Original Sin Problem

[jinc1019]

I don’t understand how original sin prevents babies who are unbaptized from going to heaven.

If I am missing something here, please let me know. My understanding of the Catholic view on original sin is that when Adam sinned, he created in each of us a corrupted and sinful nature that exists in every single person on earth. We are not, according to modern Catholic teachings, personally guilty of Adam’s sin. Thus, babies, who cannot personally sin, have no personal sin, only a sinful and corrupt nature.

Catholics believe then that because everyone in heaven must be clean, babies who are unbaptized and die cannot go to heaven ordinarily because they still have a sinful and corrupted nature due to their lack of baptism.

However, the Church also teaches that we have a sinful and corrupt nature even after baptism, which is apparently obvious. So, if we still have some form of a sinful nature both before and after baptism, why does it matter if babies are baptized or not? Obviously it’s not the sinful nature keeping them out of heaven since we all, regardless of baptism, have sinful natures until we die. Why does the Catholic Church teach this then? What am I missing?

 

[Spencerian]

I don’t understand how original sin prevents babies who are unbaptized from going to heaven.

If I am missing something here, please let me know. My understanding of the Catholic view on original sin is that when Adam sinned, he created in each of us a corrupted and sinful nature that exists in every single person on earth. We are not, according to modern Catholic teachings, personally guilty of Adam’s sin. Thus, babies, who cannot personally sin, have no personal sin, only a sinful and corrupt nature.

Catholics believe then that because everyone in heaven must be clean, babies who are unbaptized and die cannot go to heaven ordinarily because they still have a sinful and corrupted nature due to their lack of baptism.

However, the Church also teaches that we have a sinful and corrupt nature even after baptism, which is apparently obvious. So, if we still have some form of a sinful nature both before and after baptism, why does it matter if babies are baptized or not? Obviously it’s not the sinful nature keeping them out of heaven since we all, regardless of baptism, have sinful natures until we die. Why does the Catholic Church teach this then? What am I missing?

Hi.

One of the great marks of the Catholic faith is that, while we have some measure of assurance of salvation through Christ and His Church, we also know when not to make stuff up that hasn’t been revealed to us through Sacred Tradition or Scripture.

Early in Church history, some people in the Church considered, unofficially, the concept that unbaptized babies go to limbo, a state neither heaven nor hell. That’s never been official teaching but the concept stuck for a bit until the Church officially said, “we don’t know.”

But, like anyone not officially canonized (miracles that fully support that a person is in heaven), we can believe that God’s mercy is always with children, and that their souls are (at least) in a paradise until the Second Coming where all innocents will be judged and taken to Christ.

See this Vatican document that fully discusses the matter.

 

[jinc1019]

Hi.

One of the great marks of the Catholic faith is that, while we have some measure of assurance of salvation through Christ and His Church, we also know when not to make stuff up that hasn’t been revealed to us through Sacred Tradition or Scripture.

Early in Church history, some people in the Church considered, unofficially, the concept that unbaptized babies go to limbo, a state neither heaven nor hell. That’s never been official teaching but the concept stuck for a bit until the Church officially said, “we don’t know.”

But, like anyone not officially canonized (miracles that fully support that a person is in heaven), we can believe that God’s mercy is always with children, and that their souls are (at least) in a paradise until the Second Coming where all innocents will be judged and taken to Christ.

See this Vatican document that fully discusses the matter.

I appreciate the information yes.

However, I still don’t understand how the Catholic Church reconciles the problem I outlined above. Why isn’t it simply taught that all babies go to heaven if its true that they are not guilty of sin and only have sinful natures? If their sinful natures can keep them out, why does any baptized sinful nature not get in their way?

 

[bben15]

I don’t understand how original sin prevents babies who are unbaptized from going to heaven.

If I am missing something here, please let me know. My understanding of the Catholic view on original sin is that when Adam sinned, he created in each of us a corrupted and sinful nature that exists in every single person on earth. We are not, according to modern Catholic teachings, personally guilty of Adam’s sin. Thus, babies, who cannot personally sin, have no personal sin, only a sinful and corrupt nature.

Catholics believe then that because everyone in heaven must be clean, babies who are unbaptized and die cannot go to heaven ordinarily because they still have a sinful and corrupted nature due to their lack of baptism.

