Posted on 12/16/2004 6:13:46 AM PST by NYer
VATICAN CITY, DEC. 15, 2004 (Zenit.org).- What happens to the souls of children who die before birth, or shortly after birth, or are aborted?
Questions of this nature are ever more frequent, to the point that John Paul II himself, on Oct. 7, asked the International Theological Commission to study the matter more profoundly.
To better understand the matter at stake, ZENIT interviewed Father Peter Gumpel, a theologian and historian who has studied the matter since the 1950s.
"The fate in the hereafter of souls that have not been baptized seems to be a marginal problem, but in reality it is at the heart of some dogmatic theses," Father Gumpel said.
"According to Catholic doctrine, all are born with original sin; no one can enjoy the beatific vision without overcoming original sin. The normal way is to be baptized; it is an infallible means to ensure full happiness in the beatific vision," the theologian explained.
Q: But, what happens to those who die without baptism?
Father Gumpel: Although in history there have been different opinions, the supreme magisterium of the Church offers very precise documents and affirmations.
In particular, in the struggle between St. Augustine and Pelagius, the latter denied original sin, while Augustine, Doctor of the Church, asserted its existence. In St. Augustine's time, the doctrine existed according to which outside the Church there was no salvation, so the belief was that those who were not baptized, whether adults or newborns, could not enjoy the salvific vision.
In this context, St. Augustine speaks about children dying without baptism and thinks that hell is their destiny, saying that they are subject to the flames of hell, although adding that they are "very mitigated flames." Given this very harsh consideration, the question arises if St. Augustine ever considered a substitution to baptism by water, for example, baptism by desire.
Catechumens who had shown a willingness to enter the Church, through baptism, perhaps could be saved. Also catechumens not baptized with water, but who suffered martyrdom for their faith in Christ, could undoubtedly be saved. In this case, the concept of baptism of blood is introduced.
St. Augustine did not consider the question of persons who wish to enter the Church.
Q: St. Thomas Aquinas proposes a view that is different from that of St. Augustine. In what way does it change?
Father Gumpel: Indeed. St. Thomas and the Scholastics abandon St. Augustine's theory that children who are not baptized go to hell, even if the latter is in a mitigated form, and construct an intermediate form, known as "limbo." It is a theological construction, to explain the situation of human beings who die and are not in heaven.
Q: Has this theory of limbo ever been presented by the Church as a matter of faith?
Father Gumpel: In 1954 I carried out an exhaustive study, in which I examined all the arguments in favor of the thesis expressed by the infallible magisterium done with authority. I studied all the ecumenical councils, and I came to the conclusion that "limbo" is not an obligatory answer.
It is an opinion that has been repeated in the course of time, without carrying out a critical historical examination of the ecumenical councils.
Prior to Vatican II, a schema was prepared, entitled "To Save in Its Purity the Deposit of Faith." In a special way, by the determination of the Faculty of Theology of Naples, the 11th chapter was included in the document, which formally condemned those who attacked "limbo."
When the plan reached the General Preparatory Commission, the most important commission for the preparation of the council, there were such objections, on the part of cardinals and other bishops, that it was decided to cancel this chapter. The commission referred explicitly to the study I had done, which was later published.
Q: What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say on this subject?
Father Gumpel: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, published in 1992, dedicates No. 1261 to children who die without Baptism, and one reads that one can hope that they will attain the beatific vision.
It is an element of the greatest importance, which opens the way to a broader point of view, and it is a pronouncement of the ordinary magisterium of the Church. We cannot say with certainty that they will be saved.
We can hope, and the fact that we can hope, as the Catechism says, is an interpretative key. No one hopes or can hope legitimately for something one is certain is impossible.
Q: What is the basis of this hope?
Father Gumpel: The first consideration that must be made is that, every human being, even if he was an embryo or fetus in the womb, is part of the human family and, ontologically, in his being, has a relationship with all people and, therefore, also with Jesus Christ, who is the head of the new humanity, the new Adam.
From sacred Scripture, we know the salvific will of God. Christ is the redeemer of all and wants all to be saved. Moreover, Christ founded the Church, a visible body, and instituted the sacrament of baptism. And given that baptism is an infallible means, we must do everything possible to have people baptized.
But, what do we do with those who, without any one being at fault, cannot receive the baptism of water? There must be another means to maintain God's salvific plan.
We do not know what this means is. There are many theories. For example, will very small children continue to be so after death, or will they have a different state? Might they not receive a divine illumination with the possibility of choosing for or against God?
Others mention the desire of those parents, good Catholics, who have conceived a child and whom they would certainly have had baptized if it had been possible, and wonder if the parents' desire or that of the Church is not enough.
Of course, although we cannot indicate with certainty by what means they could be saved, the fact remains of their union with Christ and the universal salvific will. This is the central point.
