What happens when a pre-born child dies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inishfree
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Inishfree

Guest
There is probably a thread about this here. Back in the archives. But, my question is what happens when a woman has miscarried and due to the medical emergency. Baptism wasn’t performed.

I asked my priest about this. I miscarried my second child. Due to the medical situation, I didn’t think to baptise or have a priest called. My priest told me not to worry. He said my baby had gone right back to God.
 
God is love and mercy. I think we can trust Him to take care of un-born babies.
 
There are a lot of threads about this. Unfortunately what your priest told you is not true in two ways: 1) Babies don’t “live with God” before they are conceived. Before conception, the human person does not exist, so a baby can’t “go right back to God”. 2) The Church does not know what the fate of the souls of unbaptized infants is, so no one can say that the souls of unbaptized infants certainly go to Heaven.

In fact, the Council of Florence stated very clearly that the souls of all who die unbaptized, both those who are guilty of actual sin, and also those who die in original sin alone, descend immediately to hell to be punished, but with unequal punishments. St. Augustine taught that the souls of unbaptized infants suffer the eternal torments of hell. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the souls of unbaptized infants cannot go to Heaven (i.e. cannot enjoy the face-to-face view of God) but that they exist in a place of perfect natural happiness comparable to the garden of paradise in which Adam and Eve lived before the fall.

In any case, the real answer is: we don’t know. God has not revealed it to the Church. It is not contrary to the faith to believe that unbaptized infants suffer the torments of hell for all eternity because they have not been baptized, and it is not contrary to the faith to believe that God chooses to work outside of the sacramental economy to save the souls of unbaptized infants – although the latter possibility does in fact contradict the doctrine of the vast majority of the fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church over the last 2000 years.
 
HelenRose said:
God is love and mercy. I think we can trust Him to take care of un-born babies.
Click to expand...
Thank you Helen, I believe this too. I prayed to God and asked him to take my child to heaven. I also had a Mass said. As I stated it was a real medical emergency. Very early in the pregnancy. It happened so quickly. It wasn’t as though my child had lived for a short while, then died.
 
=Inishfree;8071568]There is probably a thread about this here. Back in the archives. But, my question is what happens when a woman has miscarried and due to the medical emergency. Baptism wasn’t performed.
Click to expand...
I asked my priest about this. I miscarried my second child. Due to the medical situation, I didn’t think to baptise or have a priest called. My priest told me not to worry. He said my baby had gone right back to God.
Click to expand...
What your Priest told you is NOT Offical Church teaching BECAUSE the matter continues to be debated.

Limbo of the Fathers is resolved but unbaptized children remains a topic of discussion.

Father shared this in the widely held belief that God in His JUSTICE must show Mercy for those who through NO FAULT of there own had no opportunity to Know Christ. Therefore NO rejection was possible.

My Mentor Father John HardonS.J… held a similar view and for what its worth; I agree.

Your BABY is in HEAVEN!

God Bless you,
Pat
 
laszlo said:
Here is the Document for the Vatican Thjeological commisdsion

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Jesus Christ saved them, they have no personal sin
Click to expand...
That document does not say that. That document says that the fate of unbaptized infants is unknown to the Church and thay we may therefore hope (not be certain) that God chooses to work outside the sacraments to save them.

The Council of Florence stated (ewtn.com/library/councils/florence.htm#3):🙂

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.
 
Will_S said:
There are a lot of threads about this. Unfortunately what your priest told you is not true in two ways: 1) Babies don’t “live with God” before they are conceived. Before conception, the human person does not exist, so a baby can’t “go right back to God”. 2) The Church does not know what the fate of the souls of unbaptized infants is, so no one can say that the souls of unbaptized infants certainly go to Heaven.

In fact, the Council of Florence stated very clearly that the souls of all who die unbaptized, both those who are guilty of actual sin, and also those who die in original sin alone, descend immediately to hell to be punished, but with unequal punishments. St. Augustine taught that the souls of unbaptized infants suffer the eternal torments of hell. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the souls of unbaptized infants cannot go to Heaven (i.e. cannot enjoy the face-to-face view of God) but that they exist in a place of perfect natural happiness comparable to the garden of paradise in which Adam and Eve lived before the fall.