However, the Church also teaches that we have a sinful and corrupt nature even after baptism, which is apparently obvious. So, if we still have some form of a sinful nature both before and after baptism, why does it matter if babies are baptized or not? Obviously it’s not the sinful nature keeping them out of heaven since we all, regardless of baptism, have sinful natures until we die. Why does the Catholic Church teach this then? What am I missing?

Hello. Since our Lord told us to go out and baptize, this means that baptism is necessary for salvation. However, we don’t know what happens to unbaptized babies. We never will know. That is why the Church encourages their parents to get their babies baptized as soon as possible, to ensure they get into heaven. Pope Benedict XVI was baptized the same day he was born.

Even though we are not guilty of Adam and Eve’s sin, we are born separated from God and into the hands of Satan because of that sin. That is why it is hard to resist temptation while you are not baptized, because you are in the hands of Satan. Baptism frees us from Satan and brings us into the hands of God.

You might be missing the point of baptism, so maybe I should clarify something for you. Baptism not only washes away original sin, it washes away all sins we committed prior to baptism. It also relieves you of the punishment you would have endured for those sins. You are literally a new person after baptism. After baptism, we no longer have a “sinful nature.” After baptism, we freely choose to sin. “Sinful nature” makes it sound like it’s not our fault we sin. So we really don’t have the tendency to disobey God, we have the ability to disobey God. There are saints who have gone a long time without sinning. But the point is: Even though temptation is hard to resist, we still have the ability to resist it. That is why it is recommended to get confirmation before the person turns 15 or 16, (If the age of reason in the diocese allows it) so they will be able to resist temptation more easily.

 

[Lancer]

I don’t understand how original sin prevents babies who are unbaptized from going to heaven.

If I am missing something here, please let me know. My understanding of the Catholic view on original sin is that when Adam sinned, he created in each of us a corrupted and sinful nature that exists in every single person on earth. We are not, according to modern Catholic teachings, personally guilty of Adam’s sin. Thus, babies, who cannot personally sin, have no personal sin, only a sinful and corrupt nature.

Catholics believe then that because everyone in heaven must be clean, babies who are unbaptized and die cannot go to heaven ordinarily because they still have a sinful and corrupted nature due to their lack of baptism.

However, the Church also teaches that **we have a sinful and corrupt nature even after baptism, which is apparently obvious. So, if we still have some form of a sinful nature both before and after baptism, why does it matter if babies are baptized or not? **Obviously it’s not the sinful nature keeping them out of heaven since we all, regardless of baptism, have sinful natures until we die. Why does the Catholic Church teach this then? What am I missing?

First, Adam and Eve had supernatural grace and justification…their original sin…wiped that supernatural grace out of Man’s “DNA-Chromosomes-genetics”…so to speak. What is required to live in heaven in God’s full presence?..supernatural grace!..and we simply don’t have that as descendants…its not that Adam and Eve passed on the Actual Sin they committed…they simply passed on their genetics…which now…has no supernatural grace. So the primary thing we need to live in heaven…we are born without…we have to be reborn of Spirit and Water…to get the “genetics” needed for life in Heaven in God’s full presence…Supernatural Grace.

Second, you need to have a more precise understanding/precise wording of what the Catholic Church actually teaches…and your best source is the Catechism (and paying attention to footnote references is very rewarding)…here are two links…I prefer the first…

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

Here are the sections you might want to peruse:

385-421 Paragraph 7. The Fall
386-390 I. Where Sin Abounded, Grace Abounded All the More
391-395 II. The Fall of the Angels
396-409 III. Original Sin
410-412 IV. “You Did Not Abandon Him to the Power of Death”
413-421 IN BRIEF

1213-1284 ARTICLE 1: THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
1214-1216 I. What Is the Sacrament Called?
1217-1228 II. Baptism in the Economy of Salvation
1229-1245 III. How Is the Sacrament of Baptism Celebrated?
1246-1255 IV. Who Can Receive Baptism?
1256 V. Who Can Baptize?
1257-1261 VI. The Necessity of Baptism?
1262-1274 VII. The Grace of Baptism
1275-1284 IN BRIEF

Lastly…God bless you and your inquiry.
Pax Christi

“A Taste” of Catechism for your perusal.

**Catechism of The Catholic Church
**
405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called “concupiscence”. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church’s teaching on the** transmission of original sin** was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529)296 and at the Council of Trent (1546).297

A hard battle. . .

