Rosemary Benefield vs. St. Thomas Aquinas?

[catharina]

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.

In what way might the earlier translation of the encyclical be taken that leads you to believe that His Holiness might have thereby contradicted Scripture? Would you be specific, please?

 

[Joab_Anias]

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?

Because it denies Gods will and sets one self up in taking anothers God given right to life.

*]If it is likely that an aborted child can be “with the Lord”, what is the need for baptism?

Let us not forget there is a valid baptism of desire. The sacrament is the public and open expression of that desire which can be through ones parents. God does not penalize those who fail to recieve the opportunity. We must remember Christ is a JUST judge. Even the most hardened sinner would pardon he who is unborn and yet given the opportunity to sin, how much more merciful is our God? His mercy is beyond our comprehesion.

*]Do aborted children die with Original Sin on their soul? If they do, doesn’t that mean they have no supernatural life in them?

This is a good question. I believe we must assume that they do have the stain of original sin however, culpability of sin is reliant upon intent. Since all men have souls all have supernatural life in them and are destined for eternal glory. Christ delivered us from the penalty of the condemnation of original sin in His new covenant which He personally bestowed upon us in union with Our Father and the Holy Spirit. So, even if an unborn child isn’t free of the stain they are hardly condemned without a chance to choose God. As innocent and pure its not hard to understand who they would choose. Imagine how frigtening evil must appear to an unborn soul yet to be subjected to the permitted corruption of the world.

Condemnation to hell is an act of our own free will. A turning away from God if you will. These poor souls have had no opportunity to be tempted let alone take such action. At the very worste they undergo a brief purification to remove the stain just as any of us will should we perish unworthy of direct admittance to the beatific vision yet still desire to see God.

*]How can aborted children being “with the Lord” be reconciled with the Church’s teaching for the necessity of baptism?

It already is. The desire for baptism is all that is necessary. The church teaches this and I am sure its easily found in the CCC. We musn’t insult the Lords mercy.
*]Why should I believe this theology over what the Angelic Doctor has to say on the subject?

The Dr. of the church, though genius as he was spoke to his time and isn’t the final authority. The Magisterium of the Church is.

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.

Then I shall mercifully recommend that you continue your catechisis starting with a church knowlege of what constitutes a valid baptism and then possibly study the merciful nature of Jesus.

Declaring that aborted children are definitely in heaven is an error.

I don’t believe any such statement is made as it would be too simplistic. I would be totally secure however in declaring simply that they are NOT in hellfire.

We may hope that they are, but individuals by virtue of the fall are not owed Heaven.

Agreed however Jesus once says; (speaking of children) “you will not in one iota enter the kingdom of heaven lest you become as one of these little ones”. I would deduce from that, that there is more than a small hope an innocent and nearly pure soul recieves the mercy of the Lord.

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.

This would depend on how bigoted is the opinion of what “outside the church” actually means. Baptism in and of itself doesn’t save, Jesus does. Believe it or not ignorance can preserve one from culpability. It may not be an excuse for failing to abide by a secular kingdoms laws but fortunately Christs kingdom is not of this world.

Peace and Mercy Mercy Mercy.

 

[yinekka]

Catharina,

In what way might the earlier translation of the encyclical be taken that leads you to believe that His Holiness might have thereby contradicted Scripture? Would you be specific, please?

First off I don’t think we know at this stage which translation came first although only one is faithful to the official Latin… As for the scripture passages, see below.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1257. The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

Another scripture verse 1 Peter 3:21
21 Baptism, which corresponds to this [Noah and the ark] , now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

The point I was making was that I don’t think that the late Holy Father would have come out and flatly contradicted scripture. As I have said many times in this thread echoing the Catechismthe Church entrusts these children to the mercy of God …allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. CCC 1261

1257 …says in conclusion God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. In other words if God wishes these children to be saved they will be saved but the Church can’t say definitively that they are saved because it would contradict scripture.

It might be helpful to re read the document *The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Did Without Being Baptised *vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

 

[catharina]

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1257. The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. John 3:5
Jesus answered, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

…

1257 …says in conclusion God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. In other words if God wishes these children to be saved they will be saved but the Church can’t say definitively that they are saved because it would contradict scripture.