Q: Why did the Pope ask the International Theological Commission to study the matter more profoundly?
Father Gumpel: Today the problem is more complex because, with laws that have legalized abortion, life is taken away from many children who might have desired baptism.
I don't know the Holy Father's intention in detail, but I don't think he wants to go back. The question is rather of a pastoral nature because, when I wrote those articles in 1954, there were few cases. But today, with the multiplication of the number of abortions and the attempts to manipulate fetuses, the number of human beings implicated has greatly increased.
Q: Finally, the question remains of the mystery of the soul and its destiny.
Father Gumpel: Yes. We take seriously a very small human being, just conceived, and call him a human person. If this is so, what will be his final state? Will he be a fetus? Will he grow? It is true that he is already separated from the body but if we say that he has a soul, how will this soul be? Will the soul remain in the state of the fetus, of the child, or will it develop?
As Christians we clearly reject any eugenic approach. Handicapped children, for example, do not remain with their limitation when they enter the beatific vision, because there is no longer a body, and the soul does not have handicaps.
The souls of these children do not have obstacles of the body, and can reach the full development of their mental faculties. Therefore, there are many reasons why it is worthwhile to have hope.
In light of scientific advances with regard to in vitro fertilization, etc., this article advances the current discussions with regard to aborted babies, et al.
Dante's vision is not dogma, but I think fits this question rather succinctly.
Exactly. We don't know what happens to those who die unbaptized. God has not revealed it.
So shouldn't we proceed as if baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation? Really now, when it comes to eternal salvation don't we want to proceed with what we know to be certain rather than our best educated guesses? In the cases where baptism could not possibly occur before death we may still hope in the mercy of God.
With regard to abortion, doesn't this make the act of abortion possibly the gravest evil? To deny all those souls the opportunity to be baptized, the means of grace for salvation? Isn't that the ultimate plan of Satan?
... Jesus said Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not
for such is the kingdom of Heaven.
'Nuff said.
John 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Where does this involve children?
Where does it involve woman?
Bookmark for later reading.
Actually ... no. I believe we are now moving into the next phase which is far more evil than abortion - human cloning. Intentionally creating humans for the sole purpose of supplying organs and other body parts. What about these? They will never be afforded the opportunity to be baptized, not even by desire.
Also, what about miscarriage?
Jesus told one of the men being crucified by his side that surely that day he would be in Paradise. How could he if he was not water baptized. Grace comes by faith not by works. Works come naturally from a heart led by God. I was baptized to show the world I was a Christian. Water baptism doesn't save but it shows you have faith in Jesus that his death on the Cross paid for your sins. Anyway, that's what I believe.
The "Thief on the cross" argument against baptism being necessary for salvation is a flawed argument. Baptism was not commanded until after Jesus was crucified, buried, and resurrected. While on this earth, Jesus had the power to forgive sins. Also, there is no way of knowing if the thief had been baptized into John's baptism since the Bible teaches that many people were baptized by John.
I do not agree with the Catholic doctrine that babies must be baptized, since I don't believe we are born with original sin. However, I do believe that the Bible very plainly teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation. If you look at the New Testament as a whole, you will see that belief, repentance, confession, and baptism are all part of becoming a Christian.
If salvations comes by faith alone then I guess we can all forget about trying to avoid sin because we will all be saved, no matter what evils we do on earth. Anyways this is a Catholic thread, and Catholics believe that faith and good works are required for salvation.
This doesn't really answer the question posed, but that's ok, because I don't know of any denomination (or even the 'non-denominationals') that can answer this question fully. It's simply not elucidated in the Bible, since they obviously didn't even know about abortions back then.
Some inferrences can be made though, and, especially given the point raised in #6, all indications seem to be that children will go to heaven "automatically". But again, this can't be completely true, as this raises the question of an "age of accountablity", which, to my knowledge, the Bible doesn't mention. It's either "man" or "child" in the Bible, with no cut off age to separate the two.
So we're back to square one, and the points raised in this article. I think it's really the best answer to give: Hope and trust in God's desire to save people. Some can say it's a weak answer, but as I said before, there really isn't any other answer one can give, Scriptually speaking.
Obviously Jesus intended a broader meaning. The use of the word "man" is shorthand for all human persons. It implies women and children as well.
The Bible teaches that belief, repentance, and confession come before baptism. Until a child reaches the point where he/she understands right and wrong, and believes that Jesus Christ died for his/her sins, how can they truly be baptized?
Of course the ancients knew about abortions! And contraception also. They had drugs which were abortifacients--and ancient pagan philosophical treatises discussed abortion as a moral issue. The stoics argued it was contrary to the natural law.
"The Bible teaches that belief, repentance, and confession come before baptism"
This isn't true. Cite the passages which teach this. I believe it is strictly Protestant extrapolations which argue this.
