Young Children, Aborted Babies, and Salvation

[CenterStage40]

Hello, please do not take this in an oppressive or offensive manner, but how is it fair that a five year old can die and have a peaceful eternity since they could not choose God, yet we must live a long life striving to reach Heaven? Is there a chance God brings that soul through a different body? Again, I am strictly pro-life and do not support abortion, but isn’t having an abortion technically assisting the child’s soul since they automatically go to heaven? Once more, I do not support anything of the murdering variety. It just raises some questions about equality and God. Thank you

 

[DavidFilmer]

The Church does not teach that unbaptized children who die automatically go to heaven.

In fact, for many centuries, the “common belief” (to quote the Baltimore Catechism) was that such children went to a place of natural (but not supernatural) happiness called Limbo.

The concept of Limbo has fallen out of favor with modern theologians. The modern Catechism has only this to say:

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.

So we can “hope” for “a way” for salvation which has not been made known to us explicitly. We have no reason to be certain that such a way exists.

 

[CenterStage40]

The Church does not teach that unbaptized children who die automatically go to heaven.

In fact, for many centuries, the “common belief” (to quote the Baltimore Catechism) was that such children went to a place of natural (but not supernatural) happiness called Limbo.

The concept of Limbo has fallen out of favor with modern theologians. The modern Catechism has only this to say:

So we can “hope” for “a way” for salvation which has not been made known to us explicitly. We have no reason to be certain that such a way exists.

Thank you for the answer! So would you say that there is a possibility God brings that soul through a different body?

 

[DavidFilmer]

So would you say that there is a possibility God brings that soul through a different body?

No. From the Catechism (emphasis mine):

1013 Death is the end of man’s earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When “the single course of our earthly life” is completed,[sup]586[/sup] we shall not return to other earthly lives: “It is appointed for men to die once.”[sup]587[/sup] There is no “reincarnation” after death.
__________586 LG 48 § 3
587 Heb 9:27

 

[Qaletaqa]

one thing i hate is reading that unbaptized babies, children, miscarrage babies and aborted babies go to limbo, seriously no one in the catholic church has ever taught me this even Pope Francis doesnt hold that view. he wrote an article while a Cardinal.

Seriously look at it this way, why would a God of love condemn these babies to limbo when the most sinful person can if after making amends has the ability to experience the grace of Heaven. These babies after all are innocent, Jesus died for all of us and there isnt a little bit of his suffering on the cross that excludes these babies. he died to bring us all back to God

 

[DavidFilmer]

one thing i hate is reading that unbaptized babies, children, miscarrage babies and aborted babies go to limbo, seriously no one in the catholic church has ever taught me this even Pope Francis doesnt hold that view. he wrote an article while a Cardinal.

As I said, the idea has become unpopular with modern theologians. But the idea was taught as the “common belief” in the Baltimore Catechism, and millions of children who attended Catholic schools memorized this idea.

Q. 631. Is Baptism necessary to salvation?

A. Baptism is necessary to salvation, because without it we cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Q. 632. Where will persons go who – such as infants – have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?

A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.

Seriously look at it this way, why would a God of love condemn these babies to limbo

“Condemn?” You make it sound like Limbo is a bad place. It’s not as good as heaven, but it’s WAAAY better than anything on earth. That’s like being “condemned” to living a carefree life as a first-class passenger aboard a luxury cruise ship touring exotic ports of call. I think I would be quite happy in Limbo.

But, like I said, it doesn’t get much traction these days, although any Catholic is still free to believe in Limbo (which I do not, for the record).

 

[marymary1975]

Limbo bas.never been an a actual teaching or doctrine of the church. It used to be thought because it was a popular idea between theologians back in the day but the church does not know what happens because it hasn’t been revealed.

Most theologians now a days disagree with the idea of limbo because is inconvenient with Jesus being a just judge and with his mercy. Most theologians now think that there must be a way of salvation and we entrust them to Jesus mercy. However the only exact answer is that we don’t know because it hasn’t been revealed.

