moral dilema

[ALFREDENEUMAN]

a fetus or an embryo aborted is not very likely to baptized. accordint o church teachings, the soulf of this human, because it is loaded with original sin cannot go to heaven,. wj=hile a little murky about it the church ha given us two alternatives about where the sould does go
earliest in its history there was no question that the baby’s souls went to hell. the bodies were not allowed to be buried in sacred ground.
of late (sine about 1600) the church has said something abouta limbo as being where their souls go. this has been dscribed as a place of eternal sadness and punishment especially in the sense that these souls are not in the prsence of god.

the abortionist, the person who has the abortion and anyone who encourages the wqoman to have an abortion is guilty of an venal sin ab=nd , the fires of an eternal hell. Unless at some thie in his life one of the aboce truly repents, receives confession, does penance and stays a true and faithful catholic until he dies. in this case the abortionist, the woman who has the abortion, etc, will enter the kingdom of god
, finding peace and happiness for all eternity.

have i got it right?

 

[jprioli]

have i got it right?

Not entirely.

Baptism is normatively necessary to enter heaven, but sacramental baptism is not absolutely necessary. Consider the Old Testament prophets… there is not reason to think that they were sacramentally baptized, and yet there is good reason to think that they (at least mainly) are in heaven. (cf. Matt 17: 1-9, et al.)

Burial in sacred ground was regarded as a relative right for “card carrying Catholics.” That is, much like getting a driving license in the U.S… it is something that you are pretty much entitled to get and keep, so long as you comply with some minimal requirements. Yet even this relative right is described by most states as a “privilege.”

So let’s just remove that from the question.

Theologians in the Middle Ages sought to understand the importance of Baptism in the Christian Life in light of the mercy of God. Proceeding from the idea that Baptism be absolutely necessary to salvation, they came up with the idea of “Limbo.”

Actually, they had a pretty good warrant for this, because there was a precedent in the *Limbus Patrum *-- the “Limbo of the Fathers” – the place where the righteous went until heaven was reopened by Christ. Scripture speaks of Jesus preaching to the souls “in prison.” (First Peter 3:19)

So theologians came up with the idea of the Limbus puerorum – the Limbo of the Infants – where unbaptized children would end up. It was thought that they couldn’t enter the Divine Presence without Baptism, but at the same time a Just God would not consign them to the torments of the Hell of the Damned when they never committed a personal sin. Thus the theologians imagined a place of merely natural happiness (entirely absent the supernatural happiness of heaven) where such infants would spend eternity. This was not a place of torment, but a blissful existence, albeit one separated from God.

This idea of the Limbo of the Infants was never dogmatically taught by the Church. It has never been other than a theological speculation. Some people in earlier times may have thought it a probable speculation, meaning probably true. But in more recent times the problems with the idea of Limbo have become more and more evident.

For example, we understand that the chief pain of hell is separation from God. But those in Limbo (were it to exist) would be separated from God.

Furthermore, the Church has always recognized that Sacramental Baptism is not absolutely, but only normatively, necessary for salvation. From the beginning, it was recognized, for example, that Catechumens could enter heaven.

Catholics are still free to think that Limbo is a probable speculation, but they are also free to think it improbable. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that we have reason to hope that God will provide a means for unbaptized infants to enter heaven.

I hope this helps.

Regards,
Joe

 

[ALFREDENEUMAN]

in short, one way or the other , these infants are punished (lack of proper reward is punishment). for something they had no control over.

