Unbaptized Babies and Salvation

[Memaw]

For what it’s worth, St. Thomas Aquinas taught the following with regards to those in the womb. I don’t see why the logic couldn’t be extended to those impeded from baptism in other ways:

Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.
newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article11

Like I said, they are in God’s loving hands and are not even in need of our prayers! If God would have wanted us to know all the details, HE would have told us. A loving Mystery. TRUST in HIM!!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[twf]

@twf:

The brain is a material organ that serves mechanical-electrochemical functions (memory storage, information processing, sensory (name removed by moderator)ut & output, motor control, balance, etc.) the same as an animal brain, and is not what constitutes a person as a creature with a rational soul, which is a supernatural faculty and not a natural one. Everybody is given the choice to accept God. Their physical stage of development is not relevant.

If we want to draw another analogy, a person with severe brain damage that is put into a vegetative state does not cease to be - in the theological sense - a creature with a rational soul, and nor is a zygote, fetus, or infant something less than a creature with a rational soul merely because of their physical stage of development. This purely materialistic perspective is an argument used by secular liberals to justify abortion, euthanasia and even infanticide or systematic genocide of undesirables, and is not something accepted by the Church. **

With all due respect, most of what you’re saying here seems more or less irrelevant to the discussion at hand. No one is questioning that an embryo in the womb has an eternal soul. Of course he/she does. The question is what happens to that eternal soul. Is this really consistent with the mind of the Church? The idea that God judges the “rational choice” of the soul of an embryo? The Church teaches that children need not confess their sins until they have achieved “the age of reason” (7 years)…and the assumption is that children who are younger than 7 are not guilty of sin and will be saved if they die (assuming they are baptized). You seem to be suggesting that embryos in the womb are judged by God for choices their souls are making… I have never come across this teaching before. Can you please provide references from a saint or renowned theologian?

 

[twf]

This ability of God is infinitely perfect because of His omniscience.

With His omniscience He can search all possible worlds.

There’s no difference between God knowing through His middle knowledge and the real thing.

This sounds like fairly wild speculation. How popular is this view in theological circles?

Where do we draw the line? If am 70 years old and in a state of grace, but then fall into a coma, will I be damned because God knows that had I not fallen into a coma, I would have committed a mortal sin at the age 75…? You could play with this line of thinking a million different ways. Or maybe a 35 year old devout young priest who suddenly dies, in a state of grace, of a heart attack is damned because God knows that, had he lived to the rip age of 80, he would have left the priesthood to live a life of ill repute…

 

[Jomann]

Very popular.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism

Matthew 11:23 is used as scriptural base:

And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades.

For IF the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, THEN it would have remained until this day.

 

[PJM]

Just to start off, I am in full communion with the Church and accept all of its teachings… however, there is one thing left which still bothers me. And I do not understand why the Church does not declare this as doctrine:

That unbaptized babies, who, through no fault of their own, die prior to baptism, may or may not go to heaven or may not get to have the beatific vision.

It seems prudent to ask WHY the Church has NOT made a formal declaration on this issue; MUCH debated in theological circles, I suspect?

I think two reasons are the motivation for this:

**1st the bible is extremely clear: **
John 3:5 "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

It is notable that NO earthly power can; or has the power; to overrule Jesus who is GOD.

This precisely worded teaching from JESUS, leaves no room for doubt as the NORM.

2nd. While abortion is noting NEW, it has a long history in paganism; it;s more recent worldwide legalization leading to some 50+ MILLIONS babies aborted every year is a recent abhorrence; and a scab on humanity in general.

Certainly our “All-Knowing” God foresaw this; but few if any others others did.

Not too dissimilar to a “recent” widening of the Churches understanding of Salvation: Pre-reformation… “ONLY Catholics Could be saved as the NORM”; did not foresee the 16th century Protestant Reformation; it’s occurrence HAD TO BE reconciled with God’s Desire for salvation for “all”

1 Tim 2:3-5

“This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus”.