In any case, the real answer is: we don’t know. God has not revealed it to the Church. It is not contrary to the faith to believe that unbaptized infants suffer the torments of hell for all eternity because they have not been baptized, and it is not contrary to the faith to believe that God chooses to work outside of the sacramental economy to save the souls of unbaptized infants – although the latter possibility does in fact contradict the doctrine of the vast majority of the fathers, doctors, and saints of the Church over the last 2000 years.
Click to expand...
The Council of Florence did not define tis De Fide. Bl. John Paul made it very clear that this was a theory that the Council of Florence had, proposed by theologians of that era. He states it below. For many years, we have read some of the statements made by the Council of Florence as if they were dogmas, some were theological hyptheses, not dogmas. Today, Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict have worked very hard to clarify some of these hypotheses. However, it’s going to take a long time before people can move away from them, because people grew up with them and did not know that these were not doctrines. That’s why people believe that unbaptized babies can’t go to heaven. They’re not being mean. Simply put, they were never taught this was a theological theory. It was handed to them as a given.
laszlo said:
Here is the Document for the Vatican Thjeological commisdsion

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Jesus Christ saved them, they have no personal sin
Click to expand...
Here is what we know.

**It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”. **

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Wills,

How can baptism be performed when the child dies suddenly in the womb? This is a scrament given to the living.

A miscarried pregnancy, happens very quickly and usually within the first few weeks of conception. It is always a medical emergency.
 
JReducation said:
Here is what we know.

It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin. This theory, elaborated by theologians beginning in the Middle Ages, never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium, even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council. It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis. However, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261), and therefore also to the theological desire to find a coherent and logical connection between the diverse affirmations of the Catholic faith: the universal salvific will of God; the unicity of the mediation of Christ; the necessity of baptism for salvation; the universal action of grace in relation to the sacraments; the link between original sin and the deprivation of the beatific vision; the creation of man “in Christ”.
Click to expand...
I think, Brother JR, that this is pretty much exactly what I was saying.
The quote from the Council of Florence is necessary to counter those who claim that “the Church never taught” such a thing.

Also, I think it is smart to point out that, dogmatized or not, the teaching of the Council of Florence is the traditional teaching of the Church and should be accorded some level of authority.

It is not just the current generation that wishes to know the fate of unbaptized infants, however it is pretty much only the current generation that is arrogant enough to assume that they can be sure that unbaptized infants enjoy the beatific vision for no other reason than that we wish it to be so.
 
Inishfree said:
Wills,

How can baptism be performed when the child dies suddenly in the womb? This is a scrament given to the living.

A miscarried pregnancy, happens very quickly and usually within the first few weeks of conception. It is always a medical emergency.
Click to expand...
They cannot be obviously. That’s the whole point. The Church does not know that the souls of miscarried infants go to Heaven.

We can hope it, but we do not know it.
 
Will_S said:
I think, Brother JR, that this is pretty much exactly what I was saying.
The quote from the Council of Florence is necessary to counter those who claim that “the Church never taught” such a thing.

Also, I think it is smart to point out that, dogmatized or not, the teaching of the Council of Florence is the traditional teaching of the Church and should be accorded some level of authority.

It is not just the current generation that wishes to know the fate of unbaptized infants, however it is pretty much only the current generation that is arrogant enough to assume that they can be sure that unbaptized infants enjoy the beatific vision for no other reason than that we wish it to be so.
Click to expand...
It is not the current generation who is being arrogant. It is the current popes who are saying this.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Question was answered according to Church teaching.

CLOSED
 
This may seem to be complete sophistry. If so, please forgive my ignorance. That being said, if a mother consumes the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, thereby becoming one with Christ, and, the unborn child enjoys a symbiotic (some may say parasitic, in order to satisfy a strict biological definition. Needless to say other aspects, both spiritual and psycological, negate this definition in my mind) relationship, then, wouldn’t the unborn recieve that same benefit? This presents an interesting paradox for me. The child is one with Christ; yet, the taint of original sin persists. The two seem incompatible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top