 |
||
 |
 |
 |
|
1. Hon Thom Cemetery (top) 2. On a tombstone: “Father, mother apologise!” 3. Nameless tombs, where only numbers (burying day) and abbreviations (the place where unborn children were aborted) exist |
||
Posted on 09/12/2008 10:40:44 AM PDT by NYer
A CUF member asks…
What happens to aborted babies at death? Are they considered martyrs? Are they admitted directly into heaven?
We don’t know what happens to aborted babies. In hope we commend them to God’s infinite Love and Mercy.
Theologians are working on the answer. Recently, the International Theological Commission came out with a document, The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised (April 19, 2007), that provides an extensive overview of the matter, and a conclusion:
“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptised infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatific Vision. We emphasise that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge. There is much that simply has not been revealed to us (cf. Jn 16:12). We live by faith and hope in the God of mercy and love who has been revealed to us in Christ, and the Spirit moves us to pray in constant thankfulness and joy (cf. 1 Thess 5:18).”
Aborted babies are surely victims, but are not conferred a martyr’s status by the Church. Here’s a recent explanantion from the CDF:
(From “Observations of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the writings of Mrs Patricia De Menezes and the Community of the Divine Innocence,” included in the “Statement by the Most Reverend Kevin McDonald, Archbishop of Southwark, on the Community of Divine Innocence.”
The Questionable Demand Made Concerning the Status of Aborted Children
[The demand] that the Church proclaim the martyrdom of all the innocent children deliberately killed before birth and acknowledge these unborn children as companion martyrs of the first Holy Innocents, is doctrinally problematic. A martyr is someone who bears witness to Christ. If the victims of abortion were to qualify for martyrdom it would then seem that all victims of any moral evil should be likewise deemed martyrs. De Menezes’ notion of a ‘Baptism of Love’ is not, as claimed, a development of doctrine. Rather it is an innovation which is difficult to harmonize with the teaching of the Church.
|
||
|
|
|
|
1. Hon Thom Cemetery (top) 2. On a tombstone: “Father, mother apologise!” 3. Nameless tombs, where only numbers (burying day) and abbreviations (the place where unborn children were aborted) exist |
||
The calvinist view (and I realize this is a Catholic thread) is that the Bible doesn’t speak directly to this issue. We believe that salvation is through faith alone through Christ alone. We also know that we can trust our loving Father to be gracious and just and merciful. We won’t “see His hand, when we don’t understand” we can trust Him.
Thanks for letting me stick my two cents in.
They go to be with the Lord.
They go where God wants them to go.
When I went to Catholic school in the fifties - they taught us that babies who died before being baptized went to Limbo. Not heaven - but not at all unpleasant like purgatory or hell.
I hate it when the Church ties itself into knots like this in an issue of form over substance. Any God who does not open his arms in heaven to aborted children or young children to heaven is not a God this Catholic could worship, whatever the Church wants to say.
Where do aborted babies go...... straight into our Blessed Lord’s arms.
Well they are not born and therefore do not have orignial sin, so it would seem they go directly back to God.
A complicated mystery indeed. I thought the commission’s report long on sentiment, and short on theological underpinnings that aim at an actual resolution of the various theological opinions held on the issue throughout the history of the Church.
That is not to say I reject that the commission might be on to something in the report; I just felt that it gave only passing lip service or glossed over various theological hurdles.
Personally, and obviously only my own pious opinion, I think the Church’s definitions at Trent on original sin and necessity of baptism; the constant teaching and practice of the Church in urging early baptism and not delaying it in the case of infants, point to the likelihood limbo; as does the teaching of the Council of Florence.
The Council of Florence in 1439 taught (DS 1306): “The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or only original sin descend into the realm of the dead (infernum), to be punished however with unequal punishments.” (http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/INFANT.TXT)
The definition of the Council of Florence explicitly states there is a ‘punishment’ or loss of some sort for the unbaptized infant/fetus; though it stops short of defining what that loss is. Florence, therefore, did not place such souls into the category of the damned. Yet, they are also unique from the rest of the saints in some way - and that doesn’t appear to be rigorously explored by the commission, at least not in its report.
Many theologians in the past opined these souls are deprived of the beatific vision only. If this be the solution, it would not mean they are deprived of being “with” God or “in” heaven.
Just as both saints and sinners experienced, saw, touched and spoke with Jesus on this earth; and as even sinners have had visions of Jesus (e.g. Saul); there is no reason why the unbaptized infant or aborted fetus could not experience as much eternally in heaven.
I do think, that while perfectly happy in heaven, they are unable to attain the ‘level’ of happiness afforded to the other saints according to their merits (e.g. perhaps deprived of the beatific vision). They would “be” with Jesus - and the rest of the saints - eternally, in heaven; but they would not necessarily experience the Beatific vision in the fullest sense as the saints in heaven.
I know it wasn't taught this way in Catholic grammar or high schools, but Limbo was never a doctrine of the Church, more a construct of the theologians positing a state that would satisfy the demands of both justice and mercy; it was described as a place of perfect natural happiness. (I didn't actually learn this until a theology course at a Catholic college in the 60s.)
