Rosemary Benefield vs. St. Thomas Aquinas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JeffreyGerard
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JeffreyGerard

Guest
On Catholic Answers Live, I thought that I heard Rosemary Benefield tell a caller more than once that his aborted child is “with the Lord”. She did not clearly explain what she meant. I hope that she didn’t declare that the child posses the Beatific Vision.

If “with the Lord” means possessing the Beatific Vision, then perhaps Mrs. Benefield can shed some light on these questions:
  • If aborted children are “with the Lord”, then why is abortion intrinsically evil?
  • If it is likely that an aborted child can be “with the Lord”, what is the need for baptism?
  • Do aborted children die with Original Sin on their soul? If they do, doesn’t that mean they have no supernatural life in them?
  • How can aborted children being “with the Lord” be reconciled with the Church’s teaching for the necessity of baptism?
  • Why should I believe this theology over what the Angelic Doctor has to say on the subject?
    I understand that Mrs. Benefield was trying to be kind to the caller, but in today’s climate of poorly catechised Catholics and widespread embracing of the right-to-murder heresy, theological clarity is the order of the day, even at the expense of someone’s feelings.
Declaring that aborted children are definitely in heaven is an error. We may hope that they are, but individuals by virtue of the fall are not owed Heaven. Outside of the Church there is no salvation, and if one isn’t baptized (or at least has the desire for baptism), how can they truly be with God? In my opinion, this is why abortion is so horrible.

God Bless,

Jeff

Credit for the term “Right-to-murder heresy” is given to His Excellency Bishop Robert F. Vasa
 
JeffreyGerard said:
On Catholic Answers Live, I thought that I heard Rosemary Benefield tell a caller more than once that his aborted child is “with the Lord”. She did not clearly explain what she meant. I hope that she didn’t declare that the child posses the Beatific Vision.

If “with the Lord” means possessing the Beatific Vision, then perhaps Mrs. Benefield can shed some light on these questions:
  • If aborted children are “with the Lord”, then why is abortion intrinsically evil?
  • If it is likely that an aborted child can be “with the Lord”, what is the need for baptism?
  • Do aborted children die with Original Sin on their soul? If they do, doesn’t that mean they have no supernatural life in them?
  • How can aborted children being “with the Lord” be reconciled with the Church’s teaching for the necessity of baptism?
  • Why should I believe this theology over what the Angelic Doctor has to say on the subject?
    I understand that Mrs. Benefield was trying to be kind to the caller, but in today’s climate of poorly catechised Catholics and widespread embracing of the right-to-murder heresy, theological clarity is the order of the day, even at the expense of someone’s feelings.
Declaring that aborted children are definitely in heaven is an error. We may hope that they are, but individuals by virtue of the fall are not owed Heaven. Outside of the Church there is no salvation, and if one isn’t baptized (or at least has the desire for baptism), how can they truly be with God? In my opinion, this is why abortion is so horrible.

God Bless,

Jeff

Credit for the term “Right-to-murder heresy” is given to His Excellency Bishop Robert F. Vasa
Click to expand...
Abortion is intrinsically evil because it is murder, the killing of an innocent human life.

You don’t think that aborted baby would have the desire to be baptized and be with the Lord? The thief on the cross did not say “I want to be baptized”, but “remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

God made the rules, but it is we who are bound by them, not He.

IMHO
 
calchiquita said:
Abortion is intrinsically evil because it is murder, the killing of an innocent human life.

You don’t think that aborted baby would have the desire to be baptized and be with the Lord? The thief on the cross did not say “I want to be baptized”, but “remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
Click to expand...
If we follow your line of reasoning, the only people who go to Hell are the ones who explicity desire to go there? This makes a mockery of the doctrine of original sin which teaches that in order to see the kingdom of God, a man must be baptized and have his original sin removed. Why do you think the Church baptizes infants? If any infant would already desire to be baptized and thus go to heaven should they die, we may as well wait until the age of reason to baptize. Thanks but I’ll stick with what Popes, saints and theologians, such as the Angelic Doctor St. Thomas of Aquin have consistently taught for centuries–that unbaptized infants go to a state of natural happiness but without the beatific vision (supernatural happiness of heaven) commonly called limbo. It makes perfect sense and we never seemed to have a problem with it until the last 30 or so years (hmmm what a coincidence)!
 
