My unbaptized baby won't go to heaven!

[JonathonofOhio]

No, Jonathon, and I didn’t advocate not teaching the truth by any means.

I’m saying that we should teach the truth. The truth is that we do not know. Unfortunately there are some who think that the possibility that an unborn child may go to heaven due to God’s mercy somehow makes it not so ‘awful’ if the child is aborted because he will ‘go to heaven anyway.’

That is the distortion of the teaching that may be the trouble. The trouble is not with the correct teaching that Baptism is necessary and that those unbaptized will not enter heaven unless God through His mercy, in a way that we do not know and cannot verify actually occurs, acts otherwise.

Of course we can hope, but the teaching that the unbaptized cannot enter heaven is still true. The unbaptized cannot enter heaven–UNLESS God somehow intervenes but we do not know whether He does.

I didn’t mean to make it sound like you were advocating that. I am in agreement with you that people might think these things, and it would be a concern. However, I wouldn’t put it past some members of the church to keep it open for discussion without any official ruling on the matter just so that they don’t have to deal with people making such conclusions. So I made my post to question these people on their reasoning. So it’s good that you brought this up in the discussion.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If the Church says they might be saved without baptism, I can posit how that might work. And it seems to me that Christ’s atonement is as good a place to start as anywhere. I can state as my belief they will be saved in heaven just as some continue to state their opinion they believe in Limbo. I admit the possibility that I may be wrong, but I can’t find any valid argument to believe that I am wrong.

You may certainly say how it ‘may’ work. However, you can’t state (as you did) that Christ’s atonement DID save them and that baptism only confers graces.

That’s where you took a reasonable speculation (that Christ’s atonement had a part in their salvation SOMEHOW and that God may work with this) but then went off the rails with a further, nonCatholic speculation that baptism is only for grace and the ‘life of the church’. But baptism is necessary for salvation.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I didn’t mean to make it sound like you were advocating that. I am in agreement with you that people might think these things, and it would be a concern. However, I wouldn’t put it past some members of the church to keep it open for discussion without any official ruling on the matter just so that they don’t have to deal with people making such conclusions. So I made my post to question these people on their reasoning. So it’s good that you brought this up in the discussion.

Excellent. . .and thank you for bringing the point up too.

 

[Catholic20064]

You may certainly say how it ‘may’ work. However, you can’t state (as you did) that Christ’s atonement DID save them and that baptism only confers graces.

That’s where you took a reasonable speculation (that Christ’s atonement had a part in their salvation SOMEHOW and that God may work with this) but then went off the rails with a further, nonCatholic speculation that baptism is only for grace and the ‘life of the church’. But baptism is necessary for salvation.

You’re probably right there – I did go “off the rails” there and probably was wrong in doing so. But I would have to say I am not saying that Christ’s atonement has a part in their salvation somehow. I am saying that Christ’s atonement has everything to do with the salvation of the unbaptized infant without the need for the unbaptized child to do anything at all. Christ just takes care of them because his atonement has priority over anything that Adam may have done.

 

[Indyann]

I posted this yesterday on a different thread, but it seems very appropriate for this thread.

This is what the Preacher to the Papal Household has to say on the subject. Not infallible, of course, but the opinion held by a very learned and holy Priest.

cantalamessa.org/en/articoloView.php?id=72

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Certainly not infallible…

The priest could be absolutely right in his reasoning behind his theory. But to present it as accomplished ‘fact’ would be wrong. I hope that his ‘affirmation’ is not him saying that this absolutely is what happens (which would be wrong as the Church does not say that this does happen, but only that it MAY happen).

I do see the same kind of emotionalism of “Oh God could not do that to the babies”. I’m as sentimental as the next person but if God does indeed require baptism and the babies do not go to heaven, I’m not going to call God an old meanie or imply that I’m more loving and generous by my ideas that the babies "should’ go to heaven than God is IF HE does NOT allow it.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

On another thing you said…

Of course we can hope, but the teaching that the unbaptized cannot enter heaven is still true. The unbaptized cannot enter heaven–UNLESS God somehow intervenes but we do not know whether He does.

Yes, but we do know there is more than one form of baptism (see my earlier post). Jesus himself guarantees us that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to the children (see my earlier post).