407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our** first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free**. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”.298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action299 and morals.

 

[ellzeena]

Orthodox Wiki (really just looking for some indication that the idea of original sin seems to have been made important by St. Augustine):
"“The fate of unbaptized infants first became the subject of sustained theological reflection in the West during the anti-Pelagian controversies of the early 5th century. St. Augustine addressed the question because Pelagius was teaching that infants could be saved without Baptism. . . . In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell. . . . Gregory the Great asserts that God condemns even those with only original sin on their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. . . .”
“But most of the later medieval authors, from Peter Abelard on, underline the goodness of God and interpret Augustine’s “mildest punishment” as the privation of the beatific vision (carentia visionis Dei), without hope of obtaining it, but with no additional penalties. This teaching, which modified the strict opinion of St. Augustine, was disseminated by Peter Lombard: little children suffer no penalty except the privation of the vision of God. . . .”
“Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin, theologians came to the common view that these unbaptized children feel no pain at all, or even that they enjoy a full natural happiness through their union with God in all natural goods (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus). The contribution of this last theological thesis consists especially in its recognition of an authentic joy among children who die without sacramental Baptism: they possess a true form of union with God proportionate to their condition. . . . Even when they adopted such a view, theologians considered the privation of the beatific vision as an affliction (“punishment”) within the divine economy. . . .”
As one continues to read the document, one realizes that there was a swing back towards Saint Augustine’s opinion on the 16th century such that it again began to be stated that unbaptized babies go to hell, though only with the mildest of punishments. By Vatican Council I, opinion has begun to switch away from this hardened a view towards “natural happiness.” By the 20th century, it begins to be argued more strongly that unbaptized infants may indeed receive “Christ’s full salvation.” This actually appears to be a partial return towards the Pelagian doctrine that Saint Augustine so hated.

My personal opinion (worth its two cents) after prayer and study: “Adam’s” sin (whatever it may have been, and whether or not there was one individual or many) was punished by physical death for our species (not God’s original intention, according to Genesis). I don’t understand why something as important as the state of an innocent soul is given over to the ideas and opinions of one man (Augustine), sorry. And I am unable to correlate God, the God I’ve walked with my entire life, with the cruel punishment of the very young by preventing them from being in His Beatific presence. I simply don’t accept that as true. What happens instead? I can only conjecture that the truly innocent (who have not intention of, nor responsibility for, deliberate sin) are immediately back in God’s presence, in the fullness of joy. And about purgatory and hell: well, I’ve never seen them (THANK GOD) and hope never to, but these are “out of body” experiences, remember. They are SOUL experiences. And my firm conviction is that at the general judgment, those who have self selected hell (and I do believe it is self selection in the presence of the Almighty at the moment of particular judgment) will be annihilated; those in temporary separation (again, I believe self selected: “purgatory”) will be with God. I’m sure many, many disagree and have all sorts of scripture to throw at me but I’ve studied and I’ve meditated and these are my conclusions. BTW, I also think a woman who dies in childbirth is a sort of “martyr”, having sacrificed her own life for that of her child (or at least attempted to do so), as giving life to another is the most sacred act we, as Humans, can perform (which is why abortion is such a heinous denial of God’s will).

 

[aemcpa]

And my firm conviction is that at the general judgment, those who have self selected hell (and I do believe it is self selection in the presence of the Almighty at the moment of particular judgment) will be annihilated.

It is a dogma of the Church that the souls in Hell will spend all eternity there. If you obstinately deny this dogma in favor of your own privately developed concept of annihilation, you are a heretic, and you are subject to automatic excommunication.

 

[bben15]

