Question about unbaptized babies

  • Thread starter Thread starter AFCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AFCatholic

Guest
Hi,
I sent a message to the apologetic board about unbaptized babies but no one has answered it yet. I realize you all don’t know me, I usually just post PMs to Father Vincent. I will preface this question with the fact that I have diagnosed OCD and am scrupulous. I just get nervous (as we OCD/scrupulous people do) when reading about the Church’s teaching about unbaptized babies. I misunderstood it and thought that we believed that unbaptized babies went to Hell. I had a thought “Well if unbaptized babies go to Hell that just doesn’t seem right. And if that’s what God does and the Church believes then …”

I didn’t like where that thought was going AT ALL so I tried to ignore and/or shut it down. So here are my 2 questions:
  1. What is the Church’s official teaching on unbaptized babies? It’s hard to decipher reading on these posts on the board
  2. Do you all feel like I committed any kind of sin that I need to confess on Saturday? I feel a bit uneasy that I had any thought like that, but I know that could be the OCD. But I don’t want to leave it to chance.
Thx and God Bless
Kevin
 
Kevin, welcome to the forum.
Hi,
I sent a message to the apologetic board about unbaptized babies but no one has answered it yet. I realize you all don’t know me, I usually just post PMs to Father Vincent. I will preface this question with the fact that I have diagnosed OCD and am scrupulous. I just get nervous (as we OCD/scrupulous people do) when reading about the Church’s teaching about unbaptized babies. I misunderstood it and thought that we believed that unbaptized babies went to Hell. I had a thought “Well if unbaptized babies go to Hell that just doesn’t seem right. And if that’s what God does and the Church believes then …”

I didn’t like where that thought was going AT ALL so I tried to ignore and/or shut it down. So here are my 2 questions:
  1. What is the Church’s official teaching on unbaptized babies? It’s hard to decipher reading on these posts on the board
  2. Do you all feel like I committed any kind of sin that I need to confess on Saturday? I feel a bit uneasy that I had any thought like that, but I know that could be the OCD. But I don’t want to leave it to chance.
Thx and God Bless
Kevin
You’re not correct about babies going to hell.
Great place to start is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC). You can find it online herfe:scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
It has a good search engine and is fairly easy to use.
Specifically to babies who die without Baptism:
:http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm:
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1261.htm

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.
 
Thx Tom.

So when I had that thought I misunderstood the teaching. So then my thought wouldn’t be a sin correct? Not always easy discerning what is a sinful thought when you have OCD 🙂
 
From the catechism of the Catholic Church
**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.

That means, officially, we just don’t know but we entrust the mercy of God.

As for whether or not you have sinned, and need to go to confession, that is more difficult. With your OCD tendencies, you probably would not feel comfortable without confession.

We can disagree with the Church, but even when we think the Church is wrong, it is our duty to conform our conscience to the teachings of the Church. If we instead choose to walk away from the Church instead of conforming our conscience, only you can answer how close you were to doing so,

God Bless,
Maria

Too long from the boards and way too slow:p
 
Thx Tom.

So when I had that thought I misunderstood the teaching. So then my thought wouldn’t be a sin correct? Not always easy discerning what is a sinful thought when you have OCD 🙂
Correct, no sin, simply a mistaken idea. You can’t sin by mistake. You can take the “requirements” of a mortal sin to apply to all sin. You need a complete understanding, you need complete consent, and the matter must be an offense against God (in the case of mortal sin is must be a “Grave matter”)

Again from the CCC:

IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN

1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.

Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

1863 Venial sin weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul’s progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. However venial sin does not break the covenant with God. With God’s grace it is humanly reparable. "Venial sin does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness."134

While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.135
1864 "Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."136 There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit.137 Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.
 
MariaG,
Briefly frustrated–NEVER thought about leaving the church. The fact that we just don’t know and we basically leave it to the Lord’s mercy I completely accept and believe that, I misunderstood the Church’s teaching and thought all unbaptized babies were sent to Hell.

Thx
Kevin
 
Respectfully to all,
The sin here, if there was one, would be how far done the road one went to flouting the authority of the Catholic Church. Were you trying to conform your conscience and seeking more information or were you really ready to leave the church if you deemed the church to be wrong?

The danger I see here is what happens if you run across a teaching you disagree with, find out it really is the teaching of the Church. What then? Do you leave because the church is wrong? Or continue to try to conform your conscience to the teaching of the Catholic Church?