Just because I find it beautiful: there is a Jewish Midrash (which wasn't in the course, but the rabbi told us about it) on how God "spends His day" -- part of it is in teaching Torah to children who died too young for their parents to do it.
For those who require greater literalism: Baptism of Desire. They could also be considered martyrs to secular humanism and godless materialism.
9 Or what man is there among you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he reach him a stone? 10 Or if he shall ask him a fish, will he reach him a serpent? 11 If you then being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more will your Father who is in heaven, give good things to them that ask him?
This is truly a complicated topic and, as noted, the Doctrine of Limbo is an imperfect answer to a difficult question. The Church is beginning to struggle with this again after all the centuries and there is no definitive Magisterial pronouncement as yet.
That said, I think one can never go wrong in trusting the Mercy of God, especially when He is ‘Abba’. As Jesus said in Matthew who of us, with all our sins, would give his son a stone when he asks for a loaf? If one must become like a little child to inherit the Kingdom of God who then who of us could ever be more "a little child" then one of these?
A more complex view might venture into esoterica.
The problem has to do with time, linear biological time and in thinking that God, the Holy Ghost, or angels are limited by such. A person dies, reaches clinical death, in a moment of time. Too fast for any human communication, interaction, or learning (to reach the age of reason). The traditional thinking would be that this precludes what one would conceive as possible for salvation in the sense in which might apply to an older child or an adult - coming to know Christ, accepting and embracing the Gospel, etc.
But EVERYTHING is possible for God. The human preaching of the Gospel and of administering Baptism are prevented by the walls of the womb, so the thinking goes. It doesn't follow that God, angels, and the Holy Spirit are prevented by that. If one meditated long enough on the meaning of the infinite goodness, mercy, and love of God - and that God and angels are not limited by linear earthly time or the walls of the womb or those of an abortion clinic - you would have to conclude that they are present with the child in this moment of horror, agony, and tragedy. It wouldn't be a sure conclusion that the child is incapable of assent to supernatural grace at that point.
All that we know is that we were prevented from baptizing the child. It's something people should think about when they are considering the tragedy of abortion, that they have a primary duty to baptize the child. Maybe if they thought about that more and took it seriously there would be less abortions. So the struggle against abortion begins with prayer and the Gospel, taking our Christian duties seriously. For anyone struggling with this, attend the Baptism of a child and pray for grace and understanding. Would the Lord ever abandon a child?
“Would the Lord ever abandon a child?”
Do chickens have lips?
The sad and terrifying thing is that we really can't know what happens. God is merciful, and loving. That is all we can know about this. Which is what makes abortion that much more sinful.
God only knows....
If the parents of a baby who dies pre birth are devout Christians, then you could reasonable say yes, the child would have had a leaning toward grace pre birth (from the Sacrament).
But in a situation where a women kills her child just because? We can't know. I sincerely hope that God extends His arms to those children, but as I said in the previous post, there is a theological danger in saying that.
You're correct, the Bible does not speak directly on this issue. That is why Christ stated that the Church, not Scripture should be the final authority: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17 ) Christ did not state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity. In addition, St. Paul states that the Church, not Scripture is "THE pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) Since the Church alone is mentioned as the pillar of truth, then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture.
Which raises the question of which Church? According to Scripture, Christ wanted us to be one (John 17:22-23). We are all as a Church to be of one mind and to think the same (Philippians 2:2; Romans 15:5). There is only to be one "faith" (Ephesians 4:3-6), not many. For the Church is Christ's Body and Christ only had one Body, not many. Also, since the Church is Christ's Bride (Ephesians 5:29), can Christ be married to more than one wife (essentially a spiritual form of the the sin of polygamy)? No, Christ can only have one wife (i.e., one Church, not many). Only the Catholic Church can trace its heritage back to the Apostles. Hence, the Catholic Church has undertaken to make this determination for our Lord assured us that whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven.
Thanks for letting me stick my two cents in.
Always welcome and most appreciated.
Yes, I recall that from my classes as well and it always bothered me. In 2007, that changed.
Yet when Benedict didn’t mention limbo in his homily, several papers reversed course and suggested there is now uncertainty, perhaps even behind-the-scenes debate, about limbo’s fate. London’s Daily Telegraph, for example, stated Oct. 7: “It was rumored yesterday that [the pope] had remained silent on the subject to foil those who are trying to anticipate his decision.”In fact, members of the International Theological Commission, speaking on background, told National Catholic Reporter this week that their document offers a very clear conclusion, which one member paraphrased this way: “Limbo is no longer the common opinion of Catholic theology, and as far as the salvation of unbaptized babies is concerned, we trust in the loving mercy of God.”