JeffreyGerard said:
On Catholic Answers Live, I thought that I heard Rosemary Benefield tell a caller more than once that his aborted child is “with the Lord”. She did not clearly explain what she meant. I hope that she didn’t declare that the child posses the Beatific Vision.

If “with the Lord” means possessing the Beatific Vision, then perhaps Mrs. Benefield can shed some light on these questions:
  • If aborted children are “with the Lord”, then why is abortion intrinsically evil?
  • If it is likely that an aborted child can be “with the Lord”, what is the need for baptism?
  • Do aborted children die with Original Sin on their soul? If they do, doesn’t that mean they have no supernatural life in them?
  • How can aborted children being “with the Lord” be reconciled with the Church’s teaching for the necessity of baptism?
  • Why should I believe this theology over what the Angelic Doctor has to say on the subject?
    I understand that Mrs. Benefield was trying to be kind to the caller, but in today’s climate of poorly catechised Catholics and widespread embracing of the right-to-murder heresy, theological clarity is the order of the day, even at the expense of someone’s feelings.
Declaring that aborted children are definitely in heaven is an error. We may hope that they are, but individuals by virtue of the fall are not owed Heaven. Outside of the Church there is no salvation, and if one isn’t baptized (or at least has the desire for baptism), how can they truly be with God? In my opinion, this is why abortion is so horrible.

God Bless,

Jeff

Credit for the term “Right-to-murder heresy” is given to His Excellency Bishop Robert F. Vasa
Click to expand...
Jeffrey, I like your signature, but you might ought to change it before you get in trouble! In case you didn’t know, the word “heretic” is now considered offensive and a form of “name-calling”, which is against CAF rules!! :tsktsk:
 
Dear Jeffrey,
I’m sorry it has taken so long for me to reply to your posting. I only recently was aware of it, and it took me awhile to get registered on the website. Anyway,
I want to respond from two sources on the existence or non existence of limbo:
First is from Pope John Paul II in his Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 99, on March 25, 1995:
He states…“You will come to unerstand that nothing is definitevely lost and you will aslo be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.” This appears to most that if the unbaptised children are “living in the Lord”, that they are able to see him.
If you go to Zenit.org and search limbo you will find:
Vatican City, May 28, 2007
The key concept for the recently released study on the theological concept of limbo is hope based on God’s mercy, said the secretary of the Internation Theological Commission.
Father Ladaria, a professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University, said it was urgent to reflect on the salvation of infants who die without baptism.
The 41 page document, "The Hope of salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptised, was released April 20…
Father Ladaria said it is necessary to remember that limbo “is a theory with no explicit basis in Revelation” and is a concept that “was progressively abandoned in recent times.”
He said the theologians who have reflected on this theme over the last few years concluded that “from a theological point of view, the development of a theology of hope and an ecclesiology of communion, together with a recognition of the greatness of divine mercy, challenge an unduly restrictive view of salvation”.
The document, Father Ladaria told ZENIT, concludes that “there are theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision.”
The key concept of this document is hope, based on God’s mercy.
The Jesuit said the document touches on pastoral and doctrinal points and recalled that it is not a teaching of the magisteriaum, but a text with “a certain theological authority.”
In response to your questions:
  1. Abortion is extrinsically evil because it is murder.
  2. There are three types of baptism. One of water, two of blood and three of desire. In another document which I have not located, the children that are aborted are considered “Holy Innocents” because they died for the cause of Christ–thus received the baptism of blood. It has been proclaimed that the Holy Innocents are in heaven and have the beatific vision. As far as the baptism of desire,when a baby receives water baptism, it is the desire of the parents that they are baptised since they cannot make a decision at this time. We can desire all the aborted children to be baptised. I have seen prayers of baptism of desire for aborted children. I do not have a theological base for this assertion.
  3. Since the children receive at least the baptism of blood, the Original sin is cleansed from their soul.
  4. Again, there are three types of baptism.
  5. St. Thomas Aquinas was the doctor of the church for his time. Since then we have had other angelic doctors of the church like Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, who is in agreement with the second document that was quoted.
    Even poorly catechised Catholics know that there is no “right to murder”. The church has always remained stong in this position.
    In the beginning of Evangelium Vitae Pope John Paul II states:
    “The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happend was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope…”
    As the leader and director of Rachel’s Hope Healing Retreats, I have seen shattered lives as a result of an abortion(s). I don’t have the space to go into it, I talked about it somewhat in the radio interview. The children are the innocent victims. Today’s doctors of the church bases documents of hope, based on God’s mercy.
    It used to be that women who have had an abortion had to go to the bishop for reconciliation. That has been lifted in most countries.
    I subscribe to the hope and mercy of God, for the women and their children. I am not alone.
    I hope this helps.
    In Christ,
    Rosemary Benefield
 