sacrament al baptism. this is something the church uses to “fudeg” when they cant come up weith and answer they are afraid woulf offen so many people that they cant affiord to use it. it is a strong assumption to suggest that most aborted afetuses have been baptized. what difference does it make to my dilema. im talking about the ones who havent been.
sacramaental baprisia=sm is a concept which is not found in any catechisn=m of the catholis church,. its a f iction. and i believe you are aware of it. are we going to go th way of the Mormans and allow baptism of the dead. isnt this what you are advocating by referring to the baptism of the old testament prophets?
if you wish tro discuss this wuth nme i am operfectly happy to do so, but do not thhrow fiction at me and expect me to buy it. you may get one by me once in awhile but in know enough to catch most of them.
were unbaptized babies forbaiideen to be buried in hallowed ground or not? its a very simple question with a very simple answer. your explanation might , of necessity, be long an complesx. i dont know. but the answer to the question is a simple yes or no… i know of at least one very good Catholic who left the church after 80 years because soemone she knew was denied buriel in unhappowed groum]nd, so it is not a throwaway question. to a true believer who has to face the issue it can be terribly important, in that case importantr enough to risk her entire life and soull because of it., a simple yes or no will suffice with any kind iof explanation you feel necessy.
im afraid that what you are trying to do uis what the church has tried to do for centuries. obfuscate an answer when you cant let people know what the real answer is. didngt have to worry too nuch about this when we were the only store in town but its been a littel differen the last 600 years or so. more if you wish., i typwe with two fingers and they get tired.

 

[ALFREDENEUMAN]

limbo ids a place not of heaven, but of natural happiness ( this is a relatively new concept of what limbo is. augustins taught the unbaptized peiople of necessity had tro suffer the torture os hell.,. given the nature of man and original sin it counld not be otherwis. if lkimbo is a place of non reward, because of the absence of the presence , of god, whats left for hell sincde modrn theologians have pretty much wiped out the idea of hellfire and brimstone. hell is the complet absence of god for all eternity. how does uit differ from Limbo?

 

[thistle]

in short, one way or the other , these infants are punished (lack of proper reward is punishment). for something they had no control over.

sacrament al baptism. this is something the church uses to “fudeg” when they cant come up weith and answer they are afraid woulf offen so many people that they cant affiord to use it. it is a strong assumption to suggest that most aborted afetuses have been baptized. what difference does it make to my dilema. im talking about the ones who havent been.
sacramaental baprisia=sm is a concept which is not found in any catechisn=m of the catholis church,. its a f iction. and i believe you are aware of it. are we going to go th way of the Mormans and allow baptism of the dead. isnt this what you are advocating by referring to the baptism of the old testament prophets?
if you wish tro discuss this wuth nme i am operfectly happy to do so, but do not thhrow fiction at me and expect me to buy it. you may get one by me once in awhile but in know enough to catch most of them.
were unbaptized babies forbaiideen to be buried in hallowed ground or not? its a very simple question with a very simple answer. your explanation might , of necessity, be long an complesx. i dont know. but the answer to the question is a simple yes or no… i know of at least one very good Catholic who left the church after 80 years because soemone she knew was denied buriel in unhappowed groum][nd, so it is not a throwaway question. to a true believer who has to face the issue it can be terribly important, in that case importantr enough to risk her entire life and soull because of it., a simple yes or no will suffice with any kind iof explanation you feel necessy.
im afraid that what you are trying to do uis what the church has tried to do for centuries. obfuscate an answer when you cant let people know what the real answer is. didngt have to worry too nuch about this when we were the only store in town but its been a littel differen the last 600 years or so. more if you wish., i typwe with two fingers and they get tired.

Below is the Church teaching on children who have died without being baptised. So to answer your question: no they are not punished and yes they are allowed burial in hallowed ground.

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. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
[/quote]

 

[ALFREDENEUMAN]

you are obfuascating again.,. it is true that NOW cunbaptized childre are buried in hallowed groud, but it has not been true for most of the churchs history. the same thing is true with what you say is the churchs concept of heaven and unbaptized childre, We hope that they will be ok but up unitl now we have never taught that. it is a terntative thing that is subject to rrevision,. in facyt i thought i read somwhere that the pope was thinking about calling a cionference of selected cardinals to try to settle tj=he matter of limbo once and for all. to per==reten that it is done and settled just simply is not true and if a priest is asked directly, did my unbaptized child go to limbo,. or hell, the only truthful thingm he can say is what ive just said above. this is a horrible concept. and has unbdoubtedly cxaused much pain and sufdfering throughout the ages. ask yourself as a true believer how you would feel if yu were told that your unbaptized grandson was in limbo, a place whwere he is doomed forever to suffer the absence of god, a ph unishnebt which has to have some real meaning otherwise whats a heaven for,