You know and accept and recognize that the Church has long affirmed Baptism by water, desire or fire then, each graced by the Holy Spirit?

 

[Rosemary_Benefield]

A portion of the document on the Baptism of Blood as posted by RachelsAlumni’s link.

Setting the question
by
Philippe Jobert, O.S.B., Abbey of Saint-Pierre de Solesmes
and
Aidan Nichols, O.P., Blackfriars, Cambridge

Can the Magisterium of the Church acknowledge children killed in abortion as ‘companions of the Holy Innocents’ (and therefore martyrs)?

It is a commonplace of Catholic theology that infants, even in the womb, who are killed from odium fidei, ‘hatred of the faith’, may be regarded as having undergone a ‘Baptism of blood’. The question we wish to raise is whether it is possible and desirable to regard all aborted children, without exception, as supernaturally included within the embrace of divine redemption, to the point, indeed, that the Church, by a solemn act, could declare publicly their martyr status, and invite their intercession.
The question of the ‘Baptism of blood’ arises in the case of aborted infants since their deaths give witness to the word of God, ‘You shall not kill’, a word written in the conscience of every human being (cf. Rom. 2, 15), so therefore in the murderer’s soul. Their murders prevent God from giving justification through Baptism, the ordinary way of salvation in the Christian era. The personal sinlessness of the unborn and their ordering, in the divine intention, to grace and glory renders them, it may be thought, an object of predilection for the malice of the evil Angels whose activity assists the formation of a ‘culture of death’ operating with especial intensity in the practice of abortion. Hence odium fidei is at work not only in human intentions originated so as deliberately to express such hatred, but at the transcendent level of angelic causality (‘the Dragon’ of the Apocalypse).
In such a context, aborted infants are brought to their deaths by the same ‘rulers of this age’ (I Cor. 2:8), who crucified Jesus, and constitute, indeed, icons of his ‘crucified Innocence’. In his divine justice, exercised towards all human beings, will not God give these children - whose death is not only a natural but also and above all a supernatural injustice - the supernatural justice he wills for all? Though aborted infants are distinguished from the Holy Innocents whom the Liturgy of the Church commemorates at Christmas in that they were not first aggregated to the people of God by an outward sign (circumcision) typifying Baptism, nor did they die in place of Jesus, nevertheless their combination of personal guiltlessness and the ordering of their humanity to share the Father’s glory through Christ conforms them inchoately to the image of the Son, while their violent deaths at the behest (human or angelic) of those who despise the divine image in man, render them more specifically isomorphic with the Son in his crucified condition. Like all martyrs, the aborted point to Jesus in the mystery of his rejection and humiliation. ‘Virgin martyrs’ are evangelical signs of holiness.
Is it, then, by an implicit reference to the intercessory power of the martyrs that Pope John Paul II can speak, in Evangelium Vitae 99, of the mothers of aborted children being ‘able to ask forgiveness’ from their children, who are ‘now living in the Lord’? If so, these will be martyr Companions of the Holy Innocents, delighting to restore, through the grace of Christ, the dignity of offended motherhood in families made to the image of the Blessed Trinity itself.

Editor’s Note:
Readers should know that the version of 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.

christendom-awake.org/pages/anichols/abortion&martyrdom1.htm

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Yinekka,

I think you’ve got it backwards. It appears from the research I’ve done that the original version that Pope John Paul II wrote is:

'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 found these two online discussions about P99 of Evangelium Vitae. It does appear from both these sources that the original text of P99 of Evangelium Vitae DID say *"… you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living with the Lord" *and only later was edited out/revised for the Acta Apostolicae Sedis i.e. Official Latin.

first this article in Catholic Culture:

catholicculture.org/commentary/blog.cfm?id=42

In English, the sentence in question (addressed to women who have had abortions) reads: “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.” Presumably this sentence was in the original text from which all the translations were made, because **all the translations I have seen contain it in the same form—including all those on the Vatican website. **
But it was apparently deleted from the official Latin text as finally published in AAS. Instead, the AAS text substitutes: “Infantum autem vestrum potestis Eidem Patri Eiusque misericordiae cum spe committere,” which in English reads: “Moreover, you are able to entrust with hope your infant to the same Father and His mercy.”