Can we say that infants or miscarried or aborted preborns who die unbaptised are ‘with the Lord?’ Even to be kind I don’t think we can do this. The most we can say is that we trust these little ones to God’s mercy and hope for them.

Rosemary, I am not sure where your translation of *Evengelium Vitae *came from but the version I copied from the Vatican website is quite different. It says nothing about the child living in the Lord but repeats what the Catechism says namely that we hope in God’s mercy.

I *want to respond from two sources on the existence or non existence of limbo:
First is from Pope John Paul II in his Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 99, on March 25, 1995:
He states…“You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.” *

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

99
The Father of mercies is ready to give you [the mother] his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child.

You correctly said with regard to the document The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being BaptizedThe *document, Father Ladaria told ZENIT, concludes that "there are theological and liturgical grounds for **hope *that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision."
The key concept of this document is hope, based on God’s mercy.

The document can be read in its entirety at the website below.
  1. “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 should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ (Mk 10:14; cf.1Tim 2:4), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.
102….Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).
  1. What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.[135] Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.
Link: tinyurl.com/3x7puy

The key word is **hope not certainly **therefore it is not correct to say that these children are with the Lord although we all hope that they are and trust in God’s mercy. I know that you are meaning to be kind but it is not kind to change what the Church has said.
 
“The key word is hope not certainly therefore it is not correct to say that these children are with the Lord although we all hope that they are and trust in God’s mercy. I know that you are meaning to be kind but it is not kind to change what the Church has said.”

Romans 5:5 “and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.”

With God’s Love, hope and certainty are closer than you think!
 
The Catechism of hte Catholic Church states:

“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.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1261)

If this, with all the other evidence Mrs. Benefield has offered does not convince you to at least have hope that these innocents are in Heaven, then I fail to see how this thread can continue. You have no refute at this point, just a rehash of your own assertions.

Isn’t faith based on hope, on things unseen?
 
If this [citation from CCC], with all the other evidence Mrs. Benefield has offered does not convince you to at least have hope that these innocents are in Heaven, then I fail to see how this thread can continue. You have no refute at this point, just a rehash of your own assertions.

OutinChgoburbs did you read my post? If you did and still didn’t comprehend that my post was all about the HOPE rather of heaven for unbaptised babied/miscarried/aborted infants then your comprehension is deficient.
 
I was surprised to see that the link to the Vatican website that was quoted left out “now living in the Lord”. I got this quote from a book “The Gospel of Life, Evangelium Vitae” published by “One More Soul”.

**The Vatican link that does have the complete version of the encyclical letter is:
**vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__P10.HTM

Also the complete wording is also quoted in the following links:

Catholic Encyclopedia’s Library here:
newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02ev.htm

at EWTN’s library here:
ewtn.com/library/encyc/jp2evang.htm

at the USCCB’s website here:
usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/evangel/evchap4.shtml

I present this letter as a part of the Rachel’s Hope Post Abortion Healing program that gives the women comfort and hope in sharing eternity with their children someday in heaven with God. Heaven is a place of perfect happiness. I don’t think the women could be perfectly happy in heaven if their children were in limbo.
But then, I am not a theologian, nor do I pretend to be. I also realize that Pope John Paul II is not a doctor of the church but I think we can all agree that he is a saint in heaven as is Thomas Aquinas. Knowledge and understanding changes as directed by the Holy Spirit. It is a process of discernment to sort out what is from the Holy Spirit and what is not from the Holy Spirit. Remember that God is Love. It seems to me that Limbo was closed down after the Resurrection when Jesus went there to take his saints to heaven because Jesus came to open up the gates of heaven for us.
I hope this helps.
 
