The soul of a miscarried fetus

[b_justb]

What is the Churches teaching on the soul of a miscarried fetus?

I have CCC 1261: As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

This falls short of comforting the parents with a more absolute, “The soul of your unborn child is with the Lord.”

Thanks in advance.

 

[Eileen_T]

I went to my priest with this one as I have lost 5 babies & only one was baptised. He asked me if I would deny them Heaven because they had no cjance to be baptised and I said “No, of course I wouldn’t!”

He then asked me if I thought I was more loving and merciful than God.

While only God knows where they will spend eternity, it is reasonable to hope they are with God.

 

[jrabs]

I went to my priest with this one as I have lost 5 babies & only one was baptized. He asked me if I would deny them Heaven because they had no cjance to be baptized and I said “No, of course I wouldn’t!”

He then asked me if I thought I was more loving and merciful than God.

Great response by your priest.

God is mercy and love. If God will forgive us for some horrible mortal sins we commit of our own free will, then I also have hope that He will admit into His Kingdom the tiny unbaptized souls.

 

[mosher]

What is reasonable is that if you intended to baptize your children then your intention to do so would have served as a baptism of desire by proxy - which is taught based on the documents of Trent.

If no intention to do so was present it is reasonable to believe that your child is in Limbo which is a state of natural perfection. Neither place is really a place of mourning. One is better than the other but not bad.

The teaching that you see in the Catechism was not meant to comfort but to teach a truth. The truth is that we don’t know with absolute certitude what happens to the unbaptized children. So far this has not been found in the deposit of faith. However, we do know that we can trust that the Lord with do with them what is most proper in His will. So, if we trust God then we can rest our hearts.

 

[1ke]

What is the Churches teaching on the soul of a miscarried fetus?

The teaching, CCC1261, is that we do not know.

This falls short of comforting the parents with a more absolute, “The soul of your unborn child is with the Lord.”

You are correct. Since we do not know what happens to the unbaptized, the church cannot say what you have written above.
It can only teach the truth: that we don’t know, but we hope.

 

[marci]

I just wanted to say that I know what you are going through and I agonized over this for many years during a time in my life when my faith was not very strong. I remember watching a documentary about the graves of babies in Irland that were not allowed to be buried in the church cemetary because they were not baptized. (centuries ago) The graves were marked simply with large stones. I remember crying and feeling so angry at the church for the suffering that these parents must have gone through, that I myself was going through. Later, as I began the journey back to my faith, I read the writings of Sr. Faustina about the Divine Mercy, and it hit me that by not trusting in the Mercy of Christ, it was like I was striking a blow straight to His Heart. I no longer have any fear, and if doubt ever manages to rear it’s ugly head I only have to think about the gift of mercy that God showers us with in the confessional. None of us are worthy, and yet through His Grace and Mercy we have the hope of redemption. I must believe this as a sinner, so how can I not believe that this redemption exists for the most innocent among us?
Have faith and trust in God’s love and mercy for your baby.

 

[AndyF]

I went to my priest with this one as I have lost 5 babies & only one was baptised. He asked me if I would deny them Heaven because they had no cjance to be baptised and I said “No, of course I wouldn’t!”

He then asked me if I thought I was more loving and merciful than God.

While only God knows where they will spend eternity, it is reasonable to hope they are with God.

It is beleived they rest in state that is seperate from the beatific vision of God, but all the same are as fully content and at peace as their human nature will allow.

AndyF

 

[b_justb]

It is beleived they rest in state that is seperate from the beatific vision of God, but all the same are as fully content and at peace as their human nature will allow.

AndyF

This is believed by whom (who? whom? whatever …)

Think about this stance as a serious belief. Here is what you are proposing in this belief:

Only God makes a life with the cooperation of male and female through sexual relations. That life begins instantly upon conception. This life is a soul, a human person. This new life is a totally dependant being; dependant upon God and mother.

This life, if it terminates prior to being baptized, according to this belief, will not ever see Christ. A life totally dependant upon God will not see Him according to this stance.

To say we don’t know seems logical to me. To say definitely one way or the other does not.

This belief stance you are claiming is not what the Church teaches at all.

 

[b_justb]

I just wanted to say that I know what you are going through and Have faith and trust in God’s love and mercy for your baby.

Thank you, well put.

 

[b_justb]

So far this has not been found in the deposit of faith.

I thought this made a lot of sense, thank you.

 

[AndyF]

b_justb:

…new life is a totally dependant being; dependant upon God and mother.

Yes. And some believe that the parents can come to assistance
of the unborn/stillborn. This is likely, because the baptism of the child requires a representative. So it doesn’t at all look bleak to the child, and I think that is what is bothering you. He is perfectly content and happy as befitting the desires of a merciful God. I see nothing wrong in a being that is destined to be eternally happy.

I propose nothing. This is the belief of most Theologians and the Church, and the Doctor himself, St. Thomas.