God Bless,
Maria
 

We can disagree with the Church, but even when we think the Church is wrong, it is our duty to conform our conscience to the teachings of the Church. If we instead choose to walk away from the Church instead of conforming our conscience, only you can answer how close you were to doing so,


Well, it must be noted that there are different levels of Church teaching. We MUST believe everything that is “de fide” and as a general rule it is
good to follow the current “mind of the Church” on other non-“de fide” matters though that does not bind under sin or anything.

The commission that put out the document last year or so on this matter states that Catholic faithful may still subscribe to the limbo doctrine.
This is the belief that the unbaptized unborn do not go to heaven but go to another state of perfect natural happiness. They have most benefits of heaven without the beatific vision.

The unbaptized infants are in a win-win situation. If the current commission is right, they go straight to heaven. If the people who subscribe to limbo are right they go to a place of perfect natural happiness with no suffering (which is a heck of a lot better than our life here in earth).

I believe in limbo. It protects the dignity of the necessity for baptism for salvation.
 
MariaG,
Briefly frustrated–NEVER thought about leaving the church. The fact that we just don’t know and we basically leave it to the Lord’s mercy I completely accept and believe that, I misunderstood the Church’s teaching and thought all unbaptized babies were sent to Hell.

Thx
Kevin
I am sorry if I misunderstood your post.

But since you did not elaborate on what you would do, I felt it necessary to post that.

And since I have in fact struggled with the authority of the Catholic Church, to the extent that it WAS in fact sinful, I felt it neccessary.

Although this case was easy, and you actually misunderstood the teaching, my post deals more to with what you would have done, or wanted to do. What would you do if you think you actually think you understand the teaching, but disagree with it?

Do you diligently keep seeking to conform your conscience? And at what point do the doubts as to whether the Church is wrong become a sin? As someone who has walked far down that path and come back, it can be tough. And it can be a sin.

God Bless
 
Well, it must be noted that there are different levels of Church teaching. We MUST believe everything that is “de fide” and as a general rule it is
good to follow the current “mind of the Church” on other non-“de fide” matters though that does not bind under sin or anything.
Absolutely agree.
 
MariaG,
Briefly frustrated–NEVER thought about leaving the church. The fact that we just don’t know and we basically leave it to the Lord’s mercy I completely accept and believe that, I misunderstood the Church’s teaching and thought all unbaptized babies were sent to Hell.
It’s interesting to ponder the things that God has chosen not to reveal to us, such as the fate of unbaptized babies. Clearly he had a reason not to reveal this to us, and I think that reason may have been that he doesn’t want us to slack off on doing those things he has commanded us to do, including baptizing babies.

So God has not told us the fate of unbaptized babies because it would not help us to know, and it may actually cause harm. But we do know the nature of God and that he desires all to be saved, and we can take great hope in that knowledge.
 
The Magisterium has not definitively decided the question of salvation for unbaptized prenatals and infants (or for anyone who dies prior to attaining sufficient age and use of reason to be responsible and culpable to an extent where actual mortal sin is possible).

The Council of Florence, non-infallibly, taught that those who die in a state of original sin only are sent to the limbo of Hell. This is not the proposed idea of a limbo of perfect natural happiness, but is instead a fringe of Hell where the punishment is only deprivation of the Beatific Vision, and not additional punishments of various pains.

The Magisterium has never taught that those who die at a very young age in fact die in a state of original sin. Those who die at a young age and without formal baptism might well receive, prior to death, some type of non-formal baptism, similar to the Baptism of blood or the Baptism of desire.

So the question has not been decided as a matter of dogma or doctrine. To some extent it is an open question.
 
First off, we must believe everything that is de fide with a divine and Catholic faith, but that’s not all we are to hold or which the Church teaches infallibly. Here is a great summary of the levels of teaching based on this Instruction by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict).

What is de fide, is that those who die in the state of original sin cannot experience the beatific vision and that actual sin causes the actual torments of Hell–however, what is left open to speculation is whether God may grant sanctifying grace extra-sacramentally to a dying infant soul who has not been baptized through no fault of his. None of us can know this for sure.

Here is a good essay tracing the teaching on this subject through the centuries which shows that while we may still hold to the opinion that such infants are excluded from the beatific vision (but experience no torments due to actual sin) we can also have hope that they receive the grace they need:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

The fact that we can’t say for sure, however, gives us the impetus to make sure we Baptize our children as soon as possible.
 