Hi Rosemary,

First of all I would like to say that I think that you are doing wonderful work and I applaud you for it. I have no doubt that you are a kind and caring person who wants to do all she can to ease the pain of people who for one reason or another have been involved in the abortion of their child. Having said that though I don’t think you can do this by telling people something i.e.’ *your child is with the Lord’ *if that is not what the Church says. I don’t think you have to say that the child is in Limbo because Limbo is only a theological speculation but it is quite acceptable to say that we entrust the preborn to the mercy of God.

The passage you quoted from the Catechism and the document *The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized *both express the hope in God’s mercy but nothing more than this – see my excerpts from the document.

You are quite correct that the Evangelium Vitae quote you posted did say The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.

I am quite correct that the Evangelium Vitae quote which I posted did say The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child.

These are two very different sentences both from the Vatican website. I obtained the Latin translation of the document and this is what it says for the same two sentences:

*Pater vos exspectat ut veniam vobis offerat et pacem in Sacramento Reconciliationis. Infantem autem vestrum potestis Eidem Patri Eiusque misericordiae cum spe committere.*My Latin is not good but to me the second version (mine) is the correct one. I have sent the Latin to a priest who says the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (Latin) and I hope he will be able to translate it for me. Why there has been this mistranslation and who did it I don’t know.

Bottom line Rosemary, even to be kind and pastoral we can’t go beyond what the Church says.

Pope John Paul was a good and holy man but we can’t call him a saint until the Church canonises him. Limbo was only ever a theological speculation, not a teaching of the Church but as the theologians who investigated this matter for 7 years have concluded - We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge
 
I have joined this site because of this discussion. I am an Alumni of Rachel’s Hope. I attended the Rachel’s Hope Retreat in 2001 after returning to the Church I had left.

I had returned to the Church in 2000 (the Jubillee). I thought that because I had an abortion I could never return to the Sacraments and had resigned myself to attending Church and never being able to receive the Eucharist. I thought that abortion was an unforgiveable sin, that was until I happened upon Rachel’s Hope while I was visiting the Diocesan website looking for a new parish to attend. I read there “Post Abortion Reconciliation and Counseling for Catholic and Catholic friendly women”. I read that over and over and finally called Rosemary and asked “are you SURE there is forgiveness for abortion?” then I made her give me the name of a Priest with whom she had worked who ‘knew he had to forgive me’.

The words Rosemary is being brought to task for in this discussion are/were very important for me. This portion of Evangelium Vitae is written TO ME!

Pope John Paul II says:
“I would now like to say a special word **to women who have had an abortion. **
The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord. With the friendly and expert help and advice of other people, and as a result of your own painful experience, you can be among the most eloquent defenders of everyone’s right to life. Through your commitment to life, whether by accepting the birth of other children or by welcoming and caring for those most in need of someone to be close to them, you will become promoters of a new way of looking at human life.”
Click to expand...
Rosemary has given several citations of this letter. One is from her “hard copy” of the Encyclical. She also cites 3 websites, including the Vatican website that support this version/wording of the Encyclical letter.

I went to Pauline Books this morning and got a copy of the Encyclical Evangelium Vitae. It has the “official” Vatican version which removes the words “your child, who is now living in the Lord”. In the back of the Encyclical published by Pauline Books & Media, Daughters of St. Paul it says:
Note from the Publisher:

This booklet contais the Vatican’s official English translation of the encyclical. However, the Lain text which was **later published **in the Acta Apolstolicae Sedis has one significant difference from this text. It concerns a line in Paragraph 99 of the encyclical, which originally stated: “You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to assk forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord,” The Latin text reads:
“infantum qutem vestrum potestis Eidem Patri Eiusque misericordiae cum spe committere.”
This can be translated as: “To the same Father and to his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child,” (see J. Michael Miller, The Encyclicals of John Paul II [Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1996]). We hve corrected our edition because the Latin version of any Church document is the official text.
Click to expand...
How and why has this been changed? Did John Paul II *actually write *" your child, who is now living in the Lord" then it was later changed? or did he write “you can with sure hope entrust your child” and it was originally mistranslated?

