Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos?

[clusterym]

I came across this article and it’s really troubling to me… does God really allow 60-80% of humans to never even be born? What’s the point?

“John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President’s Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women’s normal menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we’re talking about. The women and their husbands or partners never even know that conception has taken place; the embryos disappear from their wombs in their menstrual flows. In fact, according to Opitz, embryologists estimate that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for seven days or more is 60 percent. The total rate of natural loss of human embryos increases to at least 80 percent if one counts from the moment of conception. About half of the embryos lost are abnormal, but half are not, and had they implanted they would probably have developed into healthy babies”

It’s an article that is attempting to support embryonic stem cell research by attacking the claim that embryos have souls.

here’s the entire article: reason.com/archives/2004/12/22/is-heaven-populated-chiefly-by

 

[KendraDZ1902]

I have also heard/learned that it is a very large amount of embroys that go unnoticed.

 

[twf]

I believe we must accept that each of these embryos do in fact have souls. What is God’s plan for these souls? Why does He allow so many to perish? I struggle with this as well and don’t have an answer.

 

[petra22]

I have also heard/learned that it is a very large amount of embroys that go unnoticed.

 

[Convert_in_99]

I came across this article and it’s really troubling to me… does God really allow 60-80% of humans to never even be born? What’s the point?

“John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President’s Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women’s normal menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we’re talking about. The women and their husbands or partners never even know that conception has taken place; the embryos disappear from their wombs in their menstrual flows. In fact, according to Opitz, embryologists estimate that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for seven days or more is 60 percent. The total rate of natural loss of human embryos increases to at least 80 percent if one counts from the moment of conception. About half of the embryos lost are abnormal, but half are not, and had they implanted they would probably have developed into healthy babies”

It’s an article that is attempting to support embryonic stem cell research by attacking the claim that embryos have souls.

here’s the entire article: reason.com/archives/2004/12/22/is-heaven-populated-chiefly-by

Between very early miscarriage (often goes completely unnoticed), known miscarriages, artificial reproduction, and abortion I’d say that number is a good guess if not possibly higher still.

 

[John_of_Woking]

I suppose this must be filed next to 'Why Does God allow suffering?.." No easy Answers

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I came across this article and it’s really troubling to me… does God really allow 60-80% of humans to never even be born? What’s the point?

“John Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President’s Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women’s normal menstrual flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we’re talking about. The women and their husbands or partners never even know that conception has taken place; the embryos disappear from their wombs in their menstrual flows. In fact, according to Opitz, embryologists estimate that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for seven days or more is 60 percent. The total rate of natural loss of human embryos increases to at least 80 percent if one counts from the moment of conception. About half of the embryos lost are abnormal, but half are not, and had they implanted they would probably have developed into healthy babies”

It’s an article that is attempting to support embryonic stem cell research by attacking the claim that embryos have souls.

here’s the entire article: reason.com/archives/2004/12/22/is-heaven-populated-chiefly-by

The Catholic Church does not teach that unbaptized souls go to heaven. Nor does it teach they are destined to hell. She does however teach that we may HOPE. I am not sure what that means exactly other than we cannot say that these babies go to heaven or hell…

 

[Convert_in_99]

The Catholic Church does not teach that unbaptized souls go to heaven. Nor does it teach they are destined to hell. She does however teach that we may HOPE. I am not sure what that means exactly other than we cannot say that these babies go to heaven or hell…

My deacon friend said that baptism of desire works for these infants. If the parents desired they be baptized and raised catholic then that desire covers them as it would a catechumen who died before his baptism at Easter vigil. Again it’s not guaranteed but it gives much much hope!

 

[underacloud]

My deacon friend said that baptism of desire works for these infants. If the parents desired they be baptized and raised catholic then that desire covers them as it would a catechumen who died before his baptism at Easter vigil. Again it’s not guaranteed but it gives much much hope!

Your deacon friend no doubt means well, but no, baptism of desire does not work from a third party perspective.

As the Church teaches, we “can only entrust them to the mercy of God”.

As to how many such infants die in this way, we can speculate but not really know. Even if a great number of zygotes/embryos are “flushed out” unnoticed, we do not know with certainty that God made a soul in each or any case. The Church has no firm teaching on ensoulment and perhaps God does not create souls for many of these? The Church teaches that we must protect human life from the moment of conceptiion, but does not directly teach that the moment of conception is neccessarily a case of ensoulment in each and every case.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My deacon friend said that baptism of desire works for these infants. If the parents desired they be baptized and raised catholic then that desire covers them as it would a catechumen who died before his baptism at Easter vigil. Again it’s not guaranteed but it gives much much hope!