:confused:
Hi,
I sent a message to the apologetic board about unbaptized babies but no one has answered it yet. I realize you all don’t know me, I usually just post PMs to Father Vincent. I will preface this question with the fact that I have diagnosed OCD and am scrupulous. I just get nervous (as we OCD/scrupulous people do) when reading about the Church’s teaching about unbaptized babies. I misunderstood it and thought that we believed that unbaptized babies went to Hell. I had a thought “Well if unbaptized babies go to Hell that just doesn’t seem right. And if that’s what God does and the Church believes then …”

I didn’t like where that thought was going AT ALL so I tried to ignore and/or shut it down. So here are my 2 questions:
  1. What is the Church’s official teaching on unbaptized babies? It’s hard to decipher reading on these posts on the board
  2. Do you all feel like I committed any kind of sin that I need to confess on Saturday? I feel a bit uneasy that I had any thought like that, but I know that could be the OCD. But I don’t want to leave it to chance.
Thx and God Bless
Kevin
  1. What is the Church’s official teaching on unbaptized babies?
We don’t know. God has not revealed this to us. We should have hope and pray for them that God might have a way to save them known only to Him.
  1. Do you all feel like I committed any kind of sin that I need to confess on Saturday?
No.
 
Well, it must be noted that there are different levels of Church teaching. We MUST believe everything that is “de fide” and as a general rule it is
good to follow the current “mind of the Church” on other non-“de fide” matters though that does not bind under sin or anything.

The commission that put out the document last year or so on this matter states that Catholic faithful may still subscribe to the limbo doctrine.
This is the belief that the unbaptized unborn do not go to heaven but go to another state of perfect natural happiness. They have most benefits of heaven without the beatific vision.

The unbaptized infants are in a win-win situation. If the current commission is right, they go straight to heaven. If the people who subscribe to limbo are right they go to a place of perfect natural happiness with no suffering (which is a heck of a lot better than our life here in earth).

I believe in limbo. It protects the dignity of the necessity for baptism for salvation.
“If the current commission is right, they go straight to heaven.”

This is absolutely incorrect the Commission said nothing of the sort.
 
I believe in limbo. It protects the dignity of the necessity for baptism for salvation.

I never understood limbo. If the children remain in happiness, why not just go to be with the Lord? Cannot God with all His power and glory do something? Doesn’t make sense to me, seems like another ancient mythological idea.
 
I believe in limbo. It protects the dignity of the necessity for baptism for salvation.

I never understood limbo. If the children remain in happiness, why not just go to be with the Lord? Cannot God with all His power and glory do something? Doesn’t make sense to me, seems like another ancient mythological idea.
Indeed, I would argue that human beings, created to know, love and serve God, cannot possibly be happy in any true sense without God, and thus the idea of the limbo of the infants is self-contradicting.
 
Indeed, I would argue that human beings, created to know, love and serve God, cannot possibly be happy in any true sense without God, and thus the idea of the limbo of the infants is self-contradicting.
Yes. Still, unless God tells me face to face, (and i won’t question there after) I don’t elieve they are cast into Hell. i believe there is another way. God isn’t bound by His sacraments.
 
Yes. Still, unless God tells me face to face, (and i won’t question there after) I don’t elieve they are cast into Hell. i believe there is another way. God isn’t bound by His sacraments.
Oh, I’m completely with you on that. There is no question in my mind that God offers these babies, in some manner, the choice to be saved.
 
Yes. Still, unless God tells me face to face, (and i won’t question there after) I don’t elieve they are cast into Hell. i believe there is another way. God isn’t bound by His sacraments.
It is true that God is not bound by the sacraments but His IS bound by His Word and according to scripture, no un-Baptized person can enter heaven …
  • Mark 16:16 …* “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved”* – Christ clearly says that belief is not enough to be saved … one must believe AND be baptized.
  • John 3:3-5 … Jesus answered, and said to him: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb, and be born again? Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. – 'of water" clearly refers to being baptized. If belief and/or desire was sufficient, then Jesus would have just said “of the Holy Spirit” and would not have included the “water” part.
    We also know from Church teaching that after everything is all said and done, only two places will remain – heaven & hell. If they do not go to heaven as indicated by Jesus Himself, what is the only place left?
And while God may not say it to us face to face, He speaks to us through His Holy Word.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top