These are important questions for me to find the answers to. In the meantime, I will stick with the actual words of Pope John Paul II written TO ME and contained in ***all the versions ***of the Encyclical except the “officially” changed version.

It does distress me that the Church can/does “change” the original wording of an Encyclical after the fact. But to suggest that it is Rosemary who has changed it is not only unkind, but false.
…is not correct to say that these children are with the Lord
…is not kind to change what the Church has said.
Click to expand...
It was Pope John Paul II who said these children “are with the Lord”

It was the “official” Vatican translation that later “changed”.
 
JeffreyGerard;1835670 On Catholic Answers Live, I thought that I heard Rosemary Benefield tell a caller more than once that his aborted child is “with the Lord”. She did not clearly explain what she meant. I hope that she didn’t declare that the child posses the Beatific Vision.
Click to expand...
No one can really say one way or another without asking what Rosemary Benefield actually meant. To tell people that their child is “with the Lord” doesn’t strictly mean that the child does or does not posess the beatifice vision.
If “with the Lord” means possessing the Beatific Vision, then perhaps Mrs. Benefield can shed some light on these questions:
  • If aborted children are “with the Lord”, then why is abortion intrinsically evil?
Click to expand...
The crucifiction of Jesus was “intrinsically evil” but God took something evil and made it good.
If it is likely that an aborted child can be “with the Lord”, what is the need for baptism?
Click to expand...
One could argue baptism of blood or a baptism of desire, both are theological truths. And as the theif on the cross (Luke 23:43) wasn’t sacramentally baptized, he was baptized by desire.
Do aborted children die with Original Sin on their soul? If they do, doesn’t that mean they have no supernatural life in them?
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but you are limiting God to work only within the sacrament of baptism. The sacraments are for humanity, NOT for God as He can most assuredly work outside the sacraments, ergo He can save whom He wishes to save.
How can aborted children being “with the Lord” be reconciled with the Church’s teaching for the necessity of baptism?
Click to expand...
Again, God is sovereign, He isn’t limited to the sacraments and can save whom He wishes. God is perfectly just as St. Thomas Aquinas teaches, therefore He can save whom He wishes and a helpless inoccent child would be considered “the least of these” (Mt 25:40), so it is certainly within God’s justice and mercy to save a non-sacramentally baptized aborted child.
Why should I believe this theology over what the Angelic Doctor has to say on the subject?
Click to expand...
Because, for one St. Thomas Aquinas had problems with the immaculate conception and it turned out to be a dogma.
Two, he is only a super theologian/philospher/doctor/priest/Saint of the Catholic faith; he is NOT the Magisterium nor the Pope.
  • I understand that Mrs. Benefield was trying to be kind to the caller, but in today’s climate of poorly catechised Catholics and widespread embracing of the right-to-murder heresy, theological clarity is the order of the day, even at the expense of someone’s feelings.
Click to expand...
Again, unless you’ve heard or read her explaination of what she actually meant, you don’t actually know for sure, what she meant.
Declaring that aborted children are definitely in heaven is an error. We may hope that they are, but individuals by virtue of the fall are not owed Heaven. Outside of the Church there is no salvation, and if one isn’t baptized (or at least has the desire for baptism), how can they truly be with God? In my opinion, this is why abortion is so horrible.
Click to expand...
Well, again, you are, I believe falsely presuming she meant “definitely in heaven.” Abortion is a modern evil for sure. However, it is perfectly proper for a Catholic to say to someone who’s non-baptized child dies, that their child is with the Lord, or in the hands of the Lord.
In fact, we can say that about anyone because we, it IS God who decides what happens to that soul; we only know for sure who is in heaven by the Church’s canonization or perhaps a private supernatural revelation from God Himself that the person is in hell or heaven.
And extra eclessiam nulla sulas doesn’t restrict one absolutely to formally being “Catholic.”
 
Hi RA,

Your post contains two issues and I will deal with them separately.
  1. Can a person who has had an abortion be forgiven? And 2. What is the correct version of Evangelium Vitae paragraph 99?
As for the first question the answer is yes of course. There is only one sin which is unforgivable and that is not asking for forgiveness. God is our loving and merciful Father and He is always there waiting for us to return to Him in contrition so that He can forgive us. ‘*Though your sins be as scarlet they will be made white as snow’ Isaiah *1:18

Now to the translation.