This Q&A column in Homiletic & Pastoral Review (July 2001), by Msgr. William B. Smith, catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/2001-07/questions.html

The passage in question reads, in part, “. . . 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 with the Lord. . . (EV, n. 99).
I take that translation from my paperback Random House edition (1995) with the publisher’s note that it is “the official English translation provided by the Vatican.” My own check of other translations (Spanish, French and Italian) read the same way. However, the official Latin text of the encyclical, published in the Acta, does not read that way at all.

Then he summarizes:

“Therefore, I take it that the deletion in the official Latin text is a correction, or at least a revision…”

So it was not a matter of a mistranslation of the original, but rather a later revision/deletion/correction in the official Latin of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

In any event, your issue is not only with Rosemary Benefied, the USCCB, EWTN, and Catholic Encyclopedia but also Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo as President of the Pontifical Council for the Family in a talk entitled “Evangelium Vitae and the Pro-Life Movement” given almost one year to the day later on March 23 1996 said:

"In Evangelium Vitae, 99, the Holy Father speaks gently to women who have had an abortion: ‘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.’

You care for these women, you counsel them, you place your work in God’s hands and marvel at his healing miracle of love… Keep up your hidden work of love and expand it, for the need for love is great. " catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=5118

This talk, dated March 1996 was one year AFTER the revised official Latin text was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. (cf. AAS 87 [1995] p. 515). Something which as a Cardinal and President of the Pontifical Council for the Family I’m sure he was well aware.

As for me, my quest will be that the Church acknowledge the baptism in blood of children killed in abortion, that they are ‘companions of the Holy Innocents’ and affirm that they too died in silent testimony to a truth greater than themselves and therefore martyrs. It is my hope and goal that the Church will by a solemn act declare publicly their martyr status, and invite their intercession.

 

[yinekka]

Hi RA,

This talk, dated March 1996 was one year AFTER the revised official Latin text was published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. (cf. AAS 87 [1995] p. 515). Something which as a Cardinal and President of the Pontifical Council for the Family I’m sure he was well aware.

I quite agree with what you have written here if the official Latin text was published in the AAS before the cardinal’s talk. It is indeed most puzzling.

So now we have two translations of Evangelium Vitae on the Vatican website. One translation is faithful to the official Latin text and one is not. One is in accord with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and one is not, one is in accord with the document The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Did Without Being Baptised and one is not. Why two contradictory versions are on the Vatican website I don’t know. The laity don’t need this sort of confusion. One of the translations should be removed.

 

[RachelsAlumni]

One is in accord with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and one is not,

I disagree. Your continue to forget or refuse to acknowledge the baptism of blood. John Paul II had every right as Pastor to the Faithful to claim “your child, who is with the Lord” because if they have received Baptism (by blood), which John Paul II makes the case in Evangelium Vitae, they are already members of the Church.
Some excerpts from “WHETHER ABORTED CHILDREN SHOULD BE CLAIMED AS MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH”
by Msgr. John F. McCarthy

The Sacrament of Baptism is intimately tied to the Self-Sacrifice of Jesus on Mount Calvary. All of the grace of the seven Sacraments of the New Law flows from the Blood of Jesus poured out from the Cross and from the Sacred Heart of Jesus, wounded for our salvation. Even before the Passion and Death of Jesus, the Holy Innocents were saved by the shedding of their blood without Baptism of water. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb of his mother, only later to confirm his witness by the supreme sacrifice of his life. At the dawn of history the voice of the just Abel’s blood cried out to the Lord God from the earth. There is evidence that the voice of the blood of each aborted baby calls out to God from the “earth” of his earthly mother’s womb as well as from the spiritual womb of the Church and from the mystical womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church and spiritual Mother of all the descendants of Adam and Eve.

    Satan hates all of the physical descendants of Eve and all of the spiritual children of Mary (Gen 3:15); he hates all human beings from the moment of their conception, because they have the potentiality to become children of God and heirs of Heaven. In fact, every human fetus or fertilized human ovum is potentially a child of Mary and a member of the Church, and it is for this reason especially that Satan makes war against them (Apoc 12:17). Crimes of abortion are ultimately attacks of Satan against the seed of woman and above all against the spiritual seed of Mary.