On the contrary, abortion, like prostitution, has been around since forever. Here are the Early Church Fathers (the first christians) on the topic of abortion.
The Didache ca 120 AD
"Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion." 2:2 "The Way of Death is filled with people who are ... murderers of children and abortionists of God's creatures." 5:1-2
The Epistle or Barnabas ca 125 A.D.
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor more than thy own life. Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion." 19:5
***
The Apocalypse of Peter ca 135 A.D.
"I saw a gorge in which the discharge and excrement of the tortured ran down and became like a lake. There sat women, and the discharge came up to their throats; and opposite them sat many children, who were born prematurely, weeping. And from them went forth rays of fire and smote the women on the eyes. These were those who produced children outside of marriage and who procured abortions." -26
"Those who slew the unborn children will be tortured forever, for God wills it to so." -2:264
***
Clement of Alexandria ca 150-180
"Our whole life can go on in observation of the laws of nature, if we gain dominion over our desires from the beginning and if we do not kill, by various means of a perverse art, the human offspring, born according to the designs of divine providence; for these women who, if order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the child completely dead, abort at the same time their own human feelings." -Paedagogus 2
***
St. Athenagoras ca 765
"We say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God. For the same person, would not regard the child in the womb as a living being and therefore an object of God's care and then kill it.... But we are altogether consistent in our conduct. We obey reason and do not override it." -Legatio 35
***
Tertullian ca 160-240 "For us [Christians] we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter when you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one: you have the fruit already in the seed." -Apology 9:6
"They [John and Jesus] were both alive while still in the womb. Elizabeth rejoiced as the infant leaped in her womb; Mary glorifies the Lord because Christ within inspired her. Each mother recognizes her child and is known by her child who is alive, being not merely souls but also spirits." De A ninta 26:4
***
Nlititicilis Felix ca 180-225
"There are women who swallow drugs to stifle in their own womb the beginnings of a man to be - committing infanticide before they even give birth to the infant." -Octavius
***
St. Hippolytus ca 170-236
"Reputed believes began to resort to drugs for producing Sterility and to gird themselves round, so as to expel what was conceived on account of their not wanting to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time." -Refutation of all Heresies 9:7
***
Council of Eivira ca 305
"If a woman becomes pregnant by committing adultery, While her husband is absent, and after the act she destroys the child, it is proper to keep her from communion until death, because she has doubled her crime." -Canon 63
***
St. Basil the Great ca 330-379
"She who has deliberately destroyed a fetus has to pay the penalty of murder.... here it is not only the child to be born that is vindicated, but also the woman herself who made an attempt against her own life, because usually the women die in such attempts. Furthermore, added to this is the destruction of the child, another murder." -Letter 188:2
"Moreover, those, too, who give drugs causing abortion are deliberate murderers themselves, as well as those receiving the poison which kills the- fetus." -Letter 188:2
This is only a smattering of how abortion was known, understood and condemned, from the very beginning.
There are 10 instances of conversion that are written about in the book of Acts. Here are the 10 instances and where they are located in the book of Acts:
- The 3000 on Pentecost - Acts 2
- The Samaritans - Acts 8
- Simon the Sorcerer - Acts 8
- The Ethiopian Eunuch - Acts 8
- Saul of Tarsus - Acts 9,Acts 22,Acts 26
- Cornelius - Acts 10,Acts 11
- Lydia - Acts 16
- The Phillipian Jailor - Acts 16
- The Corinthians - Acts 18
- The Ephesians - Acts 19
The bible teaches us that we are take scripture as a whole. In some of these conversions, belief, repentance, and baptism are all mentioned, with belief and repentance taking place before baptism. In others, a couple are mentioned. Baptism is mentioned in each case. Taken as a whole, all these things are part of accepting God's gift of Salvation through our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
THAT could cause some discussion...
If you read my post, you would see that the Bible teaches that belief, repentance, and confession are required before baptism. An infant is capable of none of these, therefore he/she is not a candidate for baptism.
The evils of infant baptism:
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/howell/evilsofinfantbaptismchapter09.htm
Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).
Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
Yet Christians have also always realized that the necessity of water baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions to water baptism: It is possible to be saved through "baptism of blood," martyrdom for Christ, or through "baptism of desire", that is, an explicit or even implicit desire for baptism.
Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized" (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf. CCC 1260–1, 1283).
According to the works of the Church Fathers, Christians have always believed in the normative necessity of water baptism, while also acknowledging the legitimacy of baptism by desire or blood.
As St. Augustine reminds us ...
"That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today you shall be with me in paradise’ [Luke 23:43]. Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart [i.e., baptism of desire] if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism" (ibid., 4:22:29).
You mean over the age of 7, or just those who have lost their ability to reason by virtue of age?
I may resemble that remark...