Both of these translations can be found on the Vatican website.
  1. . You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord.
  2. To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child.
    Only one of these translations is accurate from the official Latin and that is translation 2.
The correct version of any Vatican document is Latin. That someone has mistranslated this document, for who knows what reason, is unfortunate and it has given rise to many people being misinformed.

Rosemary has given several citations of this letter. One is from her “hard copy” of the Encyclical. She also cites 3 websites, including the Vatican website that support this version/wording [translation 1] of the Encyclical letter.

The Vatican website, if you read my post, also gives the correct translation, translation 2, of the official Latin. Priests for Life also have the correct translation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also agrees with Translation 2 . The document The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized , read my original post, also agrees with Translation 2.

As the Daughters of St Paul state.
We hve corrected our edition because the Latin version of any Church document is the official text.

How and why has this been changed? Did John Paul II actually write " your child, who is now living in the Lord" then it was later changed? or did he write “you can with sure hope entrust your child” and it was originally mistranslated?

I think that these are good questions and we need to find the answers. My best guess is that someone, for possibly pastoral reasons, changed the words in the document because I strongly doubt that Pope John Paul would contradict the bible and Church teaching.

I will stick with the actual words of Pope John Paul II written TO ME and contained in all the versions of the Encyclical except the “officially” changed version.

I don’t know why you have put scare quotes around ‘officially. Latin is the official language of the Church and all Church documents for about 2000 years have Latin as their official language.

*It does distress me that the Church can/does “change” the original wording of an Encyclical after the fact. But to suggest that it is Rosemary who has changed it is not only unkind, but false.
Quote:
…is not correct to say that these children are with the Lord
…is not kind to change what the Church has said. *

. When Rosemary posted to me her version of EV I went to the Vatican website and happened on the correct version therefore I said to Rosemary that ‘ it is not kind to change what the Church has said.’ Rosemary then replied that she had obtained this version from the Vatican website and indeed I found it there and my reply to this you will find if you read my second post.

For the record I think that Rosemary said what she did because she honestly believes the version of EV she has read but it is not the correct version. I have written to the Vatican and hopefully the incorrect versions will be amended It is the person who mistranslated EV who deserves aprobrium.

You can read about the mistranslation on the Catholics United For the Faith Website
cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=93

To summarise:
  1. There are two translations of paragraph 99 of Evangelium Vitae on the Vatican website
  2. One translation agrees with the official Latin version and one differs markedly.
  3. Many websites feature the incorrect translation e.g EWTN, the US Catholic Bishops’ site and non English language translations of EV. Possibly they all copied the incorrect translation
  4. The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1261, the official document The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized expresses hope rather than certainly and the Priests For Life website has the correct translation.
  5. I am not attacking either Rosemary or the wonderful work she is doing. My only interest is that the Church’s teachings are not misrepresented even inadvertently.
My personal belief is that we can trust infants who die without being baptised, aborted and miscarried preborns to the boundless mercy and love of our Heavenly Father.
 
I am not attacking either Rosemary or the wonderful work she is doing. My only interest is that the Church’s teachings are not misrepresented even inadvertently.
Click to expand...
really? even though it’s repeatedly been pointed out that Rosemary is reading from her hard copy of Evangelium Vitae, a published version that has the same wording that can be found on several websites INCLUDING the Vatican website, EWTN, Catholic Encyclopedia and the USCCB (of which Rosemary belongs being in the US) you still maintain that Rosemary is teaching “error”? that is not attacking Rosemary when you say:
Bottom line Rosemary, even to be kind and pastoral we can’t go beyond what the Church says.
Click to expand...
…is not correct to say that these children are with the Lord …is not kind to change what the Church has said.
Click to expand...
even when it’s been pointed out to you that it is, in fact, what the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II HAS WRITTEN and was only later changed?

The Church hasn’t seen fit or found it necessary to correct the USCCB website with the original wording of John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae; still allows the publishing of books of the Encyclicals with the original wording (someone at Pauline’s bookstore today bought a book of all the Encyclicals and her book contained the original wording “your child, who is now living in the Lord”); and still has on the Vatican website the original wording "your child, who is now living in the Lord " yet for some reason when Rosemary cites these words then she is somehow guilty in your mind of “changing what the Church has said”.