    Jesus has called "blessed" those who "suffer persecution for justice's sake," not because they will receive the reward of unending natural happiness, but because "theirs is the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 5:10). Every procured abortion is performed in an atmosphere of opposition to the Law of God. Every procured abortion is an act of subservience to Satan in his hatred of Jesus and of the Mother of Jesus. Every aborted infant has been persecuted unto death because, in the ultimate analysis, he or she is a potential child of Mary in the Mystical Body of Christ. Thus, every aborted infant has suffered persecution, not only for reasons of natural injustice to that infant's right to life, but also for reasons of opposition to the holiness of Christ.What more can the Church do for aborted children? Like Rachel of old, the Church weeps for the truncated lives of these tiny human persons, but with the hope that Jesus will lead them "out of the land of the enemy" (Jer 31:16). Like Rachel of old, the Church also weeps for the murderers of these children, above all for their parents, knowing that these persons will never be led out of the land of Satan, the enemy, if they do not sincerely repent and perform acts of penitence. Both of these reasons seem to call for further initiatives on the part of the Church.

    From the evidence presented, it seems to me that aborted souls do not absolutely need to be claimed by the Church in order to be saved or to enter into the eternal happiness of Heaven, if they have already been claimed by Mary, image and model of the Church, Mother of the Church and Mother of all the faithful. Apart from being the spiritual Mother of all mankind as the New Eve, Mary is the Mother of all the members of Christ, "since she has by her charity joined in bringing about the birth of believers in the Church, who are members of its Head" (Lumen Gentium, nos. 53-54). Mary's work of charity might well include bringing victims of abortion into the Church. Thus, these babies would be baptized in the Blood of Jesus, not only by the mingling of their own blood, but also by the faith of the Church, pre-contained and epitomized in the faith and charity of Mary, Queen of Heaven.

rtforum.org/lt/lt65.html

 

[yinekka]

Hi RA,

I think I have said all I can on this matter and until/if I hear from some of the people I have emailed for clarification re the two versions of Evangelium Vitae I won’t post any more. I will try to summarise what I have said in my posts. One thing I must make clear is that I am not trying to change Church teaching or give the idea that my ideas trump those of the Magisterium. I have said a number of times that I hope that aborted and miscarried preborns and infants who die without baptism are indeed with God but I go along with what the Church says in her official documents.

We have three official Church documents on which to base our comments.

1. The encyclical Evangelium Vitae with its two versions of paragraph 99
2. The official Latin version of EV, which is the benchmark, as published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis from which one of the translations was taken.
3. The Catechism of the Catholic Church

The Catechism of the 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)

1. The official document The Hope of Salvation for Infants who Die Without Being Baptized put out by the International Theological Commission in 2007 says
2. “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).
   Link: tinyurl.com/3x7puy

You have quoted a number of opinions from various people but they are only opinions as what we say are only opinions. The final decision rests with God – I have posted about this – and on earth the Church as she tries to interpret Scripture faithfully for us.

You quoted an opinion piece which Msgr McCarthy wrote in 1996 and the final paragraph of that opinion piece says:

WHETHER ABORTED CHILDREN SHOULD BE CLAIMED AS MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

It is, however, the sole prerogative of the Pope and of the universal Magisterium to examine the evidence and to determine whether or not aborted babies can be claimed as members of the Church. In the absence of such a determination, the faithful may not presume this, but can only hope and pray, reassured that in the end, whichever be the case, “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes: and death shall be no more, nor mourning, nor crying, nor sorrow shall be any more, for the former things are passed away” (Apoc 21:4).
rtforum.org/lt/lt65.html

Nothing in any official document condemns infants who have died without baptism. Every document I have read expresses hope and trust in the mercy of God. As we know, God is boundless in His mercy and limitless in His love.

I will keep you in my prayers and I hope you will keep me in yours.
God bless,
Yin

 

[RachelsAlumni]

This issue is no small matter. Nor is it simply a matter of which “version” of Evangelium Vitae is officially correct. The title of this thread “Rosemary Benefield vs. St. Thomas Aquinas?” and the questions/accusations it raises calls into question Rosemary’s good name & ministry to post-abortive women.

