What is Catholic position on what happens to soul of unbaptized infant who dies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tommy999
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I repeat that the CCC is AUTHORITATIVE when it comes to Church teachings and all Catholics including YOU and I are BOUND by what is contained therein. This is why we don’t need to go scraping through individual documents to know what the Church teaches.

Also I repeat what I quoted above and I notice you have no comment:

CCC THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

What is your view on the part I highlighted (which is a Church teaching).
 
There is no official Catholic position on this.
A person may hope an unbaptized child is in heaven, considering the love and mercy of God. But still–the Church has not said.
 
I am the mother of one of those children.

For me, I trust that God has made heaven perfect and that should I go there I will be perfectly happy. That how I think now will be very different than having these earthly imperfect emotions
 
Are you saying you reject the teachings of an ECUMENICAL COUNCIL? A Council with just as much authority as Vatican II does?
[/quote]

That seems like an odd way to phrase it. We understand that each Council is built on the foundation of the previous Councils all the way back to the Apostles in Jerusalem. Revelation is an ever unfolding light which each generation of the Church incorporates into its teachings for the faithful. Vatican council II was privy to those illuminations in a way previous Councils weren’t so it is natural that VII is the ‘updated version’ of Church teaching.
 
Please don’t fret over some of the posts here. You know your babies are in heaven, and that is what matters. You will see them when you get there, if that is what you want.
 
Please explain to me why those previous magisterial documents haven’t been revoked or declared null.
[/quote]

You seem to have a very strange way of understanding Revelation. There need be no ‘revoking’ of a document. Past teaching defined in the light of the time remains a necessary part of the foundation upon which teachings serve the faithful today.

In regard to the quotes from previous Councils you cite, the theology of Thomas Aquinas and the mystical efficacy of baptism through desire throw light on them in the case of those who would normally receive baptism of water before an untimely death.

“Secondly, the sacrament of baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire; for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized but by some ill chance he is forestalled by death before receiving baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that works by charity, whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen, ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate, but he did not lose the grace he prayed for’” ( Summa Theologia III:68:2, cf. III:66:11–12).
 
Emeraldlady said:
“Secondly, the sacrament of baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire; for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized but by some ill chance he is forestalled by death before receiving baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that works by charity, whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen, ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate, but he did not lose the grace he prayed for’” ( Summa Theologia III:68:2, cf. III:66:11–12).
Click to expand...
This is speaking of Catechumens, note the word “man”. Persons over the age of reason.
 
TheLittleLady said:
40.png
Emeraldlady:
“Secondly, the sacrament of baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire; for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized but by some ill chance he is forestalled by death before receiving baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for baptism, which desire is the outcome of faith that works by charity, whereby God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen, ‘I lost him whom I was to regenerate, but he did not lose the grace he prayed for’” ( Summa Theologia III:68:2, cf. III:66:11–12).
Click to expand...
This is speaking of Catechumens, note the word “man”. Persons over the age of reason.
Click to expand...
I should have linked to the document THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS
WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED which cites Aquinas’ teaching on Baptism of Desire as the basis for understanding the desire of the Church, parents and godparents to that end. (Para. 66,67)
 
By my count, it has already been posted three times on this thread, but that’s ok, I posted it redundantly also 🙂
 
It is incredible that the original poster asked a question which was correctly answered by @Mtatum1958 in the very first reply.
That’s all there is to it.
Click to expand...
No need for the thread to be hijacked into an argument over the theory of limbo.

Ecumenical Councils are not equal: the first seven are the most authoritative. They also don’t work by revoking previous teachings.

What the CCC says about unbaptized children is the teaching of the Catholic Church, not anything contrary to it.

Let the little children come to me, says the Lord Jesus. He died to save them.

Deacon Christopher
 
“Unless the Church definitively teaches that Limbo is the destination of the souls of the unborn, it is more difficult to make the case that abortion is evil.”