Now, there might be people who would conclude that there is no need to baptize their children, but this is incorrect (obviously). If opportunity is afforded to us to baptize in water then we are responsible for getting our children baptized. But even if a parent should neglect to have their child baptized does the child suffer loss? I don’t think so, and there is no reason for us to make a conclusion that they do.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

On another thing you said…

Yes, but we do know there is more than one form of baptism (see my earlier post). Jesus himself guarantees us that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to the children (see my earlier post).

Now, there might be people who would conclude that there is no need to baptize their children, but this is incorrect (obviously). If opportunity is afforded to us to baptize in water then we are responsible for getting our children baptized. But even if a parent should neglect to have their child baptized does the child suffer loss? I don’t think so, and there is no reason for us to make a conclusion that they do.

Remember, that we DO NOT MERIT Heaven.

Therefore to argue that the child ‘should not suffer loss’ due to the parent’s neglect, you’re presupposing (and presuming) that the child ‘deserves’ heaven. We do NOT merit heaven, we don’t deserve it, we aren’t entitled to it, no not even if we are personally without sin.

We need to cooperate with God. Part of baptism’s salvific effect is that we (or our parents/sponsors for us) do make that cooperation, in assenting to the baptism. We are thus ‘accepting’ Christ’s salvation.

 

[Catholic20064]

I posted this yesterday on a different thread, but it seems very appropriate for this thread.

This is what the Preacher to the Papal Household has to say on the subject. Not infallible, of course, but the opinion held by a very learned and holy Priest.

cantalamessa.org/en/articoloView.php?id=72

Thanks for this. If a Catholic parent refuses to have their baby baptized, in my opinion it is more likely the Catholic parent will be deprived of heaven than it is that their unbaptized child will be.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I posted this yesterday on a different thread, but it seems very appropriate for this thread.

This is what the Preacher to the Papal Household has to say on the subject. Not infallible, of course, but the opinion held by a very learned and holy Priest.

cantalamessa.org/en/articoloView.php?id=72

Thanks for sharing this

 

[Catholic20064]

Remember, that we DO NOT MERIT Heaven.

Therefore to argue that the child ‘should not suffer loss’ due to the parent’s neglect, you’re presupposing (and presuming) that the child ‘deserves’ heaven. We do NOT merit heaven, we don’t deserve it, we aren’t entitled to it, no not even if we are personally without sin.

We need to cooperate with God. Part of baptism’s salvific effect is that we (or our parents/sponsors for us) do make that cooperation, in assenting to the baptism. We are thus ‘accepting’ Christ’s salvation.

When did I ever say we merited heaven? Without the atonement of Christ unbaptized children would definitely be lost along with the rest of us. And it does seem strange to say that a baptized child cooperates with God more than an unbaptized child does. That’s a tough reach. I agree that little children should be baptized, but don’t try to tell me that that baptized child deserves an immediate advantage simply because a parent had time or the inclination to baptize its child while the parent of the unbaptized child may have lost it in a miscarriage or not felt the necessity to baptize the child. The Christian religion has to have some common sense associated with it and that is what Christ’s atonement provides!

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Remember, that we DO NOT MERIT Heaven.

Therefore to argue that the child ‘should not suffer loss’ due to the parent’s neglect, you’re presupposing (and presuming) that the child ‘deserves’ heaven.

I understand how you might think that I am presuming here…

But lets think about this: a sin of a parent is not transferred to the child (which we know no sin is transferred to another, is it?). So then we can conclude that a child is not punished for a sin he/she didn’t commit. The Church does not teach us that there is another place to which we go. There is Heaven and there is Hell, and some of us will go through Purgatory in order to be aloud into Heaven. There is no Limbo, and there is no teaching in scripture or in sacred Tradition that tells us there is an alternate place.

You say we do not merit heaven, and you are correct, but does this lack of merit deserve punishment by default? The apostles say that we are children of God and Heirs to the Kingdom of God (Romans 8:17, Galatians 3:26, James 2:5). Does the heir lose his inheritance by default? Now, before Jesus there was no inheritance, but now there is. We lose our inheritance because we choose to sin. A child is incapable of sin, and cannot lose his/her inheritance through no fault of their own.

This is aside from ‘deserving’, for none of us deserve anything from God, not even the life which God has given us, and He owes us nothing. But God loves us, and does give us an inheritance through Jesus Christ.