Now, thanks to this topic on CA anyone doing a google search of Rosemary will find their way to this topic. Suppose there is a woman who has aborted a child and has not yet sought out reconciliation & counseling but is considering doing so. She does a search and comes upon this discussion and reads that Rosemary, Pope John Paul II, and even Cardinal Trujillo are being called to task for saying “…you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord." That this terminology, according to some, equates to “contradicting scripture and Church teaching”.

I earlier gave my testimony that I had the mistaken notion that abortion is an unforgiveable sin. Is it any wonder how I could arrive at such a mistaken notion then when you see the kind of legalism some members of the body of Christ engages in here. The Church has done a poor job in the past of communicating mercy and forgiveness for the sin of abortion. Now with Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae and his “personal word to women who have had an abortion”; a message of compassion, mercy and forgiveness; the Church has at long last extended a lifeline to women who have aborted their children.

Asking forgiveness from our child “who is now living in the Lord” is very much a part of the healing process in post-abortion counseling. So that now, if Rosemary reads this “personal word to women who have had an abortion” from Evangelium Vitae and recites the official version “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”?

What then happens to the whole process of asking for your child’s forgiveness? What then happens in the woman’s mind knowing that although SHE has been reconciled with God, her child is in limbo somewhere (for all you legalists I’m using limbo figuratively here as in ‘we don’t know’)? This will only make the process of forgiving herself and accepting God’s forgiveness of her sin all the more impossible.

What a cruel thing it is for a woman to repent and grow to love her child and then be told that her child can not join in the beatific vision because he/she was not baptised…But I the Mother can go to Heaven. What kind of place is this heaven that you describe where a mother is not joined with her child and the murderer is free to reside, but the innocent murdered victim is
forever denied?

Let’s not dance around the elephant in the room here. The traditional thinking of the Church from Augustine to Pope Sixtus to Pope Innocent is that children (including those aborted) who die without baptism are forever excluded from the beatific vision.

The soul of the unborn infant bears the imprint of God’s image! It is a soul for whose redemption Christ our Lord shed His precious blood, a soul capable of eternal blessedness and destined for the company of angels! Who, therefore, would not condemn and punish with the utmost severity the desecration committed by one who has excluded such a soul from the blessed vision of God? Such a one has done all he or she could possibly have done to prevent this soul from reaching the place prepared for it in heaven, and has deprived God of the service of this His own creature.

Therefore I choose to take the words “To the same Father and His mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child” and put them into works of faith and with absolute certainty of faith believe the statement of same certainty made by His Holiness Pope John Paul II

"…you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child,
who is now living in the Lord.”.

James 1
For judgment without mercy to him that hath not done mercy. And mercy exalteth itself above judgment. 14 What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? 15 And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food: 16 And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be ye warmed and filled; yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? 17 So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. 18 But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith. 19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

 

[catharina]

A favorite saying from Teresa of Avila, Doctor of the Church:

“Let nothing disturb thee.
Let nothing affright thee.
All things pass away.
God alone is changeless.”

Amen to that.

 

[Leslie_brunolli]

HI

This is the last time i too am going to write…
I shared a little of my story earlier and I am just going to end with this.
I just Hope and pray that Yin is never envolved in grief counselling for the sick and dying…
I am in the ministry to the sick and spend lots of time with the sick and dying and with the priests /Deacons who minister too them.

I will never forget going out on a sick call where a young mother had given birth to a beautiful still born baby girl…She was filled with grief and would not release the baby from her arms… The baby was wrapped in a beautiful pink blanket. The Deacon of our church was called to help minister to the situation. When we arrived the woman was holding tight on to her baby…filled with grief, pain, anguish…torment…I will never forget her face…
The Deacon encourged her to kiss her baby and say good by and to “Know that this child was with the Lord” and she would see her child again one day in heaven. Her beautful little girl would be in heaven looking after her. she was not left for death but she was in the eternal arms of our father. Only after all of this was that woman able to release her baby to the nurses…to let her know any of this other legalistic jargon…is merciless…

Again…I am have only been a catholic for 15 years…I came through the RCIA and we were never taught the concept of a place like LIMBO…
I myself as stated above have worked in the area of ministry to the sick…I would wager a healthy bet that most preists today never present to a mother that her child is not with the Lord…because of not being baptised…through no fault of their own…