One member said that while limbo is not really a burning concern in contemporary Catholic theology, two elements nevertheless make this conclusion important:
• First, the pastoral need to offer a message of hope and consolation to parents who have lost their infant children;
• Second, the “healthy relativization” it offers of the church’s role in salvation. Without reducing the imperative to make disciples and to baptize, the decision on limbo represents a reminder that theologians shouldn’t go too far in attempting to systematize exactly how God saves.
This conclusion cannot be said to represent church teaching until the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith or the pope himself adopts it, but given that it coheres with statements then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger offered as early as 1984, it seems this is the way the winds are blowing.
The commission’s document, which still has to be finalized, runs to roughly 30 single-spaced typed pages. It was drafted in English by a subcommission led by Salesian Father Dominic Veliath, a professor of systematic theology at Kristu Jyoti College in Bangalore, India.
The recent development in Catholic theology away from limbo is clear.
As I commented to the previous poster, we have Christ's reassurance that whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven. Once done, it is forever.
Apologies for not copying you to my post #23.
In the past, it was a theological deduction that they would be denied the Beatific Vision, not a revealed truth. They could have speculated that Baptism would be administered by angels. "Limbo" was never a dogma or a revealed truth. But the salvation of unborn children is not contingent upon sending some kind of stern message to abortionists or the troubled women who have abortions.
It does have something to do with the way that time is conceived and God not being limited by terrestrial time and space in the conventional human sense. A few seconds or a minute of earthly time as someone is expiring seems like too short a period for the serious business of working out someone's salvation. But God isn't limited by time in the way humans are. It would be an assumption that God or angels are not present in that way during the moments of someone's death. Scripture does not command such an assumption.
Some theologians might look into claims in private revelations about angels administering sacraments. It would be speculative but not without merit to consider. People who have had near-death experiences have claimed seeing children (with God and other deceased relatives)who died in miscarriages, even quite early without the awareness or knowledge of the mother. There is a lot that goes on in these experiences that doesn't fit into conventional, terrestrial notions of time and space.
The eagerness to consign unborn children to limbo seems pharisaical and inconsistent with the notion of the infinite mercy and love of God. "Paging St. Anselm." It may have something to do with "that than which nothing greater can be thought." A God welcoming the unborn is greater. Something for "the ontological argument" crowd to ponder.
We don't know that an unborn child doesn't have "merit" or "desire" from the point of view of God. That wouldn't be a certain assumption at all.
Indeed, and that wasn't my point at all. The example of those who had seen children who had died pre birth and gone to heaven actually is my point. Those children (at least in the visions I have read about) came from believing parents. Parents who because of their faith were in a position to have a glimpse of heaven. In that case, it makes sense that the child would have some desire imparted from the mother or parents pre birth.
But for a woman who kills her own child out of selfishness or greed? That is a different situation. There are quite a few visions of hell that have such women being tortured by the children they have killed (I think it was St. Bosco (sp), and it specifically dealt with chemical or phramacutial abortions).
Again, do all who die without hearing the Gospel? The answer usually is "They shall be judged with the revelation and knowledge they had". So while it is probable that a non Christian who never hears the Gospel can be saved through searching for God and receiving those graces from which they do know, that isn't the normative case. Otherwise, why send missionaries to preach and baptize?
In the same way, we can't say that every child who died form abortion is saved. Now, it is reasonable to suspect that some (or even many) are, but to say that they all are again makes abortion a "good thing". Such logic is something I have heard from atheists and even "Christian" pro infanticide people.
Short of private revelations, we don’t know. “Limbo” was never a dogma or a revealed truth. We’ll all find out soon enough.
I have always found it interesting when looking at the picture of God’s character in dealing with Israel in the Exodus. Those under the age of nineteen were not held accountable for the sins that kept the elder generation from entering the “Promised Land”.
I wonder if this has any application to the subject at hand and if the Church has considered this in regards to making an official Doctrinal statement?
The most evil aspect of abortion is that it prevents the person from ever having the chance to hear the Gospel and follow Christ.
The stain of Original Sin is real and separates the soul from God. If somehow abortion could wipe out that stain and bring the soul into God's presence, then abortion would be a good thing, and the aborted children would be fortunate.
I never detected an "eagerness" to consign the unbaptized unborn or infants to limbo. Nor do I have such an eagerness. What we have are some teachings by the magisterium that are more difficult for the 'non-limboers' to explain.
It is true limbo has not been defined. However, I haven't heard a good explanation by those who seek to toss it aside, seeminly based on sentiment alone, of the teaching of the council of Florence on the subject of the unbaptized who die before reaching the age of reason
The Council of Florence in 1439 taught (DS 1306): “The souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or only original sin descend into the realm of the dead (infernum), to be punished however with unequal punishments.” (http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/INFANT.TXT)
ok...what, in your opinion, is the "unequal punishment" suffered by those who die with only original sin? The theological commissions report appears to have ignored the question. The reality is, the commission might be right in its conclusion (I am certainly not eager that it be wrong), but it failed to harmonize its view with Florence. Perhaps you can shed light on this?
It is not and never was a revealed dogma of the faith.
We’ll find out soon enough.
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.