 

[ALFREDENEUMAN]

p, s, the statement you qipuoted about the hope of the church that everything would be all right. is almost exactly the same phrasing the the present pope used when he tried his best to maintain the primacy of the catholic church, espercially in relationship to the jews. He hoped that would could meet in eternal paradise)paraphjrase) aunder the blanket iof jesus christs umbrella. something that meant exactly that. i could llook it up,but im tired. youll see in efect the fate of unbaptized childre is the same as we can only hopre the fate of unchristian jews is,

 

[thistle]

you are obfuascating again.,. it is true that NOW cunbaptized childre are buried in hallowed groud, but it has not been true for most of the churchs history. the same thing is true with what you say is the churchs concept of heaven and unbaptized childre, We hope that they will be ok but up unitl now we have never taught that. it is a terntative thing that is subject to rrevision,. in facyt i thought i read somwhere that the pope was thinking about calling a cionference of selected cardinals to try to settle tj=he matter of limbo once and for all. to per==reten that it is done and settled just simply is not true and if a priest is asked directly, did my unbaptized child go to limbo,. or hell, the only truthful thingm he can say is what ive just said above. this is a horrible concept. and has unbdoubtedly cxaused much pain and sufdfering throughout the ages. ask yourself as a true believer how you would feel if yu were told that your unbaptized grandson was in limbo, a place whwere he is doomed forever to suffer the absence of god, a ph unishnebt which has to have some real meaning otherwise whats a heaven for,

Again you are wrong. There is nothing to settle about Limbo. I gave you the Church teaching on unbaptised children in my earlier post.
Limbo has NEVER been a doctrine of the Church. People are free to believe in it or not.

 

[ALFREDENEUMAN]

it has never been a doctrine of the churchis true but it is what the church taught. to the human on the street living from day yo day the distinctionis lost. between its earliest times and about 1500 this is what a priest told you would happen to your babie sould ehn he died unbaotized,. i can rmember ghearing the ssmae thing when the priedt taught us religion in hig school.
this is one of the thing i have been sayng and i will try to do it a different way. the church had] suntimate and final authority on matters of faith and morals. the last time it eraffirmed this was when the present pope did so early in his tenure. we believe he has final authority.
as long as this is the cast the church should and can be very clear about almost every espect of moral behavious. look at trhe church rational abd beluef structure about sexual bekhavior. it is a detailed and complete as it is possible to be, with every posible aspect of th sex act covered down to the minutest detail. thats fine. then you coma to limbo. now the church doesnt know about limbo. it has no final answer of it. n bgut it has taught it for centuries as far as its priest and pasishioners are concerned. . perhaps it would be helpful if the church sid thast. WE DONT KNOW. A SOON AS WE FIND OUT WE WILL LETR YIOU KNOW. BUut they wont don that. instaed the come out wiht statements which signal almost a shame about what they blieved fo so many years and what many in the church believes nos. the church has no reason to be ashamed or to not know trhe final answer in any question on moral. it doew ned to fel shame when it just cant admiyt it while knowing that its people are out in the world believing that ther church is thinking one thing that is causing themgrerat paint the church is being vague because it is afraid that some might accuse it of backing off on its former teachings on a matter of faith and morals. this is silly and i dont know why the church would do it, they cannot err in these matters. they should say so and be clear as a bell, they woukld also help a lot of people out here by di=oing so. we just dont know we have never known but we are hopin for a nanswer soon. whats wrong with a statement like that.

 

[Nacho_ire]

just to say a word about the abortionist. you said that the person could just go to confession and do penance and life a good catholic life and die and go to heaven. this not true.

if a catholic woman who knows that an abortion is a grave sin that person is automatically excommunicated (Canon Law 1398). and can only be re-communicated by a Bishop, Cardinal or Holy Father. this also applies to anyone who assists (husband, doctor, nurse and counsellor).