So while we still HOLD that ALL Salvation does [must] flow THROUGH the RCC; we also hold that highly conditionally, salvation MIGHT be possible outside of the RCC

Our Catechism: numbers 1260, 846, 847, & 848

here’s the site:** :scborromeo.org/ccc.htm**

So NOW the Church unofficially holds in some circles; the POSSIBILITY that babies deprived of the opportunity for the NORM; of Christian Baptism in water & the Spirit [Mt 28:49-20]; are likely NOT hell bound; but more likely enter into LIMBO; a place of NO suffering; but also lacking the Beatific Vision.

Isaiah 55:8-9 comes to mind: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD.For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

God’s MERCY and the depth of His love for His created humanity simply cannot be fully known by us [YET].

I understand the utter importance of baptism, so that we can wipe away original sin. And without that, we are lost. But at the same time, an aborted baby or a baby lost to illness in the womb, or a baby who is not baptized and dies immediately after birth or even on it’s way to baptism, may not spend an eternity with God, is EXTREMELY difficult for me to understand and accept.

YOU & countless others as well; hence the Church continues to debate and pray for more guidance on this issue.

Why would the Church not declare that when through no fault of its own, the soul would go to Heaven? I’ve heard over and over again from priests (on EWTN) and other apologists state that we simply have to trust in the mercy of God.

And TRUST is exactly what GOD expects from each of us in these circumstances. What we DO KNOW is that we can’t “out-love” God’s LOVE for EACH and EVERYONE of us.

We ARE personally permitted to anticipate GOD"S Mercy; as His love has been made so very evident to us. Amen! … And we Can and we DO know that God has to be be “just” & “fair”; in order to be GOD.

Keep praying much!
God Bless you,

Patrick

By saying this, it leaves it open to unborn aborted babies spending an eternity in hell.

Is it possible the Church is indirectly saying that because God is omniscient that He knows if that soul which was never baptized would have chosen Him or not if he had lived and therefore the question is left open?

Please help on this one. It really bothers me.

Thanks.

 

[Peebo]

Personally I don’t lose sleep over this…we can’t even begin to comprehend the love that God has for each one of us…from the saints to the most vile of men…there must be countless millions who had lived and died throughout the ages…had never heard the gospel message but lived good decent lives…even in todays world there must be millions who have still not heard that message…and even in so called Christian countries where the faith is being practiced less and less…how many don’t bother to baptize their children…I realize there is no definitive doctrine by the church in this manner…but I just don’t believe that God…in his infinite love and mercy had not foreseen all of this even before he created us…but this is just my opinion on how I imagine Gods love and mercy…so I don’t worry over it…one day we will all know the truth no matter what we think.

 

[twf]

Very popular.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism

Matthew 11:23 is used as scriptural base:

And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades.

For IF the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, THEN it would have remained until this day.

I still don’t quite understand where the line is drawn. If I am living a godly life under my present “actual” circumstances and am, to the best of my knowledge, in a state of grace, does this mean I could still be judged and damned based on what I “would have” done in a “possible world” where the circumstances were different? Because if an embryo who has literally done nothing at all - and certainly hasn’t sinned in any personal manner - can be damned for the sins he or she “would have” committed had the circumstances be different, why wouldn’t that apply to any of us? If I die at 40 in a state of grace I still burn for all eternity because had I lived to the age of 80 I would have eventually fallen into sin… and if it only applies to embryos in the womb, why?

 

[TK421]

If the assumption is that God will provide the child the opportunity to accept Him or reject Him, then there is the possibility that a child would reject Him (as some pure spirits did - aka angels).

Considering that the Church holds that a child does not reach the age of reason until about 7 (give or take), that seems to fly in the face of current thought.

“The age of reason” (7) is not an immovable revelation that humans are incapable of sin until they reach the magical chronological age of 7, and then after they reach that magical chronological number, they are capable of sin. It is within the Church’s power to change that age for first reconciliation since it is prudential. It certainly hasn’t been a consistent standard that once a person is 7 they celebrate First Reconciliation throughout the 2000 year-long history of the Church or in every diocese across the vast world.

For various reasons, we wait awhile until a child can first celebrate in the sacrament, but there is nothing impossible about - for example - a 5 year old celebrating Reconciliation. Reconciliation expects some degree of cogency & communication from the penitent, of course, since it involves verbally confessing sins. Other sacraments, such as Confirmation or Eucharist, can be and are conferred on babies.