Orthodox Wiki (really just looking for some indication that the idea of original sin seems to have been made important by St. Augustine):
"“The fate of unbaptized infants first became the subject of sustained theological reflection in the West during the anti-Pelagian controversies of the early 5th century. St. Augustine addressed the question because Pelagius was teaching that infants could be saved without Baptism. . . . In countering Pelagius, Augustine was led to state that infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell. . . . Gregory the Great asserts that God condemns even those with only original sin on their souls; even infants who have never sinned by their own will must go to “everlasting torments”. . . .”
“But most of the later medieval authors, from Peter Abelard on, underline the goodness of God and interpret Augustine’s “mildest punishment” as the privation of the beatific vision (carentia visionis Dei), without hope of obtaining it, but with no additional penalties. This teaching, which modified the strict opinion of St. Augustine, was disseminated by Peter Lombard: little children suffer no penalty except the privation of the vision of God. . . .”
“Because children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin, theologians came to the common view that these unbaptized children feel no pain at all, or even that they enjoy a full natural happiness through their union with God in all natural goods (Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus). The contribution of this last theological thesis consists especially in its recognition of an authentic joy among children who die without sacramental Baptism: they possess a true form of union with God proportionate to their condition. . . . Even when they adopted such a view, theologians considered the privation of the beatific vision as an affliction (“punishment”) within the divine economy. . . .”
As one continues to read the document, one realizes that there was a swing back towards Saint Augustine’s opinion on the 16th century such that it again began to be stated that unbaptized babies go to hell, though only with the mildest of punishments. By Vatican Council I, opinion has begun to switch away from this hardened a view towards “natural happiness.” By the 20th century, it begins to be argued more strongly that unbaptized infants may indeed receive “Christ’s full salvation.” This actually appears to be a partial return towards the Pelagian doctrine that Saint Augustine so hated.

My personal opinion (worth its two cents) after prayer and study: “Adam’s” sin (whatever it may have been, and whether or not there was one individual or many) was punished by physical death for our species (not God’s original intention, according to Genesis). I don’t understand why something as important as the state of an innocent soul is given over to the ideas and opinions of one man (Augustine), sorry. And I am unable to correlate God, the God I’ve walked with my entire life, with the cruel punishment of the very young by preventing them from being in His Beatific presence. I simply don’t accept that as true. What happens instead? I can only conjecture that the truly innocent (who have not intention of, nor responsibility for, deliberate sin) are immediately back in God’s presence, in the fullness of joy. And about purgatory and hell: well, I’ve never seen them (THANK GOD) and hope never to, but these are “out of body” experiences, remember. They are SOUL experiences. And my firm conviction is that at the general judgment, those who have self selected hell (and I do believe it is self selection in the presence of the Almighty at the moment of particular judgment) will be annihilated; those in temporary separation (again, I believe self selected: “purgatory”) will be with God. I’m sure many, many disagree and have all sorts of scripture to throw at me but I’ve studied and I’ve meditated and these are my conclusions. BTW, I also think a woman who dies in childbirth is a sort of “martyr”, having sacrificed her own life for that of her child (or at least attempted to do so), as giving life to another is the most sacred act we, as Humans, can perform (which is why abortion is such a heinous denial of God’s will).

Just be aware that it is not what you think, it is what the Church teaches. As the poster above mentions, you spend eternity in hell. You are not annihilated. This is a dogma of the Church. To deny this is heresy, and the punishment for denying a dogma is excommunication. I would be very careful if I were you. If you die under excommunication without repenting, you go to hell.

 

[classica87]

We cannot know for certain what happens to unbaptized babies. However, we can trust in the Lord and his mercy. As the psalmist sings, “His mercy endures forever.”

Let’s also not forget that anyone can baptize with the trinitarian formula in the case of an emergency. A woman at my church is friends with a nurse at a local hospital, who she says baptized an infant with a cup of water shortly after he was born. I believe the child was ill; praise the Lord this nurse thought of his spiritual health as well!

 

[jinc1019]

Hello. Since our Lord told us to go out and baptize, this means that baptism is necessary for salvation. However, we don’t know what happens to unbaptized babies. We never will know. That is why the Church encourages their parents to get their babies baptized as soon as possible, to ensure they get into heaven. Pope Benedict XVI was baptized the same day he was born.

Even though we are not guilty of Adam and Eve’s sin, we are born separated from God and into the hands of Satan because of that sin. That is why it is hard to resist temptation while you are not baptized, because you are in the hands of Satan. Baptism frees us from Satan and brings us into the hands of God.

You might be missing the point of baptism, so maybe I should clarify something for you. Baptism not only washes away original sin, it washes away all sins we committed prior to baptism. It also relieves you of the punishment you would have endured for those sins. You are literally a new person after baptism. After baptism, we no longer have a “sinful nature.” After baptism, we freely choose to sin. “Sinful nature” makes it sound like it’s not our fault we sin. So we really don’t have the tendency to disobey God, we have the ability to disobey God. There are saints who have gone a long time without sinning. But the point is: Even though temptation is hard to resist, we still have the ability to resist it. That is why it is recommended to get confirmation before the person turns 15 or 16, (If the age of reason in the diocese allows it) so they will be able to resist temptation more easily.