Where is that in Church teaching? I have never heard of baptism of desire being referred to as the parents desiring it…
From the CCC

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Baptism of desire is being addressed as a catechumen desiring it. Not another person.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Your deacon friend no doubt means well, but no, baptism of desire does not work from a third party perspective.

As the Church teaches, we “can only entrust them to the mercy of God”.

As to how many such infants die in this way, we can speculate but not really know. Even if a great number of zygotes/embryos are “flushed out” unnoticed, we do not know with certainty that God made a soul in each or any case. The Church has no firm teaching on ensoulment and perhaps God does not create souls for many of these? The Church teaches that we must protect human life from the moment of conceptiion, but does not directly teach that the moment of conception is neccessarily a case of ensoulment in each and every case.

Where is that in Church teaching? I have never heard of baptism of desire being referred to as the parents desiring it…
From the CCC

Baptism of desire is being addressed as a catechumen desiring it. Not another person.

Why not, it’s just as logical as speculating these innocent creatures could possibly be in hell! They did not get a chance to choose in the first place?!?! That’s like insinuating that an unbaptized special needs individual could wind up there, they do not have the ability to choose. God gives free will. They can’t help it they are incapable of using it. The church says hell is FREELY chosen by an individual, they lack that freedom so they can’t freely choose hell.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Why not, it’s just as logical as speculating these innocent creatures could possibly be in hell! They did not get a chance to choose in the first place?!?! That’s like insinuating that an unbaptized special needs individual could wind up there, they do not have the ability to choose. God gives free will. They can’t help it they are incapable of using it. The church says hell is FREELY chosen by an individual, they lack that freedom so they can’t freely choose hell.

I’m not sure what you are saying. No one here has said anything about anyone being in hell. But you are out of the bounds of Catholic Theology and so therefore your opinion is only that. We do not know the fate of the souls of the unbaptized. We do know that baptism of desire is available to those who through no fault of their own have been prevented baptism.

Now the Church nicely theorized about limbo which is not an official teaching of the faith but makes the most sense theologically still today. What do you believe of the souls who lived before baptism?

 

[underacloud]

Why not, it’s just as logical as speculating these innocent creatures could possibly be in hell! They did not get a chance to choose in the first place?!?! That’s like insinuating that an unbaptized special needs individual could wind up there, they do not have the ability to choose. God gives free will. They can’t help it they are incapable of using it. The church says hell is FREELY chosen by an individual, they lack that freedom so they can’t freely choose hell.

Please note that it is not at all my belief that such babies go to hell. But we do not know. God has not revealed to us what happens.

But I think what I can rule out is that some unbaptised babies go to heaven because their parents are Catholic, while other unbaptised babies go to hell because their parents aren’t. Your argument above - about freely chosing hell - surely covers all unbaptised babies?

 

[Convert_in_99]

We do know that baptism of desire is available to those who through no fault of their own have been prevented baptism.

They have no fault they were unable to choose. Like you say here.

Now the Church nicely theorized about limbo which is not an official teaching of the faith but makes the most sense theologically still today. What do you believe of the souls who lived before baptism?

The Bible refers to Abraham, Elijah and Moses at least being in heaven. I presume there are at least a few more. Also they made their choice by living the best most moral life they could with the limited Jewish revelation they had. Same with a pagan today who leads the best life as his conscience reveals to him.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Please note that it is not at all my belief that such babies go to hell. But we do not know. God has not revealed to us what happens.

But I think what I can rule out is that some unbaptised babies go to heaven because their parents are Catholic, while other unbaptised babies go to hell because their parents aren’t. Your argument above - about freely chosing hell - surely covers all unbaptised babies?

Of course!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

They have no fault they were unable to choose. Like you say here.

The Bible refers to Abraham, Elijah and Moses at least being in heaven. I presume there are at least a few more. Also they made their choice by living the best most moral life they could with the limited Jewish revelation they had. Same with a pagan today who leads the best life as his conscience reveals to him.