It is the church that has changed what was written in EV, and I personally don’t think it’s right. Now I can’t help but wonder when I read an Encyclical whether this is, in fact, what the Pope actually wrote or whether it was changed at some later date by theologians to “fit” with “official” church teaching.

This issue is very personal to ME. I have aborted a child. I have attended Rosemary’s Rachel’s Hope retreat. I have taken these words of Pope John Paul II, written TO ME to heart. This “aside” was not written to the church at large. Not written to you or theologians. Not an infallible ex-cathedra statement. It was a personal note “to women who have had an abortion”. It was a note full of grace, compassion, and guided by the Holy Spirit to speak to the hearts of women. I have entrusted my aborted child to the Lord and have confidence and faith that my child is indeed “with the Lord”. How could I go on knowing that not only did I sin and have now, through reconciliation, been reunited with God think even for a moment that although *I *have received the grace of reconciliation my child though innocent and through no fault of it’s own was aborted must spend eternity without the beatific vision? This just to prove some point about what the Church “teaches”?This is not a concept of “church” that I share.

I have FAITH that my child is with the Lord. Faith based on the infallible teaching of the Church. Yes, Infallible. The Church teaches that the word of God, the Gospel, is Infallible. Christ has said in His word, the Gospel “Suffer not the children come unto me”. I have entrusted my child to God, and have faith that my child is indeed, as His Holiness John Paul II has said “now with the Lord”.

Your posting all this nonsense has been a challenge to me personally. After a sleepless night I went first thing this morning and purchased a copy of Evangelium Vitae. I have spent most of this afternoon researching this issue on the internet. It wasn’t until I read the following article on the ‘Baptism of blood’, Holy Innocents, and the Unborn that I was finally able to find peace.
christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/abortion&martyrdom1.htm
Evangelium Vitae 99 published in the official journal of the Holy See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, softens the sense of this passage, replacing the statement that ‘nothing is definitively lost’ and the encouragement to ‘ask forgiveness from your child who is now living in the Lord’ with the assurance that the child can be ‘entrust[ed] with sure hope’ to ‘the Father and his mercy’. Both versions, however, enjoy validity and can be cited as authoritative in argument, even though the Latin text of the Acta is the more definitive. The original English vernacular text of Evangelium Vitae 99 is made use of by a number of the contributors to this volume.
Click to expand...
I have asked Rosemary to discuss this issue with her Bishop. The Church venerates as bloodwitnesses to revelation, the Jewish babes of Bethlehem, massacred in place of Christ. It is my hope that eventually the Church will acknowledge children killed in abortion are ‘companions of the Holy Innocents’ and affirm that they too died in silent testimony to a truth greater than themselves and therefore martyrs and by a solemn act declare publicly their martyr status, and invite their intercession.
 
To Rachel’sAlumni -

John
Chapter 14

1 “Do not let your hearts be troubled. You have faith in God; have faith also in me.
2 In my Father’s house there are many dwelling places. If there were not, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?
3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back again and take you to myself, so that where I am you also may be.
4 Where (I) am going you know the way.”
5 Thomas said to him, “Master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?”
6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Just as RC parents intend to baptize their infants, some of whom prove to be born dead, lost to medical conditions, so the Church Universal intends that life and eternal life be granted to all unborn children and it is that prayer that is forever heard by our merciful God in heaven. We know Christ Jesus and the desire of our hearts is that all know Him and therefore know the Father too.
 
HI

I just have to say that this discussion also left me feeling a lot of pain. I too had a abortion 25 years ago when i was a young adult and not baptized in the church. I did not know our Lord Jesus Christ when i made my choice. .

