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.
You didn’t use the word fair, but that’s what your post was about: it’s not fair if the unbaptized can be saved, because then the effects of baptism, though still real, wouldn’t mean anything. This isn’t true. God made the rules, and the Cathechism says he is not limited by them.

That you’re insisting on a cutoff age is an excellent example of the scarcity mentality at work. We try to limit and define so that we can be sure there’s going to be enough for us in the end. The reality of God’s love is so much broader and messier than that.

The pastor at the last parish I was in believed there wasn’t enough (time, money, love) - and though the parish was a wealthy one, there wasn’t. The pastor at my new parish runs the church like he’s the father of a very large family. There’s not only enough, but an overflowing abundance, of everything his “children” need. It’s a crazy place, unbelievably messy, but in the midst of this weedy garden full of people growing every which way all over the place, Jesus is SHINING. I’m healing from the last church without even knowing how. But I’m not benefiting because I’m following the rules (though I understand I am responsible for this and very much do). I’m benefiting because the pastor lives as though God loves.

God doesn’t love us because we follow the rules and check the boxes. Those of us who can do so, must, so that we can learn to love him in return and desire to spend eternity with him. But those of us who can’t? Think about what it means if those of us who are incapable through no fault of our own are therefore separated from God for eternity. Really think about that. It’s a horrifying abyss. I know, because I threw myself off it.

God’s love is not theoretical or limited by the laws He gives us to draw us to Him. It is much more real, more solid, than anything we perceive as reality. Infants who die in utero go to Him.
 
bobperk said:
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. Because if everyone thinks that aborted babies just directly go to heaven, then many will see abortion as a mercy rather than a sin.
Click to expand...
Regardless of where a person goes in the afterlife, deliberately murdering someone is intrinsically evil. You might as well argue that murdering someone immediately after Baptism is an act of mercy and not evil.
 
Last edited:
It seems that you do not wish to answer the question.

One more time, I’ve never spoken of “fairness”. God is justice. God is love. God offers mercy through the Sacraments.
 
It can’t be called ‘dissent’ because the Church allows for it.

"Thirdly, the Church cannot fail to encourage the hope of salvation for infants who die without Baptism by the very fact that she “prays that no one should be lost”,[6] and prays in hope for “all to be saved”.[7] On the basis of an anthropology of solidarity,[8] strengthened by an ecclesial understanding of corporate personality, the Church knows the help that can be given by the faith of believers. The Gospel of Mark actually describes an occasion when the faith of some was effective for the salvation of another (cf. Mk 2:5). So, while knowing that the normal way to achieve salvation in Christ is by Baptism in re, the Church hopes that there may be other ways to achieve the same end. Because, by his Incarnation, the Son of God “in a certain way united himself” with every human being, and because Christ died for all and all are in fact “called to one and the same destiny, which is divine”, the Church believes that “the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (GS 22)." ( THE HOPE OF SALVATION FOR INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BEING BAPTISED)

We justify infant baptism by the faith of his parents and the Church so it isn’t far field to justify baptism of desire via the desire of parents and Church either.
 
Last edited:
The Church references Jesus words not to prevent little children coming to Him (Matt 9:14) as the baseline for very early baptism.

Because baptism serves as an initiation into the Church family, its necessary that the parents and godparents appreciate their essential obligation to bring the child up in the faith so that requires education of adults.

The question you ask regarding age would actually require omniscience which human beings haven’t got. Only God can know a persons degree of innocence.
 
If the vast majority of men were saved, why does Our Lord speak of the narrow gate?

[/quote]

How do you answer your own question?
On the one hand you can see the gate as an obstacle with people racing and pushing to squeeze through in fear of the scarcity of salvation that @MrsAngelala is speaking about. In this sense “few” is a literal number of people. Unfortunately the Church does not pronounce specifically on this number, or even a percentage.
“Few”. What does that mean? It should strike fear into our hearts if we are going to be honest about our sins and weaknesses. And the Gospel is not about fear. And it’s not about quantities, it’s about becoming holy as God is holy.

You could also see it as a warning against spiritual obesity or an inflated sense of our own merit: those who are fattened with their spirituality and knowledge need to go on a “humility diet”.
That one scares me a lot, but it fits better with the rest of the Gospel and gives me hope in repentance.
 