So when Jesus plainly tells us that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to the children (Matthew 19:14), and that the Kingdom of God belongs to the poor in spirit, we cannot make any other conclusions concerning their fate. Aren’t babies poor in spirit? Can a child become attached to the world, or commit a sin? No, therefore, they are in heaven. We have been promised this, and that is where we are given hope; not in NOT knowing, but in knowing.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I understand how you might think that I am presuming here, based on what we know.

But lets think about this: a sin of a parent is not transferred to the child (which we know no sin is transferred to another, is it?). So then we can conclude that a child is not punished for a sin he/she didn’t commit. The Church does not teach us that there is another place to which we go. There is Heaven and there is Hell, and some of us will go through Purgatory in order to be aloud into Heaven. There is no Limbo, and there is no teaching in scripture or in sacred Tradition that tells us there is an alternate place.

You say we do not merit heaven, and you are correct, but does this lack of merit deserve punishment by default? The apostles say that we are children of God and Heirs to the Kingdom of God (Romans 8:17, Galatians 3:26, James 2:5). Does the heir lose his inheritance by default? Now, before Jesus there was no inheritance, but now there is. We lose our inheritance because we choose to sin. A child is incapable of sin, and cannot lose his/her inheritance through no fault of their own.

This is aside from ‘deserving’, for none of us deserve anything from God, not even the life which God has given us, and He owes us nothing. But God loves us, and does give us an inheritance through Jesus Christ.

So when Jesus plainly tells us that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to the children (Matthew 19:14), and that the Kingdom of God belongs to the poor in spirit, we cannot make any other conclusions concerning their fate. Aren’t babies poor in spirit? Can a child become attached to the world, or commit a sin? No, therefore, they are in heaven. We have been promised this, and that is where we are given hope, not in NOT knowing, but in knowing.

I am sorry to have to keep on saying this, and don’t think that I don’t follow your reasoning (I do) but I do not accept it.

It is not Church teaching that an unbaptized child ‘absolutely’ is in heaven, and that is basically what you and others are stating, as though the child somehow ‘deserves’ heaven even if what is specifically given as a requirement for salvation normally (baptism) is not met.

I don’t think that the intentions of the parents matter in that I don’t believe that the Church says that “well, if the child’s parents were derelict in their duty, then the child gets heaven because the child was entitled to have baptism which would have allowed the possibility”.

We know that there is heaven and hell. We also know that there will be a ‘new heaven and a new earth’. . .

We also know that nothing sinful may enter heaven. An unborn child has no personal sin but the child does have original sin.

The Church trusts to the mercy of God and so do I, but I will not ‘limit’ by God by saying that the child MUST be in heaven, when the Church says no such thing. We can hope but we cannot pronouce dogmatically. For heaven’s sake we don’t even pronounce any person (even Judas) in hell, but we have seen no guarantee that any unborn child is in heaven. IF we ever do and the Church pronounces that as worthy of belief, then we can ‘know’ what happens. But we don’t. And we cannot impose on God the condition that He MUST save those children or else He is not a ‘fair’ god. He is perfectly just and fair. If the child do not attain heaven then that is fair and just whether or not WE think it is.

 

[Catholic20064]

I am sorry to have to keep on saying this, and don’t think that I don’t follow your reasoning (I do) but I do not accept it.

It is not Church teaching that an unbaptized child ‘absolutely’ is in heaven, and that is basically what you and others are stating, as though the child somehow ‘deserves’ heaven even if what is specifically given as a requirement for salvation normally (baptism) is not met.

I don’t think that the intentions of the parents matter in that I don’t believe that the Church says that “well, if the child’s parents were derelict in their duty, then the child gets heaven because the child was entitled to have baptism which would have allowed the possibility”.

We know that there is heaven and hell. We also know that there will be a ‘new heaven and a new earth’. . .

We also know that nothing sinful may enter heaven. An unborn child has no personal sin but the child does have original sin.

The Church trusts to the mercy of God and so do I, but I will not ‘limit’ by God by saying that the child MUST be in heaven, when the Church says no such thing. We can hope but we cannot pronouce dogmatically. For heaven’s sake we don’t even pronounce any person (even Judas) in hell, but we have seen no guarantee that any unborn child is in heaven. IF we ever do and the Church pronounces that as worthy of belief, then we can ‘know’ what happens. But we don’t. And we cannot impose on God the condition that He MUST save those children or else He is not a ‘fair’ god. He is perfectly just and fair. If the child do not attain heaven then that is fair and just whether or not WE think it is.