Not at all true. Abortion is murder. That is a mortal sin and objectively evil.

Anyone, of any age, who is murdered is then one step closer to their eternal destination (hopefully the beatific vision). The Church does not therefore teach that all people who are murdered go to Limbo or some other hypothetical place, just so that it’s easier to make the case that no one should be murdered.
 
“Natural happiness”: happiness without God? In what way do you understand that to mean anything?

As for not knowing what they’re missing, that is irrational. We are made by and for love. Living infants who are raised without love don’t consciously know what they’re missing, but their brains develop with physical differences, their bodies suffer real and lasting harm from chronic stress, and they have difficulties with attachments throughout their lives. They are gravely harmed even without understanding the harm.

There is no such thing as happiness without God, and there is no such thing as isolation from love without effect.

Augustine didn’t know any of this, nor did Aquinas. God does. That’s why Limbo has never been declared a doctrine, though several groups have pushed for it - hard - over the centuries.
 
The purpose of Sacraments is the salvation of souls. The third Question of Consent in the Rite of Marriage is, “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?” We could argue the finer points of this to kingdom come, but basically it means that in order to be married in the church, a man and woman have to agree to conceive children, to the extent it lies in their power.

If you count “conception” as the moment of fertilization, which it’s my understanding the Church does, then 40-60% of conceived human beings will not survive to birth. That means half of the human race never has the first opportunity to be baptized. According to your reasoning, that means half of the human race is damned without recourse. (Yes, Limbo is damnation! It is eternal separation from God, which according to the Catechism is the greatest of the pains of hell.)

If you’re correct and these children go to hell, then since a man and woman have to promise to bear children in order to get married, this would mean that marriage is a sacrament ordered toward damnation, not salvation. Therefore, if these children go to hell, marriage is not a sacrament. That can’t be. Therefore, they cannot go anywhere other than to God.

Re: your Council quotes: first of all, both those councils are dated before double predestination was defined as a heresy. Second, we don’t know that these babies do die with original sin on their souls. God could very well save them extra-sacramentally.

For example, the Sinless One was baptized with the baptism of forgiveness. Why don’t the babies participate in that?

Anyway, we don’t have to understand how these children get to God in order to know that they do. It is implicitly defined by doctrines which your quoted councils, Augustine, and perhaps Aquinas did not possess (I don’t know when the 3rd Q of Consent became part of marriage law).

Therese of Lisieux said that God is merciful because he is just. His mercy is at the service of his justice, and therefore satisfies it. He can save these children and remain within his justice. But if he doesn’t, then double predestination is not heresy but truth, marriage is not a sacrament - and God is not God.

Which of course is absurd. These babies are with Jesus.
 
MrsAngelala said:
Which of course is absurd. These babies are with Jesus.
Click to expand...
So, if all unbaptized infants to to heaven, what is the cut off in age? Do all unbaptized persons under age 1 go to heaven? What about 5? Age 18?

IF Baptism does what I claim to believe it does (washes away original sin, leaves an indelible mark on the soul, incorporates a person into the Body of Christ, makes a person a Christian), then in my mind it is absurd to think that unbaptized persons, regardless of age, have a the same eternal resting place than does a Baptized Christian.

We know that people who reject Christ in this life go to hell.

We know that people who die in friendship with Christ go to heaven (with a purgatory process for most).

As I stated above, I have a child who died without Baptism. I trust that the place that child has gone to is a place of natural happiness and peace, because God is love. I know that should I make heaven, that I will then understand all of it.
 
Last edited:
What I’m reading is that you’d prefer to believe God used you against your will as a tool to accomplish the separation of your child from Himself for eternity, to believing that He would act with a mercy beyond the law of the Church. I was there until very recently, and my heart hurts for you.