 

[chimo]

Hello, please do not take this in an oppressive or offensive manner, but how is it fair that a five year old can die and have a peaceful eternity since they could not choose God, yet we must live a long life striving to reach Heaven? Is there a chance God brings that soul through a different body? Again, I am strictly pro-life and do not support abortion, but isn’t having an abortion technically assisting the child’s soul since they automatically go to heaven? Once more, I do not support anything of the murdering variety. It just raises some questions about equality and God. Thank you

You are probably wondering what is the soul after it dies? Everyone has an eternal soul. That soul is always youthful and never ages. When anyone dies what than is the appearance of that soul? The soul as I said is always eternal, youthful and it does not age. Be that it may what happens for instance when a person dies in infancy or at a very young age? Again we must remember that no one goes to heaven looking like what they do on earth. Everyone in heaven looks the same age, they are all youthful and whether you believe it or not all babies who die or the very elderly who die will all look the same age in heaven. God will equip to all souls who were destined for heaven all the graces to look like youthful adults. Therefore the soul that is from a baby when the baby dies will be transform into the youthful state of a young adult. This is the same for anyone who is much older and they also die. They will have this youthful state. The reason why children and babies can have heaven right away is because they have not tasted sin in this life as adults do. We can pick up a lot of sin therefore tarnishing our lives with these sins. So the journey as we get older is to go back to that childlike faith that will help us to know that our Lord will take care of all of our sins.

 

[Qaletaqa]

As I said, the idea has become unpopular with modern theologians. But the idea was taught as the “common belief” in the Baltimore Catechism, and millions of children who attended Catholic schools memorized this idea.

“Condemn?” You make it sound like Limbo is a bad place. It’s not as good as heaven, but it’s WAAAY better than anything on earth. That’s like being “condemned” to living a carefree life as a first-class passenger aboard a luxury cruise ship touring exotic ports of call. I think I would be quite happy in Limbo.

But, like I said, it doesn’t get much traction these days, although any Catholic is still free to believe in Limbo (which I do not, for the record).

If Limbo isnt Heaven and not as good as Heaven, why do they deserve to go there, God wouldnt send them there would he, this is a human idea of what happens, I know that i will see my children in Heaven they arent in Limbo and have never been. The God i know wouldnt do that to the innocent, if the most evil amongst us can get into Heaven if they repent then all the innocent babies regardless of how they dead will also be there. If you would be happy in Limbo thats fine i wouldnt settle for second best and i wont settle for second best for my childrne either. If when i die i find that im wrong and my children are in Limbo or whatever its i will ask to be sent to be with them or for them to join me in Heaven, i faught for them on Earth and i will fight for them in Heaven if i have to and i know that i will have the support of the one person that truly matters

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Magisterium has not definitively answered the question as to what happens to unbaptized prenatals, infants, and young children, if they die at so tender an age.

The idea of limbo as a third final destination (a place of natural happiness) was once a non-infallible teaching, but now the Magisterium has instead taught that we may hope there is a path to heaven for them. Non-infallible teachings are non-irreformable; they can change.

My theological opinion is that all unbaptized prenatals, infants, and young children, if they die at so tender an age, receive a baptism of blood, prior to death, so that they die in the state of grace.

I think that limbo as a third final destination is presently untenable. Also, the dogmatic teaching that those who die in a state of original sin alone are sent to Hell to be punished was never dogmatically applied to young children.

 

[Gorgias]

The Magisterium has not definitively answered the question as to what happens to unbaptized prenatals, infants, and young children, if they die at so tender an age.

I see that CenterStage40 mentioned aborted babies, but where is everyone gleaning the connotation of “unbaptized children”? I would presume – from CS40’s OP – that the question being asked of a 5-year-old who dies isn’t the question of “dying without baptism”, but rather, “dying after baptism but before being capable of committing mortal sin”, and therefore, a presumption of assurance of salvation.

My theological opinion is that all unbaptized prenatals, infants, and young children, if they die at so tender an age, receive a baptism of blood, prior to death, so that they die in the state of grace.

A ‘baptism of blood’? Wait - you’re claiming that aborted babies, infants, and young children are martyrs for the faith?!?

 

[CenterStage40]

You are probably wondering what is the soul after it dies? Everyone has an eternal soul. That soul is always youthful and never ages. When anyone dies what than is the appearance of that soul? The soul as I said is always eternal, youthful and it does not age. Be that it may what happens for instance when a person dies in infancy or at a very young age? Again we must remember that no one goes to heaven looking like what they do on earth. Everyone in heaven looks the same age, they are all youthful and whether you believe it or not all babies who die or the very elderly who die will all look the same age in heaven. God will equip to all souls who were destined for heaven all the graces to look like youthful adults. Therefore the soul that is from a baby when the baby dies will be transform into the youthful state of a young adult. This is the same for anyone who is much older and they also die. They will have this youthful state. The reason why children and babies can have heaven right away is because they have not tasted sin in this life as adults do. We can pick up a lot of sin therefore tarnishing our lives with these sins. So the journey as we get older is to go back to that childlike faith that will help us to know that our Lord will take care of all of our sins.