Hmm… maybe because He was talking about those who survived birth and infancy, and were therefore given the opportunity to make a personal choice… but chose otherwise? 🤔 😉

No… the Church does not know the means by which they might attain to heaven. That’s a huge difference!
 
This has always been my favorite position.
St. Bernard of Clairvaux-
Your faith spoke for this child. Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. Your faith suffices. The waters of your womb—were they not the waters of life for this child? Look at your tears. Are they not like the waters of baptism? Do not fear this. God’s ability to love is greater than our fears. Surrender everything to God.
 
It has always been this way in the Church. A theological tradition along with a pastoral tradition which reflects the truth that God can never be limited to or solely defined by our human doctrines. We are just in one of those periods of the Church where legalism is suppressing the life of the Holy Spirit in the everyday Catholic life.
 
OK. There is baptism of water, baptism of blood, baptism of desire. As we read the new teaching on limbo in the catechism, is it possible that there is another form of baptism which may be applied to unbaptised infants at the time of their death, based on the mercy of God. If there were such a baptism, based on the mercy of God, then it would mean that these aborted foetuses would not be dying in original sin and as a consequence, there would be no violation of the documents which declare that those who die in original sin do not get to heaven. The baptism which results from the mercy of God, would wash away the original sin in the foetus just before or immediately before death and assuming that scenario, the foetus would not go to limbo.
 
Last edited:
I personally subscribe to limbo as the only merciful position that follows the theology of the faith.
 
Hoosier-Daddy said:
I personally subscribe to limbo as the only merciful position that follows the theology of the faith.
Click to expand...
We are encouraged to have hope for heaven though which is technically the more merciful theory. It reflects what faithful parents of such children have felt in their hearts and have been assured of pastorally forever anyway.
 
In your eyes it is more merciful not mine. And it makes no theological sense to me. If unbaptized infants populate heaven and the purpose of existence is to be happy with God in heaven as the catechism teaches then abortion would be a salvific procedure.
 
You are free to subscribe to it, but the Church does not require us to subscribe to it and takes no position other than trusting in God’s mercy to somehow provide a path to salvation for the innocent who die before birth. Trusting in God’s mercy seems like a much more common-sense approach; otherwise, we would have no good excuse for not baptizing every baby in utero, just in case of a miscarriage or the baby dying in the womb.

Also, abortion is not a “salvific procedure” because it is murder so the end does not justify the means, and also because it would result in mortal sin/ potential damnation of the parent(s) consenting to the procedure and the staff carrying out the procedure.
 
Last edited:
No, you dont have to subscribe to that or even the age of the earth to be a faithful Catholic, though the -logy in theology would dictate you do in my opinion. Like I said limbo is certainly a merciful explanation. That’s actually why it was developed as an explanation. It avoided damnation for innocent lives but kept in line with free will of human nature and original sin.
As far as abortion. That’s exactly why it DOESNT make sense. It would fly in the face of the Church’s theology where at the possible cost of the soul of one thousands might be saved. There are also original sin issues here.
 
I do not understand and will probably never understand how trust in God’s mercy could possibly present any “issue”. but I’m kinda dumb and willing to live and let live.

I think trusting in God’s mercy is always the best route. There are many, many things we do not fully understand, especially about the afterlife, and who gets there, etc. so all we can do is trust. I see absolutely zero reason why God would deny himself to the unborn, or even small children who are born, who die unbaptized through no fault of their own.
 
Last edited:
Hoosier-Daddy said:
As far as abortion. That’s exactly why it DOESNT make sense. It would fly in the face of the Church’s theology where at the possible cost of the soul of one thousands might be saved. There are also original sin issues here.
Click to expand...
Killing somebody just after they had been baptized would guarantee them heaven right away. I doubt you would support that
 
Last edited:
Hoosier-Daddy said:
If unbaptized infants populate heaven and the purpose of existence is to be happy with God in heaven as the catechism teaches then abortion would be a salvific procedure.
Click to expand...
No, that’s not correct. By that standard, murder (which prevents future sin, right?) would be morally licit. It isn’t. “One may not do evil so that good results”, or, to put it another way, “the end doesn’t justify the means.”

Instead, we would say that despite the fact that abortion is evil, God can nevertheless work good: “[w]e know that in everything God works for good.”

It’s not that abortion is good – it’s that God is good, and His goodness trumps every evil.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top