It would be logical for adults to have repented and professed belief before receiving the sacrament of baptism. But this would not be necessary in the case of infants who have nothing to repent and whose only sin at birth would be original sin. And if baptism washes away original sin and if it is also necessary in order for a soul to enter into Heaven, then it logically follows that infant baptism is certainly desirable and should be permitted.
;>
Given the fact that unborn babies are fully human beings, that God desires the salvation of all (and must therefore provide a means for the attainment of this end), and that the four final things are death, judgement, heaven and hell (limbo cannot be a final state), it seems that divine illumination with the possibility of choosing for or against God is the only solution to this vexing problem, particularly with regard to the salvation of unborn babies of non-Christian parents.
I'm also open to the idea of Christian parents' desire for their child's baptism constitutes an attenuated form of baptism of desire.
Yes
Really now, when it comes to eternal salvation don't we want to proceed with what we know to be certain rather than our best educated guesses?
Yes
With regard to abortion, doesn't this make the act of abortion possibly the gravest evil?
Yes
To deny all those souls the opportunity to be baptized, the means of grace for salvation? Isn't that the ultimate plan of Satan?
Yes
Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."
"Born again of water and the spirit" is a reference to Baptism.
Secondly, this passage, like all passages of Scripture, cannot be read in isolation. It must be reconciled with other passages of Scripture, including 1 Tim 2:3-4, which says, "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved..."
If God wants all men [people] to be saved, then He must have provided a means for the attainment of this end.
/sarcasm>
Since God desires the salvation of all men, He must have provided a means of salvation for those who lived before Christ, and before the institution of the sacrament of baptism, such as the good thief. Moreover, we know from the Transfiguration that Moses and Elijah have been glorified, so such a means must have existed.
Christians have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, "Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."
And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . 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 [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257).
The Christian belief that baptism is necessary for salvation is so unshakable that even the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: "Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted" (Large Catechism 4:6).
For adults, or those capable of making rational decisions. Scripture mentions the baptism of "households," which would include children.
Acts 10:47-48 (Cornelius' household is baptized)And infant baptism is recorded as having been practiced in the early Church. Those who lived closest in time to Christ and the Apostles would have a greater understanding of the licaity of infant baptism.Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.
Acts 16:33
33At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.
"And many, both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixty or seventy years..." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 15:6 (A.D. 110-165).Until a child reaches the point where he/she understands right and wrong, and believes that Jesus Christ died for his/her sins, how can they truly be baptized?"And when a child has been born to one of them, they give thanks to God [baptism]; and if moreover it happen to die in childhood, they give thanks to God the more, as for one who as passed through the world without sins." Aristides, Apology, 15 (A.D. 140).
"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2,22:4 (A.D. 180).
"I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord." Polycrates, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History, V:24:7 (A.D. 190).
"And they shall baptise the little children first. And if they can answer for themselves, let them answer. But if they cannot, let their parents answer or someone from their family." Hippolytus of Rome, Apostolic Tradition, 21 (c. A.D. 215).
"[T]herefore children are also baptized." Origen, Homily on Luke, XIV (A.D. 233).
"For this reason, moreover, the Church received from the apostles the tradition of baptizing infants too." Origen, Homily on Romans, V:9 (A.D. 244).
"Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous." Origen, Homily on Leviticus, 8:3 (post A.D. 244
Salvation is by grace alone. What is more gratuitous than infant baptism?
It dosen't say "but he that belieth not and is not baptised shall be damned.
This says to me that a believer will avail himself of baptism. An unbeliever will either fail to avail himself of the sacrament, or his unbelief will undo the benefits of baptism.
Since I do not believe that infants are born with original sin, they have no need of being baptized. The concept of original sin is from man, not from God.
OK I don't read it that way, but since you said avail as in avail(able). I think that God is merciful and since he new these babies in their mothers womb he applies that to babies who can't avail themselves of baptisim.
You don't believe in original sin? Then you are far from following Scripture which speaks over and over of the fall of Adam. It was because of his fall from grace that the rest of us had need of redemption. St. Augustine called this lack of grace into which we are born the original sin. But you can call it what you want--it is the chief reason we need to be baptized in the first place.
Naturally enough, the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians," people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.
Even in the books of the New Testament that were written later in the first century, during the time when children were raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule, then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are no such records in the Bible.
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught, "The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
Malachi 1:11..."For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts."
We do not inherit this "original sin". We need to be baptized because no human is immune to committing his/her own sins. The only person to ever live a sinless life was Christ, and it was His perfect sacrifice which gives us the ability to have our sins washed away. This is done by His blood, and we come in contact with His blood by obeying the Gospel, which includes being baptized for the remission of our sins.
Well, that's a good thought. No reason not to think that way, either.
It not only is the only solution, it makes perfect sense. God offers every man the opportunity to choose Him. Remember, God is not bound by the sacraments.
Karl Rahner called this the "fundamental option."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.