As for woman who have had abortions…When they come for healing and they come to terms of what they have done…they are brought back to Life by our Lord Jesus Christ beacause 2 people die when you have a abortion…the child and the mother…When you renuite the child with the mother both become alive in kingdom and that is Mercy…You dont tell the mother now she can go to Heaven but her child never will…Is that Mercy??? Does that even make sense? Of course not! You cant seperate the chld from the mother…they are bonded together…THe child is now the conversion for the mother…
Yin you can quote all the info you have…where the church stands etc etc…but for me…My child is in heaven…she is a Maryter and she is interceeding on all our behalfs…My opinion “yes” but My God is a God of Mercy and i will never believe what i have read hear…My prayer is for all woman who have had abortions to come forward and receive healing…

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

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”.

Rosemary,

The reason the term “living with the Lord” was not on the version of Evangelius Vitae, is because the phrase was removed from the final and official version. Since the oft repeated statement was exactly contrary to what the Church has always taught, it was removed from the final and official version.

I didn’t read through all of the posts before posting this so excuse me if this has been covered, but claiming that aborted babies are saved is contrary to everything the Church has said on the subject. The recent document published earlier this year even admits that the Church knows of know way for unbaptized infants to obtain the state of grace, yet it says it is OK to “hope” that somehow they do. But this “hope” is contrary to what the Church as always taught and is not based on any known means for the babies to obtain the state of grace. It is just a vague “hope” that they will. Since God can do all things, we are allowed to have such hope, but we must not allow this hope to cause us to doubt what the Church teaches with regard to original sin and baptism.

The following link is to a series of sermons. If you scroll down to the one dated April 22 titled “Against Sedevacantism and the recent document on limbo” you will be able to hear magisterial quote after magisterial quote that clearly states that unbaptized babies -including specificaly those who have been aborted - are not saved.

Here’s the link: audiosancto.com/index.php?y=2007

 

[RachelsAlumni]

Pax et Caritas,

I recommend you read the thread before making such claims as:

… the oft repeated statement was exactly contrary to what the Church has always taught

…claiming that aborted babies are saved is contrary to everything the Church has said on the subject

…magisterial quote after magisterial quote that clearly states that unbaptized babies -including specificaly those who have been aborted - are not saved.

Can you provide any [written] quotes of infallible Church teaching that confers with your above claim?

I thought that the Church has not yet definitevly determined the supernatural fate of unborn children. I thought it was entirely theoretical speculation at this point. That’s how I read:

“the Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude” (CCC#1257)

Also read Rosemary’s posts on Baptism by Blood & Desire and the Holy Innocents.

oh, and fyi: The Apostolic Constitution “Effraenatam” of Pope Sixtus V (quoted previously) is NOT an ex cathedra statement. It was a primarily legislative act — and an exercise of the Pope’s governing authority rather than his teaching authority.

 

[yinekka]

Pax, presuming that you mean The Hope of Salvation For Infants Who Die Without Receiving Being Baptised I went to the Vatican website and scanned the document and could find nothing to correspond with your quote Church knows of know [sic] way for unbaptized infants to obtain the state of grace, Could you please give the paragraph number from which you have taken this quote.

Who is giving these homilies on Audio Sancto?

How about you listening to the audio and supplying the *‘magisterial quote after magisterial quote’ *for what you are claiming.

I am not comfortable by your oft repeated claim that unbaptised babies are not saved because the implication then is that they are dammed and that is certainly not Church teaching. While theologians in the past, in trying to reconcile this issue, have postulated various scenarios the Church has never officially signed off on the fate of these little ones and expressed the hope and trust in God’s love and mercy for them.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Pax et Caritas,

Can you provide any [written] quotes of infallible Church teaching that confers with your above claim?

I’ll provide some infallible quotes and some quotes that are part of the ordinary magisterium. But we must remember that as Catholics we must accept all magisterial teachings, and not just those that are de fide definitions, as Pope Pius XII taught in Humani Generis:

Pius XII: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me” (Humani Generis, 20).

First we will read what the Church teaches, infallible, with respect to those innocent souls who die without ever offending God in the least. These are the souls of those innocent children who die before the age of reason. What happens to such souls? Some people may believe that such innocent souls go straight to heave, but, according to the infallible dogma of the church, they descend immediatly into hell.

