the example and teaching of Jesus with respect to children. They also know theological speculation is a sheer waste of time and energy when confronted with God’s infinite love and compassion. Above all they understand that original sin does not mean any of us are guilty, let alone children who haven’t reached the age of reason. People often accuse others of their own faults. You have accused the Church of failing to make an infallible statement regarding the eternal status of unbaptized children. You failed to prove that the Church proclaimed infallibly that unbaptised children go to Hell. Any unbiased person with common sense and without an axe to grind knows that infants who die before they reach the age of reason cannot understand what evil means and are not penalised for their ignorance. When they die they have the opportunity to love God and there is no reason to suppose they reject His love. That is why Jesus called them blessed. In a sense they are martyrs because they have been deprived of a full life in this world but they have the advantage of not being exposed to temptation like us and cannot possibly go to Hell. Anyone who has seen a still-born baby knows they go straight to Heaven with souls are pure as when they were created by God. There is no need to speculate about their innocence.The only reason they haven’t been canonised is that they haven’t been tempted like us and have always lived at a higher level than us as if they were in the garden of Eden. The ravages of original sin didn’t affect those who had the misfortune of dying before they were born or before they reached the age of reason for the simple reason that they didn’t know what evil is. “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.”

Ok, so if it is so obvious to “everyone who has read the Gospels” why doesn’t the Church define it once and for all, to clear up this obviously contentious misunderstanding? Why is it so ambiguous? Why did Aquinas “get it wrong?” Why did Augustine “get it wrong?” Why did the Baltimore Catechism teach it the wrong way?

If it isn’t ambiguous, why did the ITC spend half a decade producing a paper with no definite conclusion at the request of a contemporary Pope? For goodness sake, the RCC has infallibly and confidently proclaimed about all sorts of things:

theworkofgod.org/dogmas.htm

What’s so hard about this? Pope Francis could define it tomorrow, on Twitter maybe.

Why do you suppose my hypothesis is elaborate? It is really quite simple:

The RCC has painted itself into a theological corner and can’t do anything about it without 1) undermining their credibility and authority or 2) making God look evil to anyone with any humanity. By refraining from clarification, they lose their credibility only to those who choose to investigate this question (a tiny minority of people). Most people just assume the Church has always taught that babies who die without baptism go to heaven, even though there is abundant evidence to show this is false (the teaching, not the reality).

I most assuredly have an axe to grind, and I am certainly biased. However, I believe my understanding of traditional Catholic doctrine is solid. Show me one single statement of clear, ringing truth coming from a saint, pope, council, mystic, miracle-worker, or official Catechism saying that unbaptized babies go to heaven.

 

[Vico]

…
Think about it: if the infants are deprived of the vision of God, or experience no remorse or knowledge of the lack of God, and yet are perfectly happy, what does that say about the relationship of God and man? It says we don’t need God to be happy…

Not we (infants, or adults), but only unbaptized infants. And we all need God who sustains our existence, rather the Beatific Vision is the subject of loss.

 

[arte]

Why did you bring up the subject in the first place if it is not Catholic doctrine - which you been attacking throughout this thread? As for the suggestion that I am trying to defend this disgraceful practice I challenge you to quote a single statement to that effect. My explanation of their behaviour in a famine was motivated by compassion not by an attempt at justification.

I brought it up during debate with another member concerning the justification of bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians including infants in WW2 where the infants were “sucked out of their mothers’ arms and into the flames”. I was appalled that unbaptised infants could not go to heaven according to the Church’s infallible teaching. If not, where do they go – hell to be burnt? It was not meant to be used in any other "scenario”.

“The Potato Famine was one of the most terrible events in Irish history, had a profound effect on everyone and inevitably led to immorality on an unprecedented scale with many illegitimate babies who dying at birth. It is hardly surprising that some priests overreacted in a desperate attempt to control their flock and the consequences of their attitude survived until quite recently.”

If the above in bold is not trying to defend this disgraceful practice; what is?

 

[Good_Fella]

Goodness, you read so much into something that can be explained quite simply.

Actually it’s more complex and less black and white than you think.

Cain neglected to give God his best. Abel gave God his best. God favored Abel and censured Cain.

Abel humbled himself before God. Cain was too proud to humble himself. Although we have the ability to learn humility and choose to be humble by the sufficient grace of God, we are not humble by nature. Humility is a supernatural gift of grace which requires our cooperation with the Holy Spirit if we hope to ever acquire this virtue by allowing it to become a characteristic of ours. Pride entered the human race when Satan spoke to Eve and persuaded her to disobey God. And it was through her that Satan managed to convince Adam as well. Adam’s sin was the sin of pride.

The word ‘original’ can be defined as something present or existing from the beginning or earliest time. Thus Adam’s sin is personally our own insofar each of us is affected by it. And it is grave in the sense that it bars us from the Beatific Vision. This sin of pride arises within us. It is natural only in that all human nature possesses it, and it can only be removed by supernatural intervention. Because of his pride, Cain refused to listen to God and allow His influence to permeate his soul where the trouble started. Unlike Abel, he was unwilling to master his nature and humble himself with God’s help. Abel, on the other hand, had opened his soul to God and allowed Him to transform his nature which rendered his offerings acceptable to Him. Abel gave God his best in collaboration with God.

God said to His chosen people: “At that time I will gather you; at that time I will bring you home. I will give you honor and praise among all the peoples of the earth when I restore your fortunes before your very eyes" (Zeph. 3:20). With regard to our natural state, we can say that without God’s help we cannot lead the good life that is needed for our salvation. By original sin human nature is wounded in its natural powers and is inclined to evil, though not totally corrupt. Our freedom from the slavery of sin can never be accomplished by the exercise of our free will alone. Whenever we fall from grace, it is God who ultimately restores the soul’s fortunes through the actual graces He imparts to us so that we can realign our will with His. It is by our natural tendency to reject God out of pride and an inordinate self-love that we may become enslaved to sin and place ourselves in the bondage of our disordered passions. God allowed His people to be taken captive whenever they rejected and gravely offended Him by erecting idols in His place.

Pride is the original sin. It is something that was not created by God, but arose out of a vacuum both within Lucifer and Adam as autonomous beings. Isaiah 14:13 voices what Adam and Eve felt, not unlike Lucifer, when they chose to disobey and reject God: ‘I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, … I will be like the Most High.’ God rejected Cain’s offerings because of his pride. Unlike Abel, he regarded himself equal to God, which explains why he refused to acknowledge his guilt for having offended God when he presented his offerings. Whatever actual sins he may have committed in the past he felt justified in committing them. He chose to be a law unto himself. Thus God rejected his offerings because they weren’t made out of love for God. He would have approached God with a humble and contrite heart if he loved Him and acknowledged his dependence on God as an imperfect creature of His instead of exalting himself.

Pride is the original sin that imbrues our nature and is the source of all the actual sins we commit. In this state man is deprived of the original justice and holiness. I’m afraid it isn’t simply a matter of poor judgment and an abuse of our free will when we sin against God. The root of the problem lies within the recesses of our soul in its union with the body. Man is a composite being. Unless the Holy Spirit dwells in our soul, it remains unsanctified.

***Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. ***
Proverbs 16, 18

Cain envied and hated his brother, then killed him. God punished Cain, because Cain had the power to do otherwise.

God punished Cain for having proudly felt justified in hating and envying Abel. His disordered passions became so intense that he eventually murdered his brother. Yet he had already slain him in his heart before he actually murdered him. The gates of Heaven would have remained closed to Cain if he had died in this proud and passionate state without even having physically murdered Abel.

PAX
:heaven: