Reaching heaven is a matter of chance

[batteddy]

so you’re saying that parents who lose a baby who is not baptized cannot assume their baby is in heaven?

No. They can’t “assume” like you can with a baptized baby…but they can “have well-founded good hope”. On a practical level, these are often quite the same.

We must remember that with adults, you can’t assume heaven either. When an adult friend or family member dies, even if they are baptized we can only “have good hope” that they are in heaven, especially after time has passed and we have offered indulgences and masses for them in case they were in purgatory. But we can’t presume that they are in heaven because we don’t know the state of their soul at that point.

Parents whose unbaptized children have died should thus feel about their child’s final destination in pretty much the same way they think about any dead relative. It’s true that they don’t get the tragic “luxury” of knowing with the certainty of faith that their child is in heaven, but having that sort of certainty for any dead person is really an extraordinary situation.

There are really only two groups we can assume are in heaven: 1) babies who die whose baptism we have moral certitude was valid, and 2) canonized saints.

Everyone else (dead baptized adults, dead unbaptized adults, dead unbaptized babies) we can simply have “good hope” but not presume. And I think with dead unbaptized babies, who had no chance to personally sin, we can have “very good hope”…but it’s not supposed to be the same level of certainty as with baptized babies and canonized saints. Of course, on a practical level, “assuming” and “having very good hope” often are pretty much the same.

But it’s like the dogmatic distinction between “credenda” and “tenenda,” things to be believed vs. things to be held. There is supposed to be a subtle difference, an abstract variation in the nature of the level of submission of the intellect…but in practical situations, the level of belief is pretty much the same.

 

[jmcrae]

so you’re saying that parents who lose a baby who is not baptized cannot assume their baby is in heaven?

What they can know for a fact is that God loves that baby even more than they ever could have, and that the baby went to the best possible resting place, out of all the possible choices.

We know what God has commanded us to do - the rest is up to Him, and for reasons known only to Him, He is not revealing what happens to unbaptized babies.

 

[jmcrae]

Of course every parent will want to assume this, but really, the logical conclusion of this belief is to baptize one’s children and then kill them, to guarantee that they will go to heaven. Would not this be the ultimate act of love, to keep your children out of hell?

Would it not be a sadness to them that you as their parent would not be joining them there, though?

If we want our children to be perfectly happy, then not only do we need to ensure that they remain sinless, we also need to ensure that we remain sinless.

 

[VociMike]

Would it not be a sadness to them that you as their parent would not be joining them there, though?

If we want our children to be perfectly happy, then not only do we need to ensure that they remain sinless, we also need to ensure that we remain sinless.

Interesting things to ponder, I agree. I doubt the happiness of those in heaven depends on who else is in heaven. If that were the case, then that would mean that the evil of a human could cloud out some of the perfect and infinite love of God, and the perfect (though perhaps finite) love of all the angels and saints in heaven. Can this be possible?

 

[Writer]

so you’re saying that parents who lose a baby who is not baptized cannot assume their baby is in heaven?

Limbo appears to be a discredited theory, based on everything I am finding on the issue. Besides Karl Keating’s essay referenced earlier, a good story on the subject is found at

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm .

I think I will go ahead and stick with the opinion of two popes on this issue. I can’t reconcile a loving God would permit limbo for the unbaptized baby. It runs contrary to His nature, and I suggest that those who still adamantly support limbo need to examine their own consciences and motivation. Legalism is a sin, after all. It serves no purpose, and, unlike purgatory, it is not even hinted at in Scriptures (as far as babies are concerned).

 

[batteddy]

and for reasons known only to Him, He is not revealing what happens to unbaptized babies.

I think we sort of know why: He wants us to baptize…urgently. He wants us to use water baptism and use it urgently. And if we knew as an article of faith (and not merely hope) that he was “going to save them anyway”…we might not as urgently baptize, even though he has told us to.

Now we cannot presume any extraordinary action (though it is likely to happen) so we are obligated to baptize AS IF there is no extraordinary action (though we have good hope that He almost certainly will). But if it was Revealed what happened to them…then we could unculpably assume that they’d get to heaven…and we wouldn’t baptize as urgently, which is something he obviously wants us to do.

 

[batteddy]

I think I will go ahead and stick with the opinion of two popes on this issue. I can’t reconcile a loving God would permit limbo for the unbaptized baby. It runs contrary to His nature, and I suggest that those who still adamantly support limbo need to examine their own consciences and motivation. Legalism is a sin, after all. It serves no purpose, and, unlike purgatory, it is not even hinted at in Scriptures (as far as babies are concerned).

Which is why we can have “good hope” that they get to heaven. If God is like the God I know, It seems His mercy would save them.

And yet…it is not a subject of Revelation as to what happens to them…and so we can’t blame people who believe in limbo, nor presume any extraordinary salvation (even if, based on our knowledge of the mercy of God, we think it is probable).

We have been told that baptism is ordinarily the absolute necessity, and we must act under that assumption…even if we can hope in extraordinary action on God’s part, we cannot presume it like we can Revealed things.

 

[homewardbound]

Complaining about feeling obligated to do the works of God? Being jealous over the poor young souls whose lives are cut short?

We are all given a choice and if your heart isn’t in doing God’s work and being a Christian than by all means stop! If its not sincere than its worthless and shouldn’t be recognized anyway. To complain about children who die so young and get into Heaven, thats just disgusting. Try praying and consulting God in this matter, He can help clarify things better than a message board full of various opinions can. I hope you find the answer to your questions, for only God can answer them.

Good luck in your journey and God Bless.

 

[visavismeyou]

It is better to worry about your own eternal destiny, than to vainly speculate about the destinies of those whom only God knows.

This is something you got across succinctly that I have been trying to get across with metaphor. In essence, it is God’s job, not ours.

The problem with this though is that it requires one to be humble, through my studies of C.S. Lewis’ opinions, he has spoken about people and their problem with authority. God is, in some atheist’s eyes and in the eyes of people who just do not like God or have objections of God’s work, the great interferer. These vein and arrogent people do not like it when others interfer with their lives. They wish to live their lives how they want to.

The hard truth remains though: We are not in control of this universe.

 

[Victorious]

How do you, as a catholic, reconcile that a very large percentage of souls in heaven may be aborted or miscarried children? That’s not to mention deceased older children. Or, if you believe they aren’t saved, how do you reconcile innocents missing out on heaven through no fault of their own?

How could you not think that going to heaven is at least largely a matter of chance?

As for the unborn who die and unbaptized babies who die, the Catechism says that we entrust these to the mercy of God. We do not know for sure what happens to their souls (Limbo has never been a defined doctrine of the Church that we are morally bound to believe in). One thing we do know: God is goodness itself, far surpassing anything we can achieve on our own (which leaves us, shall we say, NOT in a position to judge God). We can hope that unbaptized babies are in heaven; but even if they are not, we still have the most solid grounds to hope that they dwell in a state of happiness far surpassing anything we can imagine. None of this, however, relieves us of our grave obligation to baptize children as soon as possible, since that’s the only way we can be sure of their fate if they die in infancy.

As for whether getting to heaven is largely a matter of chance for the rest of us, I’d say that your arguments only illustrate the importance of providing for our deaths now, through prayer, instead of waiting until the last minute, the time of whose arrival we cannot know, and a moment when we may well not be in full possession of our faculties. We are commanded to persevere in prayer, and we can be sure that we will receive any grace that we ask for, so we should never stop asking God to grant us the grace of final perseverance.

 

[celluloid]

But none of us can “voluntarily accept” the first grace without grace!

If we all received grace, then it is an irrelevant technicality. If we don’t all receive grace, then that is God’s extremely mysterious will.

Assuming we do all receive God’s grace, from there it depends on our thought and behavior, whether or not we accept it as a whole, and is manifested by our committing mortal sin along with lesser sins – or not committing them.

The difference you see, I think, is in the fact that adults can, in fact, explicitly reject it, while it is nearly impossible for a baby to do so.

This is the heart of the matter. Infants don’t get the chance to reject. Suppose at the very moment of conception the soul “decides” one way or the other to not decline grace. It then dies. If, in that moment of its existence, it has an inherent and intrinsic ability to choose, then it must be inherently, intrinsically bound to what it chooses. If it exists only for a moment and decides to decline in that brief time, it could not have chosen anything else. (and if it could have chosen differently at a later time we have the one of the problems that I outlined at the start of this thread. It all randomly depends on the time of death)

*If you admit that something can exist only for a moment and choose, then you admit that it is conceived in one state or the other, God-rejecting or not, good or evil. * Its will is not free and that is Calvinistic. If it can’t choose, it is merely fortunate if infants are systematically sent to heaven. If God decides its fate on an individual basis, it is again Calvinistic.

This is unimportant for a few reasons:

First, because it is not “not sinning” that gets us into heaven. It is not “non-rejection” of grace, because nothing merits heaven like that. It is a free gift. We can reject the gift by sinning, but we certainly don’t “earn it” by not sinning. They aren’t two sides of the same coin. If I were dead I would not be able to type this to you. But it certainly would be foolish to say that I am typing this to you “because I am not dead”. That is confusing causation. My death would certainly be the reason I wouldn’t be talking to you if I were dead, but that doesn’t mean my “non-death” is the reason I am talking to you while I live.

Granting the correctness of your wording, it makes absolutely no difference. With the prospect of hell via rejecting grace, a deceased infant avoids the risk of generous gifts versus possible devasting penalties.

Life then is like going to a party serving alcohol and drugs (with the opportunities to sin) that offers free gifts at the door, but if one misbehaves at the party you get thrown in jail. Yet if you make your way to the party but don’t actually enter the door you still get a free gift. Why enter the door? Why bother with that kind of milieu?

Once conceived, the infant is at the door, receives gifts, but accidently (or via arrangement by God) escapes the pitfalls by not getting past that door.

So God is under no obligation to put anyone through any sort of test to get to heaven. If he sees that letting someone live and be tempted could possibly bring greater good out of them…then he will let them live. If he sees that letting them be tested would only damn them…then he won’t put them through such a test.

Remember, each of us is NOT put through millions of possible tests each day. Like I said, I am not tested to see whether I’d steal a million dollars from my brother. Because God has arranged it so that is impossible (my brother doesnt have that much!).

No one person is put through every possible situation to test for every possible sin. God puts us through the tests that have the possibility for the greatest good. And for some people…a lot of people…this is having no tests at all (ie, dying as a baby)

If God sees that testing them would damn them, then absolutely no one can go to hell, because God prevents them from getting the opportunity, unless God can only foresee some people’s choices and not others.

If God arranges things like that, then He is even more responsible for life events than I think theoretically as an atheist and actually thought when I was a Catholic. Which implies that deceased babies would have likely been plainly evil or at least not having any prospect of doing any good. If that were true, they are even more personally fortunate if they go to heaven.

But it can’t be true because people do exist that do great harm. There are mass murderers, allowed to have full length lives, somehow doing things for the greater good, perhaps solving the problem of overpopulation (and I say that a bit sympathetically, because I’m worried about the environment.) Realistically, we again converge on absurdity if such were the case.

 

[celluloid]

How can you possibly know what an embryo can accept or reject at the moment of death and passage out of the physical world? Your assertion is nothing more than an assumption, one that requires that the world beyond this one works by the same rules as this one.

Just because you (and all of us, really) can’t imagine how a thing can be, does not mean God cannot do it.

Infants aren’t allowed to vote for instance. I think it is up to you to prove the competency level of infants to make life-changing decisions.

Even if they could, then at the moment of conception they would have that ability, which means that we are pre-equipped with tendencies or abilities to choose one way or the other. There is no free will if we are conceived that way.

 

[batteddy]

God allows some people to face the temptations of life and others not to, because he gives us a fair shot. He gives us the chance to live up to our full potential, even if he foresees we wont.

For an infant who dies, there was nothing to gain. An infant who dies obviously could have continued through life, but apparently God knew this would be risking hell only for the balancing risk of getting the lowest level of glory in heaven (which they already have). Such is a stupid risk: risking losing everything with no possible gain beyond what you already have.

However, for those who live, even the evil ones…there is obviously still something possible to gain. There are still choices out there that could gain them greater good. God may see that they aren’t going to choose them…but as we discussed earlier, it’s only fair to give them a chance, even if sees they will choose hell.

So for infants who die early…God saw that the only “gambles” available to the infants were pointless. “risk everything for the sake of merely keeping what you have”

Whereas the rest of us the situations he provides for us are “risk everything for the sake of gaining infinitely more (for even the tiniest extra degree of glory in heaven is of infinite value)”

God gives everyone a fair choice. But he never puts anyone in unfair situations. You will only keep living as long as there is a chance to earn greater good. Those for whom the risk no longer outweighs the benefit (ie, you risk everything to gain nothing) are no longer asked to choose.

God only puts us in situations that risk our souls when there is a greater good that could be gained, and even if he foresees we won’t gain it…like the Minority Report thing I discussed earlier, he has to give us the chance. He has to actually let us follow through on our bad or good choice for it to actually “count” in Justice, even if he knew for sure what it would be. Because how can he blame or reward us for something we never did in actuality?