 

[thistle]

it has never been a doctrine of the churchis true but it is what the church taught. to the human on the street living from day yo day the distinctionis lost. between its earliest times and about 1500 this is what a priest told you would happen to your babie sould ehn he died unbaotized,. i can rmember ghearing the ssmae thing when the priedt taught us religion in hig school.
this is one of the thing i have been sayng and i will try to do it a different way. the church had] suntimate and final authority on matters of faith and morals. the last time it eraffirmed this was when the present pope did so early in his tenure. we believe he has final authority.
as long as this is the cast the church should and can be very clear about almost every espect of moral behavious. look at trhe church rational abd beluef structure about sexual bekhavior. it is a detailed and complete as it is possible to be, with every posible aspect of th sex act covered down to the minutest detail. thats fine. then you coma to limbo. now the church doesnt know about limbo. it has no final answer of it. n bgut it has taught it for centuries as far as its priest and pasishioners are concerned. . perhaps it would be helpful if the church sid thast. WE DONT KNOW. A SOON AS WE FIND OUT WE WILL LETR YIOU KNOW. BUut they wont don that. instaed the come out wiht statements which signal almost a shame about what they blieved fo so many years and what many in the church believes nos. the church has no reason to be ashamed or to not know trhe final answer in any question on moral. it doew ned to fel shame when it just cant admiyt it while knowing that its people are out in the world believing that ther church is thinking one thing that is causing themgrerat paint the church is being vague because it is afraid that some might accuse it of backing off on its former teachings on a matter of faith and morals. this is silly and i dont know why the church would do it, they cannot err in these matters. they should say so and be clear as a bell, they woukld also help a lot of people out here by di=oing so. we just dont know we have never known but we are hopin for a nanswer soon. whats wrong with a statement like that.

Can you please organise your posts into proper paragraphs and sentences. They are becoming increasingly incomprehensible. If you want debate we need to understand what you are saying.

 

[ALFREDENEUMAN]

and of course to get back in the church s good graces she must take confession, repant, do penance and be genuinely sorry for her sins. what is different about this fom what i said. this sis another examople of the church being , im sorry to sy in this case, devious. the bishop or the cardinal or the pope himself does not forgive you your sins. only god can do that. the priest is an advisor to let lyou know the way to get your sins forgived, how many of the faithful believe this . how many are mistaken because the church has not been entirely honmest in its statement about it. even you were mistaken

 

[ElizabethPH]

just to say a word about the abortionist. you said that the person could just go to confession and do penance and life a good catholic life and die and go to heaven. this not true.

if a catholic woman who knows that an abortion is a grave sin that person is automatically excommunicated (Canon Law 1398). and can only be re-communicated by a Bishop, Cardinal or Holy Father. this also applies to anyone who assists (husband, doctor, nurse and counsellor).

Hasn’t the ablility to do this been extended to the priest in the confessional in most parishes?

 

[Nacho_ire]

Hasn’t the ablility to do this been extended to the priest in the confessional in most parishes?

interdict can be lifted when the person repents and seeks reconciliation.
that ability can be given to a prist but normally a Bishop or higher would lift the ban on the sacraments. but you are correct in what you said.

i must say that i did make a mistake in what i said, i said the person is excommunicated, but what i should have said was that the interdict is an excommunication from the sacraments and not the Church.

but from the words of Rev. John Trigilio Jr., “The sin of abortion may incur an automatic excommunication.”

 

[sidonius]

Hasn’t the ablility to do this been extended to the priest in the confessional in most parishes?

This depends on the diocese. The bishop may extend this ability to certain priests, all priests, or reserve it to himself.

 

[ALFREDENEUMAN]

ELIZABETH A PRIEST cannot re communicate anyone. he is a human beinf and does not have the authority. he can advise the communicant that he beliefes god has heard the sinners prayers, and penance and therefore he belives that he is not allowed to received the sacraments. ALL FORGIVING is done by god. the priest is an intermediary. abd informs the people what he believeds god has done. check it out i know im right. it really doesnt matter that in ssome parishes the bishop has allowed individual parish priestas to inform the ex communicant that his sinms ar forgiven,. the bishop cna do this but once again it has to be with the presumed authority ogf god. only god can do this. this is a very good example, as i said, of what i was tralking about. not one Cathlic in 1000000 knows this, every priest knows it. why is it not communicated better. instead what happens with this and many other matters to thich the same thing happens, the parishioner comes across a occasion in everyday life where he is required to get the exact teaching of the church on matters that the chruch has deliberately been very unclaer about, then he becomes very disappointed and becomes a potoential apostate. ive seen it happen far too often not to be concerned about it. tell the absolute truth, do noit equivocate. you have the authority.