Dogmatic Council of Florence (1438-1445): “…the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denzinger 693)

This was also taugth by Pope John XXII.

Pope John XXII: “It (The Roman Church) teaches that the souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with only Original Sin descend immediately into Hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places.” (Denz. 493a)

Now, the location in “hell”, where those who die in original sin go is a place of natural happiness, not a place of physical torments. This location of hell, which has no physical punishment, but only the “pain of loss” (the loss of the beatific vision) has traditionally been called “Limbo”.

In the next quote, Pope Innocent III discusses the different punishments for those who die in original sin only, or in actual sin:

**Pope Innocent III: ** “The punishment of Original Sin is the deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting Hell…” (Innocent III Den. 410).

In the next quote, Pope St. Innocent discussed infants specifically:

Pope St. Innocent: “The idea that infants can be granted the rewards of eternal life without even the grace of baptism is utterly foolish”.

The following are a few more quotes:

Catechism of the Council of Trent: “Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how griveously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require…”

**St. Augustine (415 AD) **“Likewise, whoever says that those children who depart out of this life without partaking of that Sacrament (Baptism) are alive in Christ, certainly contradicts the apostolic declaration and condemns the universal Church, in which it is the practice to loose no time and run in haste to administer Baptism to infant children, because it is believed as an indubitable truth, that otherwise they cannot be made alive in Christ.” (Augustine, Epistle 167 – AD 415)

AUGUSTINE: “If you wish to be Catholic, do not believe, do not say, do not teach that infants who are overtaken by death before they can be baptized are able to come to a forgiveness of original sins (3) (Augustine, “The Soul and Its Origin, A.D. 419-420)

I thought that the Church has not yet definitevly determined the supernatural fate of unborn children. I thought it was entirely theoretical speculation at this point. That’s how I read

The Church has defined de fide that those who die in original sin only go to hell, but are only punished with the “pain of loss”. The only way there would be a difference between infants in the womb and those that have been born is if the child was created in the State of grace, and then lost the state of grace immediately upon exiting the birth conal, which is clearly not the case.

I’ll address Baptism of blood in the next post.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

Have you o read Rosemary’s posts on Baptism by Blood & Desire and the Holy Innocents.

I’ll quote the first part of the article, which establishes the basis for their argument in favor of for baptism of blood for aborted babies, and then comment.
Article:

It is a commonplace of Catholic theology that infants, even in the womb, who are killed from odium fidei, ‘hatred of the faith’, may be regarded as having undergone a ‘Baptism of blood’. The question we wish to raise is whether it is possible and desirable to regard all aborted children, without exception, as supernaturally included within the embrace of divine redemption, to the point, indeed, that the Church, by a solemn act, could declare publicly their martyr status, and invite their intercession.
The question of the ‘Baptism of blood’ arises in the case of aborted infants since their deaths give witness to the word of God, ‘You shall not kill’,

That is a real stretch. They claim that an aborted baby is a martyr for the faith because the word of God says “you shall not kill”? That would mean that every person who was murdered would be a martyr for the faith.

A martyr for the faith is not someone who is killed, it is someone who is murdered for the Catholic Faith. Aborted babies are not killed for the Catholc faith, the are killed either because the mother was deceived or selfish. That does not make the child a martyr for the faith, any more than a child who was killed in any other way.

With regard to the Holy Innocents, we need to remember that these children were under the old law, in which circumcision removed original sin. These were all male children and it is very likely that they had all been circumcised, since circumcision took place when they were eight days old.

Another point to make regarding the Holy Innocents is this: According to the revelations made to Venerable Mary of Agreda, containded her her book, The Mystical City of God, which has been highly praised and recommended by numerous Popes, the Holy Innocents were given the use of reason just before death, with which they willingly offered their lives, which were taken in the place of Christ, for Christ. Since they were truly dying for Christ, they were given this special priviledge of the use of reason.