It is merciful for a parent whose child could only lose in a race to not let them run. A child they know gets no benefit (prize-wise nor psychologically) there is no point in having them race. At best they break even. But if there is a potential for a great prize, then even if the parent knows they will lose…they will feel compelled to let them try.

if you don’t let someone try, they’ll never be any meaningful winning. You can’t lose, but you can’t win either. So you have let people try if there is a benefit that outweighs the risk, even if you know they won’t win. But it is just pointless, and even cruel, to let people make a wager on which they can only possibly break even!

God let’s us choose when there is a chance for good that outweighs the evil, but he doesn’t let people try for whom the attempt AT BEST would merely be breaking even.

But for people whose lives promise only situations of no possible gain, only possible loss…he isn’t going to put them through that.

 

[Writer]

God allows some people to face the temptations of life and others not to, because he gives us a fair shot. He gives us the chance to live up to our full potential, even if he foresees we wont.

For an infant who dies, there was nothing to gain. An infant who dies obviously could have continued through life, but apparently God knew this would be risking hell only for the balancing risk of getting the lowest level of glory in heaven (which they already have). Such is a stupid risk: risking losing everything with no possible gain beyond what you already have.

However, for those who live, even the evil ones…there is obviously still something possible to gain. There are still choices out there that could gain them greater good. God may see that they aren’t going to choose them…but as we discussed earlier, it’s only fair to give them a chance, even if sees they will choose hell.

So for infants who die early…God saw that the only “gambles” available to the infants were pointless. “risk everything for the sake of merely keeping what you have”

Whereas the rest of us the situations he provides for us are “risk everything for the sake of gaining infinitely more (for even the tiniest extra degree of glory in heaven is of infinite value)”

God gives everyone a fair choice. But he never puts anyone in unfair situations. You will only keep living as long as there is a chance to earn greater good. Those for whom the risk no longer outweighs the benefit (ie, you risk everything to gain nothing) are no longer asked to choose.

God only puts us in situations that risk our souls when there is a greater good that could be gained, and even if he foresees we won’t gain it…like the Minority Report thing I discussed earlier, he has to give us the chance. He has to actually let us follow through on our bad or good choice for it to actually “count” in Justice, even if he knew for sure what it would be. Because how can he blame or reward us for something we never did in actuality?

It is merciful for a parent whose child could only lose in a race to not let them run. A child they know gets no benefit (prize-wise nor psychologically) there is no point in having them race. At best they break even. But if there is a potential for a great prize, then even if the parent knows they will lose…they will feel compelled to let them try.

if you don’t let someone try, they’ll never be any meaningful winning. You can’t lose, but you can’t win either. So you have let people try if there is a benefit that outweighs the risk, even if you know they won’t win. But it is just pointless, and even cruel, to let people make a wager on which they can only possibly break even!

God let’s us choose when there is a chance for good that outweighs the evil, but he doesn’t let people try for whom the attempt AT BEST would merely be breaking even.

But for people whose lives promise only situations of no possible gain, only possible loss…he isn’t going to put them through that.

Interesting post… While I understand your idea, I am not sure that God examines the “gamble” of each baby that should be called home. While good can always come from evil, sometimes evil happens for no “good” reason–at least in my book. As a matter of fact, that is one of the arguments against abortion. Who knows what great saint the child might have been on his earthly journey? There is an incredible loss of potential in the cases of a child’s death, and I don’t think there is really any way to lessen the essence of tragic loss, except realization that (as I recently told a Catholic who lost her beloved son in a car accident) the child now plays at the feet of Christ. The loss, however, to the parents and the society itself are real and tangible. Saying that God reviewed the child’s poker hand and decided to remove him from the match also appears to make God somehow responsible for an evil. Sometimes bad happens for no good reason, but it is up to us to try our best to make good result.

 

[celluloid]

What about reality gives you the expectation that things will appear fair by your standards?

I don’t expect things to be fair. As a metaphysical naturalist I expect things to be unfair and that is what I observe. I have a brief and powerful explanation of why some people are born rich and some born poor.

Are you sure fairness between one human and another is the crux of your issue, and not rather the acceptablity of creating something that is immortal and will experience some ongoing suffering? Would you be okay with a system that had two outcomes for those who once lived: heaven, or the abolishment from existence? They are not equal, but neither of them involves what is typically meant by suffering.

This I can’t argue with as much, because it makes half-way more sense. Here’s why.