Of course we cannot pronounce dogmatically, but the Church leaves open for us to have an opinion. If it claims that Limbo is a valid theological opinion, I sure think it is possible for me to have the theological opinion that unbaptized children are saved in heaven. Christian hope goes beyond just wishing something were so. We have good reason to believe that unbaptized children are in heaven. Sometimes I wonder if people who would deny heaven to little children are inclined to boast in their own works as opposed to little children who have no works to bring in front of God.

 

[PaulDupre]

Thank you, yes I’m aware of the teaching of baptism of desire. What I was wondering was if a Church source could be cited that states that the desire of the parents could initiate a baptism of desire for the infant. Your sources are talking about desiring baptism for oneself, not desiring baptism for another (i.e. parents for their unbaptized infant).

IMO, it is a natural extrapolation of the fact that it is the parents’ faith that is operative in the baptism of an infant, and not the faith of the infant himself. So also is the parents’ desire for the child’s baptism operative in a baptism of desire for an infant.

 

[choy]

A speaker in my wife’s Mormon sacrament meeting declared yesterday that her Catholic sister was upset because her baby had died during childbirth and couldn’t go to heaven. The Mormon used this as an example of Catholic stupidity declaring that it is terrible that Catholics don’t declare that unbaptized babies are saved. I tried to explain to my ex-Catholic wife that the Catholic Church does not teach that unbaptized babies are barred from heaven, but she declared that’s what she was taught in her religion classes as a teenager. Is there any evidence that Catholics taught that limbo was simply an opinion rather than a fact prior to the recent catechism? Are there theologians prior to the 20th century who claimed it was possible that unbaptized little children might enter heaven?

Here is the official Catholic teaching on this subject, as taught in the official teaching tool of the Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church

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.

 

[PaulDupre]

Thanks for this. If a Catholic parent refuses to have their baby baptized, in my opinion it is more likely the Catholic parent will be deprived of heaven than it is that their unbaptized child will be.

Amen to that!

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I am sorry to have to keep on saying this, and don’t think that I don’t follow your reasoning (I do) but I do not accept it.

And that is fine, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing on such things,and I’m just trying to share what I have learned with you, and perhaps you will think about it, or others will who read our discussion.

It is not Church teaching that an unbaptized child ‘absolutely’ is in heaven, and that is basically what you and others are stating,

Correct, the Church has no official teaching on the matter, and simply concludes that ‘we do not know’, only that we know unbaptized people cannot get into heaven. This means we can have opinions on the matter, and often time people within the Church (even the Pope), have concluded that they are in heaven (it wasn’t that long ago I read something from the Pope concerning this, and he too agreed that it makes sense that they would be in Heaven).

as though the child somehow ‘deserves’ heaven even if what is specifically given as a requirement for salvation normally (baptism) is not met.

The flip side of this, is that a person (I’m not saying I do) can conclude that you feel a child doesn’t ‘deserve’ heaven. But reread my earlier reply: from the way I see it, ‘deserving’ has nothing to do with it, because NONE OF US deserve heaven, and yet certainly people do go to heaven.

I don’t think that the intentions of the parents matter in that I don’t believe that the Church says that “well, if the child’s parents were derelict in their duty, then the child gets heaven because the child was entitled to have baptism which would have allowed the possibility”.

And they don’t when we come to concluding the fate of a child, not even when it comes to the opposite. For what sense does it make for us to conclude a child was denied access to heaven due to the parent being derelict in their duty (or for that matter, simply unable to get the child baptized)? No one is entitled to anything, but God gives to us even what we are not entitled to, for he merciful.

We know that there is heaven and hell. We also know that there will be a ‘new heaven and a new earth’. . .

Yes, and we will all be restored to life. There is no doubt about this.

We also know that nothing sinful may enter heaven. An unborn child has no personal sin but the child does have original sin.