 

[Jomann]

I still don’t quite understand where the line is drawn. If I am living a godly life under my present “actual” circumstances and am, to the best of my knowledge, in a state of grace, does this mean I could still be judged and damned based on what I “would have” done in a “possible world” where the circumstances were different? Because if an embryo who has literally done nothing at all - and certainly hasn’t sinned in any personal manner - can be damned for the sins he or she “would have” committed had the circumstances be different, why wouldn’t that apply to any of us? If I die at 40 in a state of grace I still burn for all eternity because had I lived to the age of 80 I would have eventually fallen into sin… and if it only applies to embryos in the womb, why?

I think this is only applicable to those who die out of the state of grace.

The “test” of being in grace or not it’s over when we die. So it’s pointless to use the concept of middle knowledge upon souls in state of grace at the hour of death.

 

[TK421]

For what it’s worth, St. Thomas Aquinas taught the following with regards to those in the womb. I don’t see why the logic couldn’t be extended to those impeded from baptism in other ways:

Children while in the mother’s womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb.
newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article11

And, I would add (for St Aquinas it would be obvious), this act of God is necessary because it is not possible to enter the Beatific Vision in a state of Original Sin.

Of course, rejection or acceptance of God - resulting in damnation or glory - is fully possible to be experienced spontaneously since this is how it occurred for the numberless spirits. Man’s role of existing in the material & temporal world isn’t fully understood, but we do know that man enjoys a special privilege that is set apart from the holy angels, and that is in the ministry to suffer and to be in need.

 

[TK421]

With all due respect, most of what you’re saying here seems more or less irrelevant to the discussion at hand. No one is questioning that an embryo in the womb has an eternal soul. Of course he/she does. The question is what happens to that eternal soul. Is this really consistent with the mind of the Church? The idea that God judges the “rational choice” of the soul of an embryo? The Church teaches that children need not confess their sins until they have achieved “the age of reason” (7 years)…and the assumption is that children who are younger than 7 are not guilty of sin and will be saved if they die (assuming they are baptized). You seem to be suggesting that embryos in the womb are judged by God for choices their souls are making… I have never come across this teaching before. Can you please provide references from a saint or renowned theologian?

@twf:

I do not have such information immediately at hand, though I do recall this scenario being referenced by Jimmy Akin here on CAF in one of his podcasts, among other places. I will see about digging this information up at a later date.

 

[TK421]

I still don’t quite understand where the line is drawn. If I am living a godly life under my present “actual” circumstances and am, to the best of my knowledge, in a state of grace, does this mean I could still be judged and damned based on what I “would have” done in a “possible world” where the circumstances were different? Because if an embryo who has literally done nothing at all - and certainly hasn’t sinned in any personal manner - can be damned for the sins he or she “would have” committed had the circumstances be different, why wouldn’t that apply to any of us? If I die at 40 in a state of grace I still burn for all eternity because had I lived to the age of 80 I would have eventually fallen into sin… and if it only applies to embryos in the womb, why?

@twf:

That is correct. A person is not condemned on hypotheticals.

 

[TK421]

I’ve said it before, and will say it again. We don’t know.

Why isn’t “we don’t know” acceptable for many Catholics where this question is concerned?

All the Church says is “we entrust them to God’s mercy” and she can teach nothing beyond that because it has not been revealed.

In essence, the only real answer the Church has is this

But, a lack of official teaching is not the same thing as, “anything goes”. The Church has only infallibly translated a few verses of the entire canon scripture, for example, but this doesn’t mean it is open season to interpret scripture in any wild way imaginable, as though one view were not any more or less consistent with Sacred Tradition than another.

We don’t have an official teaching on the fate of an infant or fetus because we don’t have an official teaching on the fate of any given person after death, period. Infants aren’t unique. How do I know my grandma is in Heaven or hell? I don’t know. What I do know infallibly is this: she is where she justly belongs, and because of this, I am entirely at peace with not knowing. It is metaphysically impossible for God to commit an injustice, therefore, there is nothing to worry about.