One criterion I use is to consider the final end state of God’s creation. We are not really a creation, but part of the process to a final product of creation by God. Looking at it that way, if both states of heaven and hell exist at the “end time” then God must want a bunch of souls in heaven and another bunch in hell (perhaps along with Christ ruling a peaceful Earth). That is the final end-state and the final goal.

What purpose does hell serve then, except as a zoo of evil souls? No one is sinning anymore, everyone is happy and good on Earth and in heaven, so no deterrent needed.

Why would God create such a final state of have and have nots, no matter what the logic is of how it came to be?

Even with no end time and the Earth, as it is now, going on to infinity, this would mean that souls would infinitely acculmulate in both heaven and hell. Adding an infinite amount of souls to hell with each suffering eternally in hell seems like twice the ultimate cruelty.

If souls are simply annihilated, there is no end-time zoo of everlasting hell. Atheists such as myself get exactly what they expect, which is okay. Souls of deceased infants are neither enjoying nor suffering forever, and so are dealt with perfect neutrality.

But now we have a boundary problem. At what point are innocents subject to annihilation? What is the magic age where on is held responsible for one’s actions? What if one dies just after that age of reason and responsibilty? Would the child or young adult have a greater chance of not being in a state of mortal sin? I think yes.

If young yet sufficiently responsible people are less likely to have avoided mortally sinning (because of fewer opportunities, less corruption etc.), it would mean that they have a better chance to go to heaven if they died at that moment.

Annihilationism solves one stark moral problem, but it still leaves the question of randomly distributed death unsolved. It basically lessens the difficulties by not making the possible outcomes so extreme and obviously cruel.

Do you assume that one who is just a soul or one who doesn’t have a body is thereby unable to posses free will or to exercise it? Could an angel or a soul as it is being joined to its body posses free will?

I assume that a person without any experience will make mistakes. Latin-Rite Catholics are confirmed at a rather young age, but at least they’ve reached a reasonable age to make a commitment according to the Church.

But I don’t have to make any such assumption. I do think that it makes the complications of full adult life unnecessary if they do have the ability to choose. I leave it up to Catholics to make their own assumptions and go from there. If you think infants all go to heaven and that is true, then they are very lucky. If you think they can choose, then your Catholic training, studying the Catholic catechism, reading the Bible, going to church and human life has little meaning.

 

[HailMary]

People lose their lives at various ages, and usually no one can predict when someone will pass away. With the exceptions of suicide or martyrdom, causes of death are involuntary and subject to chance occurrences. The vast majority of deaths are attributable to various causes such as natural or manmade events, human biological limitations and pure chance.

If it is the case that all who die as infants or in the womb attain heaven (perhaps via purgatory), then it is their good fortune to die so young, since they don’t have to face the possibility of either a difficult, painful life, and more importantly, avoiding the possibility of committing mortal sin and not being saved.

The important point here is that infants who die do not get any chance to merit heaven or hell, yet they surely are innocent of any wrongdoing, and I imagine that most people believe that they are given the free pass to heaven.

Further, there are similar problems for others who die at a relatively young age. If they mortally sinned as a young adult and died soon after, they are unfortunate to not have a chance at a full life and a chance to redeem themselves. Conversely, if they lived a righteous life and died young, they were fortunate to be denied the opportunity to fall into sin at a later time, assuming they attained heaven. A Christian cannot deny that possibility given the existence of free will.

The reason I point out this difficulty is my perception that Christian salvation beliefs seem to make some sense for those with average lives and average lifespans, but breakdown as capriciously absurd in the instances illustrated here. And those instances are hardly special.

Consider these statistics from the CDC:

“Overall, U.S. women are currently averaging 2.0 live births, 0.7 induced abortions, and 0.5 miscarriages and stillbirths, or a total of 3.2 pregnancies each, of which only 1.8 are wanted births…”

For every 100 live births there are about 60 aborted or miscarried babies. And that is for the U.S. In third world countries, where medical care is poor, infant mortality is much higher as are miscarriages.

It may be that in the entire history of humankind, souls who have lived and died in the womb outnumber those who lived to old age.

How do you, as a catholic, reconcile that a very large percentage of souls in heaven may be aborted or miscarried children? That’s not to mention deceased older children. Or, if you believe they aren’t saved, how do you reconcile innocents missing out on heaven through no fault of their own?

How could you not think that going to heaven is at least largely a matter of chance?

The parents who would have normally Baptised their children if they hadn’t had a miscarriage would be covered by Baptism by Desire and hence they would be in Heaven. The aborted babies are, well, we still can’t say. Some say they go to hell and other says they live in natrual beatitude (like Adam and Eve) but they will never see the Beatific Vision since they were never baptised.