You need to understand that the entire “unborn babies cannot go to heaven” argument is an argument from the scarcity mentality, which is utterly foreign to the Gospel message. That God should choose to save these children without their cooperation, which they are completely unable to give (Therese of Lisieux, God is merciful because he is just), does not diminish in the littlest least tiniest bit that he chooses to save us with our cooperation. There is not less salvation or love available to us because he also chooses to bestow them upon those who couldn’t check the sacramental boxes because they didn’t live long enough.

This isn’t about the human concept of “fair.” God’s wisdom is foolishness to man. Have you considered how “fair” it would be that Adam and Eve, the origins of original sin, were rescued from hell by Christ when he descended – but all of the unborn babies in the history of the human race who died without the possibility of baptism could never be saved, no matter what Jesus did for them?

How “fair” is that to Jesus? He lived through a full nine-month gestation so that he could be like in all ways to those he came to save, only to find us telling him that he could never save those who die during that gestation period? He filled every jot and tittle of the Law, then suffered a punishment so excruciating no human could have withstood it, but even that wasn’t enough to save these babies? For goodness’ sake, what does our God have to DO to satisfy us?!

God knew and loved your child before he was born. Your child could have stayed in His imagination in perfect safety for eternity. God did not call him forth in order to separate him from Himself. He brought your child into being so that the child could know and love Him back, which he now does.

There are just so many reasons why this is so. One I don’t think I wrote earlier is that the theologians tell us that neither the will of the parents nor the will of the Church has any bearing on the fate of these infants; as the infants do not have a will to employ, that means the only will at work in the spiritual life of these children is God’s. Since the only will at work is God’s, those who say that these children are separated from Him for eternity because they couldn’t be baptized are saying that God willed them to be so separated. That’s double predestination, a defined heresy.

The Church cannot teach heresy. I maintain that these children go to God.
 
MrsAngelala said:
This isn’t about the human concept of “fair.”
Click to expand...
I did not use the term “fair”.

I’m asking again, what is the cut off age for when unbaptized people go to heaven? Simple question. If you believe that unbaptized babies go to heaven, what is the date when parents need to baptize the child?
 
MrsAngelala said:
You need to understand that the entire “unborn babies cannot go to heaven” argument is an argument from the scarcity mentality, which is utterly foreign to the Gospel message. That God should choose to save these children without their cooperation, which they are completely unable to give (Therese of Lisieux, God is merciful because he is just), does not diminish in the littlest least tiniest bit that he chooses to save us with our cooperation. There is not less salvation or love available to us because he also chooses to bestow them upon those who couldn’t check the sacramental boxes because they didn’t live long enough.
Click to expand...
I also have sorrow for those affected by excessive legalism that stops them knowing that their babies are numbered among the saints in heaven and as such being powerful intercessors for their family.

I had a stillborn 30 years ago but was blessed by the comforting words of Zelie Martin to her sister in law who had just had a miscarriage. Zelie wrote:

“When I had to close the eyes of my dear children and bury them, I felt deep sorrow, but I was always resigned to it,” she wrote. “I did not regret the pains and the sorrows which I had endured for them. Many persons said to me: ‘It would have been better for you if you had never had them.’ I could not bear that kind of talk. I do not think that the sorrows and the troubles endured could possibly be compared with the eternal happiness of my children with God. Besides, they are not lost to me forever; life is short and filled with crosses, and we shall find them again in Heaven. Above all, it was on the death of my first child that I felt more deeply the happiness of having a child in Heaven, for God showed me in a noticeable way that He accepted my sacrifice. Through the intercession of my little angel, I received a very extraordinary grace.”

The Limbo theory was a useful theological concept to the Church but the holy families supporting each other on the ground in life weren’t as limited in experiencing the merciful God as the subsequent legalists tried to impose on everyone. I’ve asked my child to intercede for us his family for the last 30 years without a shred of doubt about his proximity to God.
 
Last edited:
There is another alternative. There is the possibility that the unbaptized infant did not die in original sin but that his sin was washed away by the mercy of God immediately before death by some means other than baptism of water. Can you tell us why this loophole would be impossible?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top