After she died, I prayed for her, and I had a Mass said for her, and this “praying for the dead” is a beautiful spiritual work of mercy that expands charity and guards against the evils of presumption & pride. This spiritual work of mercy, which is an integral mission of the Holy Church, has been conferred upon her by Sacred Tradition, and is not something that can be or will ever be taken away from us. There will never be a blanket canonization of small children or infants.

 

[JoeFreedom]

Do you really think than there is a possibility that unborn aborted babies will spend an eternity in hell? It may help if you ask yourself this question- “Am I more compassionate than God?”

Of course I’m not. But your question was rhetorical I’m sure.

 

[JoeFreedom]

I’ve said it before, and will say it again. We don’t know.

Why isn’t “we don’t know” acceptable for many Catholics where this question is concerned?

All the Church says is “we entrust them to God’s mercy” and she can teach nothing beyond that because it has not been revealed.

In essence, the only real answer the Church has is this

Obviously, I’m trying to take that with charity… but I asked because I have a legitimate question but your mocking my questioning isn’t very charitable.

If I can try and explain further, maybe that will help. Of course I trust in God’s mercy. We know and believe that it is infinite, as Catholics. In fact, if someone as bad as Hitler professed Jesus as Christ and Lord prior to death, even he/she would be saved. God’s mercy knows no bounds. Therefore it is difficult to reconcile that fact that unbaptized children could have the possibility to be in Hell, knowing God’s mercy is infinite and perfect. God would not send anyone to Hell unless he actively rejected God and His mercy. Therefore, as souls who had no choice in the matter of being baptized, nor a choice on earth to accept or reject God, how do we reconcile this? The Church has vast amounts of knowledge that goes so deep into many spiritual things and has declared so much, but when it comes to this, all that is said, is we hope that God will bring them home.

 

[JoeFreedom]

And, I would add (for St Aquinas it would be obvious), this act of God is necessary because it is not possible to enter the Beatific Vision in a state of Original Sin.

Of course, rejection or acceptance of God - resulting in damnation or glory - is fully possible to be experienced spontaneously since this is how it occurred for the numberless spirits. Man’s role of existing in the material & temporal world isn’t fully understood, but we do know that man enjoys a special privilege that is set apart from the holy angels, and that is in the ministry to suffer and to be in need.

Since God is omnipotent, He can do all things logically possible, so could His omnipotence extend to removing original sin through Purgatory? I hope I’m not wildly speculating or causing some sort of heretical notion, but just curious…

 

[TK421]

Purgatory isn’t regenerative the same way baptism is regenerative. It satisfies justice of venial sins or mortal sins that have already been forgiven. People that go to Purgatory die in a state of grace.

In the Laterans Councils (I think the 2nd), it was declared that a soul that dies with Original Sin cannot enter the Beatific Vision but will descend into hell, so that would appear to answer the question that Purgatory would not be used in that way.

For providing sanctifying grace through extraordinary means (outside of the sacraments), God could just do it, the way he did it with Mary at conception, or St John the Baptist while he was in the womb, etc. Infants, non-Christians, and others, would need to receive grace outside of the sacraments.

 

[porthos11]

Obviously, I’m trying to take that with charity… but I asked because I have a legitimate question but your mocking my questioning isn’t very charitable.

If I can try and explain further, maybe that will help. Of course I trust in God’s mercy. We know and believe that it is infinite, as Catholics. In fact, if someone as bad as Hitler professed Jesus as Christ and Lord prior to death, even he/she would be saved. God’s mercy knows no bounds. Therefore it is difficult to reconcile that fact that unbaptized children could have the possibility to be in Hell, knowing God’s mercy is infinite and perfect. God would not send anyone to Hell unless he actively rejected God and His mercy. Therefore, as souls who had no choice in the matter of being baptized, nor a choice on earth to accept or reject God, how do we reconcile this? The Church has vast amounts of knowledge that goes so deep into many spiritual things and has declared so much, but when it comes to this, all that is said, is we hope that God will bring them home.

I’m not addressing you or mocking your question, but rather, I am directing my comment to the other Catholics who are trying to “answer” your question. Your question is fair and fine.