.I went through the RCIA process in our church 15 years ago and we were never taught the concept of Limbo. I was told i was forgiven for all my sins including abortion and that Gods Mercy was Forever…I clung to this but i still had a lot of guilt and shame concerning my abortion…(even though i was married and had 4 beautiful children.) I spent years in private agony…telling no one of my pain…

It was not until I went to a Rachel Hope Retreat for Healing of abortions that i received healing. I had many problems from the abortion and it was not until i got in tune with denial of what i had aborted was actually a person not a tissue…
WHen i came to that fact…eveything changed…My child became real and I can not belive that my child is not with the Lord (beatfic vision) because of a choice that I made. My child was a martyr…she had no free choice…How could i be allowed to go to heaven and she not?? As a mother who did not protect her baby from forming in her womb and becoming a valued child of God in this world…I feel now i need to protect her now… I wear a ring on my finger that is her birthstone. I will never forget her and I know she is cheering me on in my conversion. My family has adopted my daughter in heaven and we put her to work interceeding for us… It makes absoulutly no since to me that my child would not be in heaven… How could a Loving GOd separate us in two different places… I am her Mother and She is my CHild and Our Father in Heaven wants all of us to be part of the Kingdom…We are His Children…

I encourage any man or woman who needs healing of a abortion in their life to seek healing through a retreat such as Rachels Hope. Your child wants to be united with you and teach you the Love and Mercy of Our Lord Jesus Christ…
 
Hi RA,

I will do my best to respond to your comments.

Rosemary is reading from her hard copy of Evangelium Vitae, a published version that has the same wording that can be found on several websites INCLUDING the Vatican website, EWTN, Catholic Encyclopedia and the USCCB (of which Rosemary belongs being in the US) you still maintain that Rosemary is teaching “error”.

Yes I agree yet again that Rosemary is indeed reading from her hard copy of Evangelium Vitae, to which the Daughters of St Paul have now added a correction apparently, and the mistranslation of the Latin can be found on several websites. The correct translation can also be found on the Vatican website - vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html - and on the Priests For Life Website. The mistranslation is acknowledged by Catholics United for the Faith – see website link in another post. I don’t think that Rosemary belongs to the USCCB because she is not a bishop and yes if what Rosemary is saying differs from the Latin/official translation then she is inadvertendly saying something incorrect.

The hope that infants who die before they are baptised, aborted/miscarried preborns can be trusted to the mercy of God and be saved is repeated in the Catechism and in the latest official document *The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized *

even when it’s been pointed out to you that it is, in fact, what the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II HAS WRITTEN and was only later changed?

Rachel, we don’t know as a fact when the late Pope John Paul wrote because neither of us has seen the actual document he signed off on. We do indeed have a mystery here. 1. Did the late Holy Father write what I said was a mistranslation because it didn’t agree with the Latin and did someone change it to agree with Church teaching and scripture?

Or
  1. Did the late Holy Father write what was faithfully translated into Latin but later some person, possibly for a pastoral reason, change the meaning of the words?
I am endeavouring to find out by emailing various people but I will have to leave the definitive answer up to them. If I find out I will certainly get back to you.

It is the church that has changed what was written in EV, and I personally don’t think it’s right.

No RA it is not the Church which has changed what was written in EV it is someone in the Church and I agree with you I don’t think it is right either.

Now I can’t help but wonder when I read an Encyclical whether this is, in fact, what the Pope actually wrote or whether it was changed at some later date by theologians to “fit” with “official” church teaching.

I think the same – has the Encyclical been changed to be more pastorally sensitive even though it contradicts Church teaching. By the way, why the scare quotes around official?

My personal feeling is that Pope John Paul II is unlikely to have contradicted scripture and Church teaching and the wording has been changed to be more pastorally sensitive but I won’t know until/if I receive some replies to my emails.

I hope that this matter can be sorted out because the confidence of a lot of people who thought that they could read something on the Vatican website and believe it has been undermined.

I can sympathise with the desire of women who aborted their preborns and now repent to wish to ease their anguish with the reassurance that these little ones are with God enjoying the beatific vision and I hope that they are.The link you posted from Christendom Awake suggests that such a belief is permissable. I don’t know on what authority they make the comment they made. If it is authentic Church teaching that all we can do is hope and trust in the limitless mercy of God then we can’t go beyond that.

Keep in mind though that it is not the Church who decides whether these children are with God or not i.e. if the Church says no they aren’t with God and if the Church says yes they are with God. Only God knows for sure whether these children are with Him or not and as I said many times before I certainly hope that they are. The Church is only trying to formulate its teaching in the light of Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top