Consider this: Anyone who has any experience in the pro-life movement knows that the pro abortion advocates are truly demonic. But why would the devil promote abortion if the aborted babies would went straight to heaven? His goal is not to send souls to heaven, but to send them to hell. And with the condition of the world (in which most are going to hell) wouldn’t he rather let them be born? If abortion was sending souls straight to heaven, abortion would be working directly against his intention.

continue

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

continuation
yniekka:

Pax, presuming that you mean The Hope of Salvation For Infants Who Die Without Receiving Being Baptised I went to the Vatican website and scanned the document and could find nothing to correspond with your quote Church knows of know [sic] way for unbaptized infants to obtain the state of grace, Could you please give the paragraph number from which you have taken this quote.

Here’s the quote I was talking about.

“79. It must be clearly acknowledged that the Church does not have sure knowledge about the salvation of unbaptised infants who die. … the destiny of the generality of infants who die without Baptism has not been revealed to us, and the Church teaches and judges only with regard to what has been revealed.”

The Church cannot add to the deposit of faith. It can speculate on certain things, but if it has not been revealed, there is no reason to believe it is true.

So, for example, what has been revealed is that those who die in original sin only, without committing any actual sins, will go to hell. We also know through infallible dogma that baptism is the means for removing original sin from the soul of an infant. The Church knows of no other way for a child to obtain the state of grace, except for baptism.

Does that mean that God cannot have a way known to Himself alone? It doesn’t mean that. It is theoretically possible that God could, in some cases, possibly through prayer, give the child the use of reason with which it could desire baptism. This would be a truly miraculous grace, since not just any desire will suffice. It must be a desire animated by 1.) perfect charity and 2.) supernatural faith - both of which require another special grace.

Protocol Letter Suprema Haec Sacra (122/49) from the Holy Office (1949): “But it must not be thought that any kind of desire of entering the Church suffices that one may be saved. It is necessary that the desire by which one is related to the Church be animated by perfect charity. Nor can an implicit desire produce its effect, unless a person has supernatural faith…”.

Anything is possible for God, including granting a child the use of reason, with which he can desire baptism, perfect charity, and supernatural faith. Since all things are possible for God, we are allowed to “hope” that possibly some children are saved without actual baptism. But, we must realize that this “hope” is not based on anything the Church knows. In fact, it is a hope in spite of what the Church knows.

That is why we must be careful. The Church has allowed us to hope, but cannot allow this hope to result in our denial of what the Church actually teaches.

 

[Leslie_brunolli]

great you all are wonderful with your statements and quotes…You are so elegant at making your point…I am amazed at the intelligence and the gift of writing out your points…But you know what …THe Mercy of our Lord is far more broader then your understanding of the laws…Thank you God …Lets all pray that woman who have been reading this who feel terrible and lost dont go into a complete depression and spiral downward…unless you have walked the walk of losing a child to still born or been a repentent woman from abortion.lets remember Romans 8:28 I say to these woman…Forget all these arguments…You know your child is with the Lord…You can feel him or her…You cant explain it but you know…“we walk by faith not by sight”
…let the phrasees…argue in court…but you know what you know…and no one can take that from you…Your child is waiting for you…

 

[RachelsAlumni]

The Church cannot add to the deposit of faith. It can speculate on certain things, but if it has not been revealed, there is no reason to believe it is true.

So, for example, what has been revealed is that those who die in original sin only, without committing any actual sins, will go to hell. We also know through infallible dogma that baptism is the means for removing original sin from the soul of an infant. The Church knows of no other way for a child to obtain the state of grace, except for baptism.

You have not made the case that any of this rubbish you’ve quoted is “infallible”, “doctrine”, or “the deposit of faith”. You’ve quoted some pope’s statements, none of which is “infallible” or doctrine or the deposit of faith. The only thing that even comes close to even being an infallible teaching is the Ecumenical Councils you’ve referenced but even they do not explicity say that the unborn and infants go to Hell.

What a heartless, heartless person would respond to the women here who have had abortions and find hope in John Paul II’s words that their children are with the Lord that their children are in Hell. You certainly are nothing like the name you’ve chosen “Pax et Caritas” what a joke!

I’m DONE with this discussion as I cannot be objective. Nor am I an apologist for the faith. I’ll pray that someone knowlegeable about the faith will be able to present the Truth about the faith in true Peace and Love, for the sakes of any mother, father, grandparent, or family member who has lost a child before baptism.