A lot of Catholics, either out of emotional responses, personal tragedy or a particular image of God, would like to speculate on what happens to the souls of unbaptized infants. But that would all be speculation, because, as I said, this has not been revealed, and so simply,

We do not know.

“We entrust them to God’s mercy” is all the Church can answer because that is all she can do. She knows and teaches the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation. She also knows that innocent unbaptized children have no personal sin. Yet, she also knows that no one in original sin can see God. Yet, she also knows that God in his justice and mercy cannot conceivably send them to the torments of hell.

You ask how it can be reconciled. The one straight answer to this is: in this life, you can’t. It cannot be reconciled because the Church, for all her authority, does not know.

People can speculate purgatory, a supernatural instant to choose or reject Christ, limbo of the infants, instant heaven, instant hell, or whatever. But none of those are defined or ever will be, because God has not revealed it to us. We don’t know. The Church doesn’t know. And no one on CAF knows. Any answer beyond “we don’t know” and “we entrust them to God’s mercy” and “we simply do not know” is simply speculation or outright wrong.

So what the Church is in, quite frankly, is a pickle. Simply because she. does. not. know.

Do not read insult where none is intended or offered.

 

[Memaw]

I still don’t quite understand where the line is drawn. If I am living a godly life under my present “actual” circumstances and am, to the best of my knowledge, in a state of grace, does this mean I could still be judged and damned based on what I “would have” done in a “possible world” where the circumstances were different? Because if an embryo who has literally done nothing at all - and certainly hasn’t sinned in any personal manner - can be damned for the sins he or she “would have” committed had the circumstances be different, why wouldn’t that apply to any of us? If I die at 40 in a state of grace I still burn for all eternity because had I lived to the age of 80 I would have eventually fallen into sin… and if it only applies to embryos in the womb, why?

I don’t let all this wild guessing worry me. I have two unbaptized babies that died before birth and I know God Loves them and they are NOT in Hell, Just because God has not told us exactly His Divine Mystery on this doesn’t mean we have to think the worst of HIM. NO ONE goes to Hell for what they “might” have done. TRUST GOD !! If parents knowingly fail to Baptize their children and they die without Baptism, then the fault lies on the parents. God does NOT expect us to do the impossible before a baby is born. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

I’m not addressing you or mocking your question, but rather, I am directing my comment to the other Catholics who are trying to “answer” your question. Your question is fair and fine.

A lot of Catholics, either out of emotional responses, personal tragedy or a particular image of God, would like to speculate on what happens to the souls of unbaptized infants. But that would all be speculation, because, as I said, this has not been revealed, and so simply,

We do not know.

“We entrust them to God’s mercy” is all the Church can answer because that is all she can do. She knows and teaches the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation. She also knows that innocent unbaptized children have no personal sin. Yet, she also knows that no one in original sin can see God. Yet, she also knows that God in his justice and mercy cannot conceivably send them to the torments of hell.

You ask how it can be reconciled. The one straight answer to this is: in this life, you can’t. It cannot be reconciled because the Church, for all her authority, does not know.

People can speculate purgatory, a supernatural instant to choose or reject Christ, limbo of the infants, instant heaven, instant hell, or whatever. But none of those are defined or ever will be, because God has not revealed it to us. We don’t know. The Church doesn’t know. And no one on CAF knows. Any answer beyond “we don’t know” and “we entrust them to God’s mercy” and “we simply do not know” is simply speculation or outright wrong.

So what the Church is in, quite frankly, is a pickle. Simply because she. does. not. know.

Do not read insult where none is intended or offered.

I agree except I don’t think the Church is in a “pickle”. God has left us with many Great Mysteries and that is why we have to have unlimited TRUST in Him. And let me tell you when one looses a baby, baptized or otherwise, one has to trust God to help them thru the loss. That also applies to so many other things in life. Trust in His LOVE and HIS MERCY. Our pastor reminded us that Easter celebrated the Joy of the Resurrection but Divine Mercy Sunday shows us that God’s MERCY is ongoing always. Our “opinion” does NOT limit God in any way! HE makes the rules and He may have ones we know nothing about. God Bless, Memaw