NewAdvent.org/Baptism

**XI. UNBAPTIZED INFANTS**
The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. ........

…In speaking of souls who have failed to attain salvation, these theologians distinguish the pain of loss (paena damni), or privation of the beatific vision, and the pain of sense (paena sensus). Though these theologians have thought it certain that unbaptized infants must endure the pain of loss, they have not been similarly certain that they are subject to the pain of sense. St. Augustine(De Pecc. et Mer., I, xvi) held that they would not be exempt from the pain of sense, but at the same time he thought it would be of the mildest form. On the other hand, St. Gregory Nazianzen (Or. in S. Bapt.) expresses the belief that such infants would suffer only the pain of loss. Sfondrati (Nod. Prædest., I, i) declares that while they are certainly excluded from heaven, yet they are not deprived of natural happiness. This opinion seemed so objectionable to some French bishops that they asked the judgment of the Holy See upon the matter. Pope Innocent XI replied that he would have the opinion examined into by a commission of theologians, but no sentence seems ever to have been passed upon it. Since the twelfth century, the opinion of the majority of theologians has been that unbaptized infants are immune from all pain of sense. This was taught by St. Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, St. Bonaventure, Peter Lombard, and others, and is now the common teaching in the schools. It accords with the wording of a decree of Pope Innocent III (III Decr., xlii, 3): “The punishment of original sin is the deprivation of the vision of God; of actual sin, the eternal pains of hell.” Infants, of course, can not be guilty of actual sin.

Christ said that unless a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. Jn III,3. He meant this literally, not a metaphor. The infant has a soul at conception, therefore it inherits a final home that is not reserved for those who are the Faithful and destined for the reward of the Beatific vision.

Frs. Rumble,Carty and the late Msgr Card. FJ Sheen (Radio Replies):

A805. “An unbaptised infant cannot attain heaven. Christ declared that the ordinary principle of life received by human generation is insufficient. We must receive an additional life of grace by baptismal rebirth. An unbaptised infant has received natural birth only. If he dies without baptism he has no claim to the supernatural happiness of heaven”.

This belief stance you are claiming is not what the Church teaches at all.

I give, what does it claim?

AndyF

 

[Victorious]

Well, without a definitive teaching on the subject, we are free to form our own opinions on it. I feel sure that unbaptized babies do not suffer, being guiltless of actual sin; in fact, wherever they are, I am willing to bet that their happiness far exceeds anything we can attain on earth. I certainly hope that they find this happiness in heaven, and the passage from the CCC that deals with this says that that is not an unreasonable hope. But we do not in fact know to a practical certainty what their fate is. God has not revealed this to us.

The CCC at 847-848 teaches that God has ways of saving those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel:

This affirmation [there is no salvation outside the Church] is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

“Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

Surely, miscarried, aborted and unbaptized babies are ignorant of the Gospel through no fault of their own. But just as we have a duty to go out and make disciples of all the nations, we have a solemn obligation to baptize our children. If we knew for sure that God has some way of offering salvation to unbaptized babies, we would very likely neglect to have them baptized.

There is precedence, by the way, for God allowing us to remain ignorant for our own good. When you read the Old Testament, it becomes clear that God allowed the Israelites to go on thinking for a very long time that there was really nothing to the afterlife but gray bleakness. C.S. Lewis wrote that this was to train the Israelites to love God for His own sake, rather than for what He could do for them.

Similarly, since God has not given us to know for certain what happens to the souls of unbaptized infants, it is clearly more important for us to obey His command, through the Church, to have our children baptized as soon as possible, than it is for us to know where their souls would go if they weren’t baptized. It’s true that this deprives us of consolation we might otherwise have had in this life if we knew for sure that a miscarried baby went to heaven; but we have to remember (a) that God loves babies infinitely more even than their parents do, and (b) whatever we have to suffer in this life, He will more than make up to us in the next.

 

[AndyF]

Well, without a definitive teaching on the subject, we are free to form our own opinions on it. I feel sure that unbaptized babies do not suffer, being guiltless of actual sin; in fact, wherever they are, I am willing to bet that their happiness far exceeds anything we can attain on earth. I certainly hope that they find this happiness in heaven, and the passage from the CCC that deals with this says that that is not an unreasonable hope. But we do not in fact know to a practical certainty what their fate is. God has not revealed this to us.

The CCC at 847-848 teaches that God has ways of saving those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel:Surely, miscarried, aborted and unbaptized babies are ignorant of the Gospel through no fault of their own. But just as we have a duty to go out and make disciples of all the nations, we have a solemn obligation to baptize our children. If we knew for sure that God has some way of offering salvation to unbaptized babies, we would very likely neglect to have them baptized.

There is precedence, by the way, for God allowing us to remain ignorant for our own good. When you read the Old Testament, it becomes clear that God allowed the Israelites to go on thinking for a very long time that there was really nothing to the afterlife but gray bleakness. C.S. Lewis wrote that this was to train the Israelites to love God for His own sake, rather than for what He could do for them.

Similarly, since God has not given us to know for certain what happens to the souls of unbaptized infants, it is clearly more important for us to obey His command, through the Church, to have our children baptized as soon as possible, than it is for us to know where their souls would go if they weren’t baptized. It’s true that this deprives us of consolation we might otherwise have had in this life if we knew for sure that a miscarried baby went to heaven; but we have to remember (a) that God loves babies infinitely more even than their parents do, and (b) whatever we have to suffer in this life, He will more than make up to us in the next.