But let’s not confuse what original sin is. According to St. Augustine (De vera relig., xiv, 27), no sin is involuntary. We are not born with a sin, but we are born into the same state, having to die as a result of sin. Therefore, it is not original sin that condemns someone, it is personal sin, and a baby is incapable of committing any sin. This is why I have a hard time just accepting that a child just doesn’t get to heaven because they ‘don’t deserve it’ If we say, “Well, they don’t get to heaven, but we don’t know their fate”, the weak minded can only draw one conclusion, because we teach there is no Limbo, and only heaven and hell (and that some go through Purgatory). Therefore, where did that baby go? To hell? If God is merciful and Just, then certainly not! Did the baby go to Purgatory? Well, we know Purgatory is not a place, but a process that ends with a person being in heaven.

The Church trusts to the mercy of God and so do I, but I will not ‘limit’ by God by saying that the child MUST be in heaven, when the Church says no such thing.

All I am saying is that I think it has already been revealed to us the fate of the unbaptized child. Saying, “Well, we can say with certainty that they are in heaven.” doesn’t go against Church teaching at all, but then having no opinion doesn’t either.

We can hope but we cannot pronouce dogmatically. For heaven’s sake we don’t even pronounce any person (even Judas) in hell, but we have seen no guarantee that any unborn child is in heaven. IF we ever do and the Church pronounces that as worthy of belief, then we can ‘know’ what happens. But we don’t.

But we do know for certain that the Martyrs and the Saints are in heaven by way of divine revelation. So I am concluding that perhaps we have already been given a revelation concerning the fate of children who are not baptized., but maybe we just not accepting it yet or have not fully accepted this truth. This revelation is not one of my own, or a private one, but was already given to us in the Gospels as I have pointed out already.

And we cannot impose on God the condition that He MUST save those children or else He is not a ‘fair’ god. He is perfectly just and fair. If the child do not attain heaven then that is fair and just whether or not WE think it is.

Drawing on conclusions from Scripture and Sacred Tradition are not imposing anything on God, and this is something that even the Church Fathers have done for centuries.

Now, in all my readings I find throughout church history the same topics we still talk about today have been brought up over and over and questioned, but for this topic, I have found nothing so far. I’d be interested if someone has found anything among the writings of the Church Fathers about unbaptized children.

 

[SteveVH]

I think the issue is confusing because it deals with theological theory, rather than the reality of God’s mercy. The same can be said for suicide. Theologically speaking, one does not have the right to take one’s own life, thus, again, theologically speaking, suicide is a mortal sin and thus one would be condemned to hell. The reality of the situation is that there are probably mitigating and extenuating circumstances in the majority of suicides; mental illness, overwhelming pressures, etc. The Church recognizes this and does not stop praying for that person and relying on the mercy of God to save them.

In the case of unbaptized children, it is much same case. Theologically speaking one cannot enter into heaven without baptism. However, the sacraments are an action and a gift from God in order to save us. The effects of the sacraments are not dependent upon the works of man. God desires that all be saved. It is beyond me to even imagine that God would “get” someone on a technicality through no fault of their own. This can even be drawn out to include an adult who might be completely ignorant of the sacrament of Baptism. In that case, only God knows if this person, having knowledge of the sacrament, would have chosen to be baptized.

We should all remember the lengths that our God has gone to in order to save us. His name is Mercy.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I think the issue is confusing because it deals with theological theory, rather than the reality of God’s mercy. The same can be said for suicide. Theologically speaking, one does not have the right to take one’s own life, thus, again, theologically speaking, suicide is a mortal sin and thus one would be condemned to hell. The reality of the situation is that there are probably mitigating and extenuating circumstances in the majority of suicides; mental illness, overwhelming pressures, etc. The Church recognizes this and does not stop praying for that person and relying on the mercy of God to save them.

In the case of unbaptized children, it is much same case. Theologically speaking one cannot enter into heaven without baptism. However, the sacraments are an action and a gift from God in order to save us. The effects of the sacraments are not dependent upon the works of man. God desires that all be saved. It is beyond me to even imagine that God would “get” someone on a technicality through no fault of their own. This can even be drawn out to include an adult who might be completely ignorant of the sacrament of Baptism. In that case, only God knows if this person, having knowledge of the sacrament, would have chosen to be baptized.

We should all remember the lengths that our God has gone to in order to save us. His name is Mercy.

Agreed, but I would note that historically the Church has never said with certainty that someone is in Hell, but the Church has said with certainty that someone is in Heaven because they met certain criteria (such as martyrdom). So we can know with certainty that someone has gone to heaven, and I think that we can know for certain that unbaptized infants do go to heaven.