So you are saying that the sinful nature no longer exists? This seems to be in direct contradiction with the Church’s position on things like homosexuality, where they have said that people have a sinful nature to want to commit homosexual acts (Church’s teaching, not mine). How can that be if we have no sinful nature?

 

[jinc1019]

First, Adam and Eve had supernatural grace and justification…their original sin…wiped that supernatural grace out of Man’s “DNA-Chromosomes-genetics”…so to speak. What is required to live in heaven in God’s full presence?..supernatural grace!..and we simply don’t have that as descendants…its not that Adam and Eve passed on the Actual Sin they committed…they simply passed on their genetics…which now…has no supernatural grace. So the primary thing we need to live in heaven…we are born without…we have to be reborn of Spirit and Water…to get the “genetics” needed for life in Heaven in God’s full presence…Supernatural Grace.

Second, you need to have a more precise understanding/precise wording of what the Catholic Church actually teaches…and your best source is the Catechism (and paying attention to footnote references is very rewarding)…here are two links…I prefer the first…

Here are the sections you might want to peruse:

Lastly…God bless you and your inquiry.
Pax Christi

“A Taste” of Catechism for your perusal.

I appreciate your in-depth post. I think understand what you are saying…Correct me if I am wrong please:

We are all born with sinful natures or DNA because of Adam’s sins but not his personal guilt or guilt for Adam’s choices. However, because of Adam’s choices, our natures were corrupted and the “supernatural grace” disappeared. When we are baptized, we are born again, this time with the grace. However, we still have sinful natures, just with the supernatural grace? Is that right?

 

[bben15]

So you are saying that the sinful nature no longer exists? This seems to be in direct contradiction with the Church’s position on things like homosexuality, where they have said that people have a sinful nature to want to commit homosexual acts (Church’s teaching, not mine). How can that be if we have no sinful nature?

I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying here. It is Satan that causes us to be homosexual, not us. We freely choose to fall to Satan’s temptations.

Originally, humans did not have a sinful nature. Adam and Even were created perfect. Unfortunately, they chose to follow Satan instead of God. It is Satan who tempts us.

If by “sinful nature,” you mean that the effects of original sin remain after baptism, then yes, sinful nature still exists.

 

[1ke]

Why isn’t it simply taught that all babies go to heaven if its true

Because we do not know that is true. We can hope that it is true. We do not and cannot know it is true.

that they are not guilty of sin

They do not have personal sin. They have Original Sin, the deprivation of sanctifying grace.

and only have sinful natures?

No, not simply a sinful nature, they lack santifying grace.

If their sinful natures can keep them out, why does any baptized sinful nature not get in their way?

It is not a matter of a “sinful nature” it is a matter of whether or not they have been regenerated in baptism and have received sanctifying grace in their souls. We cannot enter Heaven without sanctifying grace.

If babies or any other unbaptized people go to heaven it is because God somehow gives them sanctifying grace extra-sacramentally.

We know God could do that. He has not told us whether or not he does do that or how or for whom.

Therefore it cannot be taught as a doctrine.

 

[jinc1019]

Thank you, the responses have cleared everything up! I appreciate it.

 

[ellzeena]

It is a dogma of the Church that the souls in Hell will spend all eternity there. If you obstinately deny this dogma in favor of your own privately developed concept of annihilation, you are a heretic, and you are subject to automatic excommunication.

One thing I am most uncomfortable with in these forums is the self righteousness of some and their apparent ability to speak for God. There are many interpretations of “hell”, the ultimate “hell” being total annihilation (the “SECOND DEATH”). My carefully and thoughtfully (prayerfully) arrived at conclusions are open to change and I don’t speak for God, just what I (were I God) DO. And since God is so much greater than I, how would it be possible for ME to “do” something more fairly than God? Plus…you happen to be wrong. I’ve discussed the ideas and ruminations in my life with my confessor. I am not excommunicated. You, on the other hand, might want to work at that beam in your eye.

 

[ellzeena]

Just be aware that it is not what you think, it is what the Church teaches. As the poster above mentions, you spend eternity in hell. You are not annihilated. This is a dogma of the Church. To deny this is heresy, and the punishment for denying a dogma is excommunication. I would be very careful if I were you. If you die under excommunication without repenting, you go to hell.