 

[ElizabethPH]

ELIZABETH A PRIEST cannot re communicate anyone. he is a human beinf and does not have the authority. he can advise the communicant that he beliefes god has heard the sinners prayers, and penance and therefore he belives that he is not allowed to received the sacraments. ALL FORGIVING is done by god. the priest is an intermediary. abd informs the people what he believeds god has done. check it out i know im right. it really doesnt matter that in ssome parishes the bishop has allowed individual parish priestas to inform the ex communicant that his sinms ar forgiven,. the bishop cna do this but once again it has to be with the presumed authority ogf god. only god can do this. this is a very good example, as i said, of what i was tralking about. not one Cathlic in 1000000 knows this, every priest knows it. why is it not communicated better. instead what happens with this and many other matters to thich the same thing happens, the parishioner comes across a occasion in everyday life where he is required to get the exact teaching of the church on matters that the chruch has deliberately been very unclaer about, then he becomes very disappointed and becomes a potoential apostate. ive seen it happen far too often not to be concerned about it. tell the absolute truth, do noit equivocate. you have the authority.

Hi Alfred,

I’m sorry my post implied I do not understand the roll of priest in the confessional. But I believe I have the correct understanding that Christ is there through the priest. Jesus gave to His Apostles the authority to forgive sins. The Apostles passed this authority on to their successors, the Bishops, who in turn extend this authority to the Priest. I understand and have always understood that it is Christ forgiving my sins. But the normal mode of communication is to speak and to hear, so the ordinary means of forgivness is through confession of our sins and hearing the words of absolution; which we do in the confessional through the priest.

 

[ALFREDENEUMAN]

perhaps the easiest way to explain what imm trying to say about the churchs relucatance to make clear thioe moral issues that it is afraid will offen so many people that they will lose member is to quote from the paragraph that nachos is convinced swettled thwe issue of limbo as far as the cghurch can settle it. “can only entrust” (read hope) …allow us to hope that there is a way for children who have dies without baptisem" does that really settle anything especially when you know what the tradition in the church is and what that tradition has been as far as limbo is concerned. what will you tell the people who are concerned with whether their unbaptizwed childre n ar going to go to heave,n, otr limbo, or hell. the church is obfuscating and this is a terrible thing to do. the easiest thing to say is flat out, we do not know. but their reluctance to do that makes it very difficult in this casee and in som many other issues where the church does the same thing. from holding on to thosem who it wishes to stay. they can easily become discouraged. i know thuis because it is exctly what happened to me.

 

[ALFREDENEUMAN]

one more thing there is not the slightest bit of doubt about where the church stands on those issues it wants to be clear about. moral heterosexual behavior is spelle out in such great detail one wonders wher celibates got all that informay=tion from. homosexual behavior is definitily proscribed , described and forbiddeen under no uncertain terms. on the othe r habd the mystery of the trinity is acknowledge as being beyond human understanding. why cant they be that clear about all things, including being clear about WE DONT KNOW ,

 

[thistle]

one more thing there is not the slightest bit of doubt about where the church stands on those issues it wants to be clear about. moral heterosexual behavior is spelle out in such great detail one wonders wher celibates got all that informay=tion from. homosexual behavior is definitily proscribed , described and forbiddeen under no uncertain terms. on the othe r habd the mystery of the trinity is acknowledge as being beyond human understanding. why cant they be that clear about all things, including being clear about WE DONT KNOW ,

ALL teachings of the Church are clear. You may not agree with them but they are all clearly laid out (unlike your posts).
You can find every teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I suggest you buy this, read it and then come back to discuss instead of spouting rubbish against the Church.