 

[batteddy]

As a matter of fact, that is one of the arguments against abortion. Who knows what great saint the child might have been on his earthly journey?

From our perspective, yes. Because while the child is still living, we cannot play God and say “this child’s life won’t be worth it anyway.” That just isn’t our place and is an incredibly arrogant thing to assume or decide.

But if the child does actually die, in retrospect we know that they were thus never meant to live any longer in the first place. If God had wanted that child to live, he would have put it in the womb of a woman who wasn’t going to abort her child. If God had wanted it to live, it would have. He would have prevented the abortion. But it’s still not our place to presume and play God like that. It’s a Shrodinger’s Cat type situation. After we find out the cat is dead…it was dead all along. But we cannot know until it happens, so we shouldn’t make any assumptions.

I think we as Catholics (allowing for free will as we do) sometimes forget that God is Sovereign over history. Everything that happens except our free choices is totally and completely arranged by God’s Providence.

 

[prv]

People lose their lives at various ages, and usually no one can predict when someone will pass away. With the exceptions of suicide or martyrdom, causes of death are involuntary and subject to chance occurrences. The vast majority of deaths are attributable to various causes such as natural or manmade events, human biological limitations and pure chance.

If it is the case that all who die as infants or in the womb attain heaven (perhaps via purgatory), then it is their good fortune to die so young, since they don’t have to face the possibility of either a difficult, painful life, and more importantly, avoiding the possibility of committing mortal sin and not being saved.

The important point here is that infants who die do not get any chance to merit heaven or hell, yet they surely are innocent of any wrongdoing, and I imagine that most people believe that they are given the free pass to heaven.

Further, there are similar problems for others who die at a relatively young age. If they mortally sinned as a young adult and died soon after, they are unfortunate to not have a chance at a full life and a chance to redeem themselves. Conversely, if they lived a righteous life and died young, they were fortunate to be denied the opportunity to fall into sin at a later time, assuming they attained heaven. A Christian cannot deny that possibility given the existence of free will.

The reason I point out this difficulty is my perception that Christian salvation beliefs seem to make some sense for those with average lives and average lifespans, but breakdown as capriciously absurd in the instances illustrated here. And those instances are hardly special.

Consider these statistics from the CDC:

“Overall, U.S. women are currently averaging 2.0 live births, 0.7 induced abortions, and 0.5 miscarriages and stillbirths, or a total of 3.2 pregnancies each, of which only 1.8 are wanted births…”

For every 100 live births there are about 60 aborted or miscarried babies. And that is for the U.S. In third world countries, where medical care is poor, infant mortality is much higher as are miscarriages.

It may be that in the entire history of humankind, souls who have lived and died in the womb outnumber those who lived to old age.

How do you, as a catholic, reconcile that a very large percentage of souls in heaven may be aborted or miscarried children? That’s not to mention deceased older children. Or, if you believe they aren’t saved, how do you reconcile innocents missing out on heaven through no fault of their own?

How could you not think that going to heaven is at least largely a matter of chance?

Mortal sin is entirely a matter of choice, as our deacon explained.

It must involve:

1. Grave matter
2. Deliberate choice

There is not a “chance” that you will commit a mortal sin if you do not choose to do one.

 

[celluloid]

Mortal sin is entirely a matter of choice, as our deacon explained.

It must involve:

1. Grave matter
2. Deliberate choice

There is not a “chance” that you will commit a mortal sin if you do not choose to do one.

True, but both the temptations and the time it takes to do one are dictated by chance. If a conceived child dies an instant after conception, it has near zero chance of committing any mortal sin, even if it had free will, even if it could choose.

 

[visavismeyou]

True, but both the temptations and the time it takes to do one are dictated by chance. If a conceived child dies an instant after conception, it has near zero chance of committing any mortal sin, even if it had free will, even if it could choose.

and again this is all a matter of the underlying premise of reality that God has created. Since God created it, and explained to us the parable in Matthew about the farmhands, one ought to start realizing its not of our concern. And this word “Chance” it requires some sort of causal probability whereas probability is observative not causative.

We have created probability to be able to observe things, probabilty is not something which governs the universe.

Just as the measure which we have assigned to the passage of time, does not cause time to pass, it merely allows us to express time passage. In actuality, the passage of time is, by definition, immeasurable.

I am sorry Celluloid, you have no ground to stand on…