Good Post!

AndyF

 

[b_justb]

AndyF:

I propose nothing. This is the belief of most Theologians and the Church, and the Doctor himself, St. Thomas.

Theologians, no matter how respected or seemingly brilliant, are not the Magisterium. Theologians may assist in helping to understand Church teaching but they do not pass on the teachings of the Church.
NewAdvent.org/Baptism:

**XI. UNBAPTIZED INFANTS**
The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. ........

If this is to be accepted then Church teachings are inconsistent. If one may by the grace of God be granted heaven who was never baptized, never heard the gospel, was never a Christian, and was born and lived a full natural life as pointed out by Church documents of VCII then so can an unborn child.

To say there is happiness in heaven without being able to see God is simply ridiculous. If the soul yearns for its maker how can there be eternal happiness without that yearning ever being realized?

I can see and understand the teaching that it is unknown but hoped for that the souls are with God. I thought CAF poster mosher’s, “this [issue] has not been found in the deposit of faith” was particularly good. If that is the case, then only speculation can occur and no teaching on the matter will be forthcoming. Theological speculation, no matter how well put or how well grounded is just that: speculation. And speculation cannot cross over to official teaching. I cannot at this time accept the idea that the souls of unborn children that have died in vitro in no way ever see God. From what I have seen thus far the latter is not the teaching of the Church.

AndyF:

Frs. Rumble,Carty and the late Msgr Card. FJ Sheen (Radio Replies):

A805. “An unbaptised infant cannot attain heaven. Christ declared that the ordinary principle of life received by human generation is insufficient. We must receive an additional life of grace by baptismal rebirth. An unbaptised infant has received natural birth only. If he dies without baptism he has no claim to the supernatural happiness of heaven”.

See my first response above.

 

[b_justb]

Well, without a definitive teaching on the subject, It’s true that this deprives us of consolation we might otherwise have had in this life if we knew for sure that a miscarried baby went to heaven; but we have to remember (a) that God loves babies infinitely more even than their parents do, and (b) whatever we have to suffer in this life, He will more than make up to us in the next.

I also thought this was very well done.

 

[mosher]

If this is to be accepted then Church teachings are inconsistent. If one may by the grace of God be granted heaven who was never baptized, never heard the gospel, was never a Christian, and was born and lived a full natural life as pointed out by Church documents of VCII then so can an unborn child.

To say there is happiness in heaven without being able to see God is simply ridiculous. If the soul yearns for its maker how can there be eternal happiness without that yearning ever being realized?

I can see and understand the teaching that it is unknown but hoped for that the souls are with God. I thought CAF poster mosher’s, “this [issue] has not been found in the deposit of faith” was particularly good. If that is the case, then only speculation can occur and no teaching on the matter will be forthcoming. Theological speculation, no matter how well put or how well grounded is just that: speculation. And speculation cannot cross over to official teaching. I cannot at this time accept the idea that the souls of unborn children that have died in vitro in no way ever see God. From what I have seen thus far the latter is not the teaching of the Church.

I appreciate that you think my response was good. As far as I can tell it is the only serious honest answer as all else is theological speculation. This does not mean that it is false but rather that it is still under discussion.

Personally I adhere to the traditional idea of Limbo as it makes the most sense based on what we do know for sure. We know that some form of baptism is necessary for salvation. We know that if a person departs from this life without one of these ordinary or extraordinary forms of salvation they cannot participate in the Beatific Vision. We also know that Original Sin is not actual sin but sin by analogy. We know that the unborn has no opportunity to commit actual sin but they still have Original Sin. So, it seems that the view of the Eastern Fathers seems correct in that those who die without baptism (read: ordinary or extraordinary) go to another place that is a state of natural happiness but not blessedness. Yes, limbo is a “part” of hell but it is more like the Garden than anything else. Unfortunately hell is a weighted term that causes an emotional response but the term means something very different than the popular “understanding” of hell.

 

[CatDad]

What about the possibility of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood?

For an aborted child I think an arguement could be solidly made for a Baptism of Blood.

For a miscarried child (sorry I don’t like the term fetus) what about baptism of desire? I understand that there need to be a full awareness for that but John the Baptist leaped in the womb in the Gospel of Luke

After having lost two children prior to birth I have learned to trust in the mercy of God.

 

[mosher]

What about the possibility of Baptism of Desire or Baptism of Blood?

For an aborted child I think an arguement could be solidly made for a Baptism of Blood.

For a miscarried child (sorry I don’t like the term fetus) what about baptism of desire? I understand that there need to be a full awareness for that but John the Baptist leaped in the womb in the Gospel of Luke

After having lost two children prior to birth I have learned to trust in the mercy of God.

This question has been brought up but the child cannot be considered a martyr (Baptism of Blood) because they would have had to be killed as a result of direct repudiation of the faith.

I would argue that based on what we do know it is legitimate to say that a child who dies in the womb of parents who intended to baptize the child would participate in that intention and thus would have a sort of Baptism of desire by proxy.