Jimmy Akin just addressed this a day or two ago!
catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/yes-enoch-and-elijah-went-to-heaven

You are making a few mistakes but I am not sure what it is you are arguing? You are completely ignoring the concept of Original Sin. And Catholic Teaching on it. If the Church revealed that baptism was unnecessary or that we could do as the mormons and baptize by proxy then the CCC would have addressed it. Can an unbaptized baby go to heaven. Sure God can do anything he wishes. And that is between Him and the soul in front of Him. Do all unbaptized babies go to heaven? I would say that is very unlikely. The Church has given us the hope in a God who is merciful and just, so whatever the outcome heaven, hell, limbo or some other answer, you can be assured that it is the Holiest of situations. The Church does not canonize the unborn and especially does not canonize the unbaptized after the sacrament was instituted. I have to believe that it is for a reason that She does not do this. And I doubt very much if that reason is to bring pain to parents who have lost children. We teach that baptism saves… There is one HUGE mistake in the line of thinking that would send all babies to heaven. They would need no Masses or prayers of those of us on earth. And we should pray for the dead. ESPECIALLY the unbaptized, because those actions can indeed help souls attain heaven. This, I believe is the main reason the Chuch refers to a HOPE of salvation for unbaptized.

God does not OWE salvation to anyone. You or I or a baby. He is God, far be it from me to tell him what is merciful and what is not…

 

[Convert_in_99]

Jimmy Akin just addressed this a day or two ago!
catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/yes-enoch-and-elijah-went-to-heaven

You are making a few mistakes but I am not sure what it is you are arguing? You are completely ignoring the concept of Original Sin. And Catholic Teaching on it. If the Church revealed that baptism was unnecessary or that we could do as the mormons and baptize by proxy then the CCC would have addressed it. Can an unbaptized baby go to heaven. Sure God can do anything he wishes. And that is between Him and the soul in front of Him. Do all unbaptized babies go to heaven? I would say that is very unlikely. The Church has given us the hope in a God who is merciful and just, so whatever the outcome heaven, hell, limbo or some other answer, you can be assured that it is the Holiest of situations. The Church does not canonize the unborn and especially does not canonize the unbaptized after the sacrament was instituted. I have to believe that it is for a reason that She does not do this. And I doubt very much if that reason is to bring pain to parents who have lost children. We teach that baptism saves… There is one HUGE mistake in the line of thinking that would send all babies to heaven. They would need no Masses or prayers of those of us on earth. And we should pray for the dead. ESPECIALLY the unbaptized, because those actions can indeed help souls attain heaven. This, I believe is the main reason the Chuch refers to a HOPE of salvation for unbaptized.

God does not OWE salvation to anyone. You or I or a baby. He is God, far be it from me to tell him what is merciful and what is not…

What about the FEAST day of the holy innocents? They weren’t baptized. The church has a whole feast day just for them!

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

What about the FEAST day of the holy innocents? They weren’t baptized. The church has a whole feast day just for them!

You are right. They weren’t. Because no one was at that time. Baptism had not been instituted as a saving sacrament yet. In fact no one had been saved yet… I think you are a little confused about baptism and what it is. John had a baptism called "the baptism of John, It was not until the birth of a Church to baptize all nations that it was even a requirement for salvation. The Jews baptized as well. But that again is not the sacrament. Your timeline for the Holy innocents would be BEFORE the baptism of salvation…

The baptisms of the Jews, the baptism of John etc. did not wash away original sin. How do you account for original sin and the gates of heaven being opened by the blood of Christ?

If it is not necessary for infants or innocents why do we have infant baptism?

Once baptism was instituted and once Christ DESCENDED to the dead it becomes the single saving grace. That is the teaching of the Church for 2000 years, that is the teaching today. You have been cited articles and even the CCC. What do you have to prove baptism is not necessary for salvation?

Some things you may want to study.

Baptism of Desire
Baptism of blood.
Baptism being necessary
Types of Baptisms
And Original Sin.

 

[Convert_in_99]

I am not confused. All I have left to say for fear of being unkind, is that I sure as heck rather be an unbaptized holy innocent before God then a baptized poor sinner under the same scrutiny that you insinuate these holy innocents are judged by.

 

[JimG]

I always wonder about the methodology here.

If 60% of conceived embryos are flushed out unnoticed, how does he know about them? Has some researcher followed a large number of women for a period of time, analyzing menstrual flows every single month for flushed embryos? I have never seen this kind of evidence.