That’s exactly what I’m saying. How is that fair in any way? If I had to choose I’d rather die super young and be in heaven for ever and ever. This isn’t to be disrespectful or mock those who have lost young ones. I am speaking my from a purely theological perspective. How come a child can die at 5 and see heaven while I mist devote an entire life (which is extremely long, despite time being a human construct) to trying to get there. I’m not saying I mind doing it, I love practicing my faith in God. I’m simply asking on the basis of a just creator

 

[CenterStage40]

I see that CenterStage40 mentioned aborted babies, but where is everyone gleaning the connotation of “unbaptized children”? I would presume – from CS40’s OP – that the question being asked of a 5-year-old who dies isn’t the question of “dying without baptism”, but rather, “dying after baptism but before being capable of committing mortal sin”, and therefore, a presumption of assurance of salvation.:

Exactly

 

[JM3]

A ‘baptism of blood’? Wait - you’re claiming that aborted babies, infants, and young children are martyrs for the faith?!?

An Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori’s Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7

"Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality “non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view * is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.

It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ."

(which is extremely long, despite time being a human construct)

Not a human contruct. Time was created by God, as is recorded in Genesis 1:5 -there was evening and there was morning, Day One.*

 

[Ron_Conte]

but rather, “dying after baptism but before being capable of committing mortal sin”, and therefore, a presumption of assurance of salvation.

It’s not a presumption. Pope Benedict 12 infallibly taught that children who die after baptism and before they are able to use free will (to possibly sin gravely) certainly go to Heaven:
papalencyclicals.net/Ben12/B12bdeus.html

A ‘baptism of blood’? Wait - you’re claiming that aborted babies, infants, and young children are martyrs for the faith?!?

My opinion is that the baptism of blood is not restricted to martyrs for the faith.

 

[ericc]

That’s exactly what I’m saying. How is that fair in any way? If I had to choose I’d rather die super young and be in heaven for ever and ever. This isn’t to be disrespectful or mock those who have lost young ones. I am speaking my from a purely theological perspective. How come a child can die at 5 and see heaven while I mist devote an entire life (which is extremely long, despite time being a human construct) to trying to get there. I’m not saying I mind doing it, I love practicing my faith in God. I’m simply asking on the basis of a just creator

How did you arrive at that notion of fairness is by how much time you spent on earth vs eternity in heaven/hell? Whether it is a second or a 100 years on earth is nothing compared to eternity. Regardless, what you are saying goes straight to the parable of the labourers in the vineyard (Mat 20:1-16). The message is clear: just get there, doesn’t matter what time you started.

Or is your generosity limited and begrudge that baptized babies get to heaven too? You don’t wanna keep count with God. Nevertheless, you don’t have to second guess God’s fairness. God’s plan for you is not the same for everyone. Strange, there are those who wish for more time to prepare to get there. Some hope for multiple lives via reincarnation.

 

[chimo]

That’s exactly what I’m saying. How is that fair in any way? If I had to choose I’d rather die super young and be in heaven for ever and ever. This isn’t to be disrespectful or mock those who have lost young ones. I am speaking my from a purely theological perspective. How come a child can die at 5 and see heaven while I mist devote an entire life (which is extremely long, despite time being a human construct) to trying to get there. I’m not saying I mind doing it, I love practicing my faith in God. I’m simply asking on the basis of a just creator

It is because a baby cannot save souls as would you as an adult. You have the power from God to help sinners return back to God. If everyone dies in infancy there would be no world. So adults are necessary to help continue the planet. If everyone knew of the power they can tap into I think probably this world be a heaven to live on. The problem with most Christians is they have not tapped into the greatest power in the Universe. This world would be a horror if it was not for the chosen “adult” souls who bring mercy into this world. These chosen souls know how to bring mercy since they have been touched by mercy. They are in love with the Son of God, the All-Merciful One. The problem then is to get these other Christians to practice mercy as do the chosen souls. At Fatima the Holy Mother of God said that souls who do not get converted as they grow up simply were never prayed for. Why we do not tap into this great reservoir of mercy to help other souls is the reason why adults do not get converted.

 

[DavidFilmer]

My opinion is that the baptism of blood is not restricted to martyrs for the faith.

I’m not thinking so.

** CCC 1258** The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

I can find no Catholic teaching that a tragic death under different circumstances imparts Baptismal Grace.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Oh goodness gracious mercy me…here we go again. The first one of you to say my miscarried child is not in heaven…:slapfight:

 

[DavidFilmer]

The first one of you to say my miscarried child is not in heaven…

I’m not saying your miscarried child is not in heaven (or my miscarried daughter, Maria).

I’m just saying the Church doesn’t teach that our children are in heaven.

God is bound by the Sacraments but is not limited by them. As the Catechism says, we can hope that God provides another way apart from Baptism that would include our children.