Well then, I guess we’d all better memorize THE ENTIRE CATECHISM of the Roman Catholic Church out of the terror that God will punish us eternally for PHILOSOPHIZING and trying to understand Him without knowing we are contradicting something ENGRAVED IN STONE, no matter how absurd it is. I.E., people who ate meat on Friday (when I was a child) were in “mortal sin” and all went to HELL, according to you. So, what happened when the Church changed that teaching? Did they all get a free pass?

I refuse to live my life in terror. Bad enough I was raised that way in the RC Church. I have no fear of hell, I’M LIVING IN HELL right now, and the God I love and serve has a great deal more mercy and love than the one you apparently fear. Don’t be throwing this “do this or rot in hell” in my face, you don’t speak for God and it really, really is obnoxious.

 

[Ron_Conte]

One thing I am most uncomfortable with in these forums is the self righteousness of some and their apparent ability to speak for God. There are many interpretations of “hell”, the ultimate “hell” being total annihilation (the “SECOND DEATH”). My carefully and thoughtfully (prayerfully) arrived at conclusions are open to change and I don’t speak for God, just what I (were I God) DO. And since God is so much greater than I, how would it be possible for ME to “do” something more fairly than God? Plus…you happen to be wrong. I’ve discussed the ideas and ruminations in my life with my confessor. I am not excommunicated. You, on the other hand, might want to work at that beam in your eye.

In the Gospels, Jesus clearly taught that punishment in Hell is eternal. The Church has always taught this same doctrine. As Catholic Christians, we are all obligated to believe what Jesus and His Church teaches.

The idea that the ‘second death’ described in the book of Revelation is annihilation is not compatible with the Gospel teaching on Hell, nor with the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church. The second death mentioned in Revelation is simply the continuation of the sufferings of Hell for all the condemned, after the general Resurrection.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I don’t understand how original sin prevents babies who are unbaptized from going to heaven.

If I am missing something here, please let me know. My understanding of the Catholic view on original sin is that when Adam sinned, he created in each of us a corrupted and sinful nature that exists in every single person on earth. We are not, according to modern Catholic teachings, personally guilty of Adam’s sin. Thus, babies, who cannot personally sin, have no personal sin, only a sinful and corrupt nature.

Catholics believe then that because everyone in heaven must be clean, babies who are unbaptized and die cannot go to heaven ordinarily because they still have a sinful and corrupted nature due to their lack of baptism.

However, the Church also teaches that we have a sinful and corrupt nature even after baptism, which is apparently obvious. So, if we still have some form of a sinful nature both before and after baptism, why does it matter if babies are baptized or not? Obviously it’s not the sinful nature keeping them out of heaven since we all, regardless of baptism, have sinful natures until we die. Why does the Catholic Church teach this then? What am I missing?

Human nature is harmed by original sin, in body and soul. However, our nature remains fundamentally good. It is an error of Calvinism to say that fallen human nature is entirely corrupted. Catholics say that it is worsened by original sin, but still good.

The Magisterium has not decided the question of what happens to prenatals, infants and young children, who die without the formal Sacrament of Baptism. The idea of limbo for these souls has fallen out of favor (rightly so, I think). They do not deserve eternal punishment in Hell. But they must die in a state of grace in order to have eternal life in Heaven.

My theological opinion is that they are all given a non-formal baptism of blood, prior to the moment of death, so that they do die in a state of grace. The suffering of the loss of the vast majority of a normal life span is sufficient to unite them to Christ suffering on the Cross for our salvation. Christ himself then gives them sanctifying grace, so that they will die in the state of grace.

Original sin is contracted without consent, and so it can be removed without any action or consent on the part of the infant. That is why we are able to baptize infants, and it also explains why prenatals, infants, and young children can receive a baptism of blood by virtue of their death at such a young age.

 

[aemcpa]

Don’t be throwing this “do this or rot in hell” in my face, you don’t speak for God and it really, really is obnoxious.

The Church does speak for God, and your belief has been condemned as absolutely and undeniably false.

 

[onenow1]

Jesus gave a command to the Apostles to bring the little children to Him. He is a just God ! In the unfortunate situation of a child’s death Jesus will conquer.

God Bless
Onenow1