Do babies who are stillborn or are miscarried go to heaven or purgatory?


#1

Do babies who are stillborn or are miscarried go to heaven or purgatory?


#2

I contend heaven. We dumped that Limbo nonsense a while ago.

To quote the Catechism:

[quote=CCC]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.
[/quote]

John


#3

[quote=John Higgins]I contend heaven. We dumped that Limbo nonsense a while ago.

To quote the Catechism:

John
[/quote]

We didn’t dump the “Limbo nonsense” it’s still an option for those who wish to accept it. Have you ever read any of the Fathers or Doctors of the Catholic Church who believed in Limbo of the infants and their thoughts on the idea?


#4

[quote=juliegh23]Do babies who are stillborn or are miscarried go to heaven or purgatory?
[/quote]

The Church answers in this way.

They DO NOT go to Hell of the damned.

They would not go to Purgatory. Since Purgatory is for cleansing of remaining Temporal Punishments from forgiven personal sin, which infants do not have.

One cannot say with absolute certainty that they are in Heaven. Because the Scriptures teach that NO sin can enter Heaven, even Original Sin.

The Church teaches that we should have hope that there may be some way provided by God for them to attain entry into Heaven and the Beatific Vision.


#5

[quote=Br. Rich SFO]Have you ever read any of the Fathers or Doctors of the Catholic Church who believed in Limbo of the infants and their thoughts on the idea?
[/quote]

Certainly. They also believed in ensoulment and geocentrism and other things which have also been put aside, should I believe them too?

John


#6

[quote=Br. Rich SFO]The Church answers in this way.

They DO NOT go to Hell of the damned.
No, the Church does not say that they do not go to hell (sorry for the double negative). You won’t find an official Chruch teaching that says that unbaptised babies don’t go to hell.

I’m not arguing that babies go to hell–I don’t think that they do. But it is a legitimate position.

The Catholic Encyclopedia has a nice article on the subject. It talks about the different Councils that have weighed in on the topic.

Personally, I think that we should act like all unbaptized people go to hell but hope that they go to heaven. That is, we should try to bring everyone into the Church but not despair for those who don’t belong to the Church.

[/quote]


#7

Wer’nt those that died before Christ in Limbo, and couldn’t enter until Christ lifted the curse of Adam/Eve ?


#8

Yes, that’s basically correct.


#9

[quote=Stephen-Maguire]Wer’nt those that died before Christ in Limbo, and couldn’t enter until Christ lifted the curse of Adam/Eve ?
[/quote]

Yes they were in the “Limbo of the Fathers”.

Benedictus is also correct I want to note. DS 493a does state that the Church teaches those with only Original sin descend into Hell to be punished with different punishments. There is another passage that states that they are not punished with the punishments of the condemned. Which is the point I wanted to make.


#10

[quote=John Higgins]I contend heaven. We dumped that Limbo nonsense a while ago.
John
[/quote]

Objectively, what difference would it ever make for you to contend? Would that make it so? If not, it’s a useless contention.
To quote the Catechism VAT II:

Originally Posted by CCC
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. …

Baltimore Catechism VAT I:

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…

So, if the catechism is the teaching of the Church, and 2 catechisms teach opposing views, one a hope (wish) and the other a certitude, is the Catechism a “sure guide to the Catholic Faith” as JPII insists?
Looks like a sure misguide on this one.
Did the Church miss the bible verses: “God who desires that all men should be saved” & “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” 100 years ago? Did they not go to heaven 100 years ago, then start going to (maybe) heaven 20 years ago?
What will it be 50 years from now? Maybe they will discover another verse so they go straight to heaven without a doubt?
Does this Church need more than “2000” years to make up it’s mind what to teach?
Sheeesh ! :confused:


#11

Gee, I guess a Catechism issued by Papal authority can be outranked by an older one issued by the authority of the American bishops. Silly me!

John


#12

:hmmm:

I’ve been thinking a lot about this in recent days. Certainly God’s mercy extends to aborted, miscarried and stillborn babies. HOWEVER, wouldn’t it be equally certain that there would need to be some sort of free will choice of heaven? :hmmm:We know that God will force no one into heaven, so there must be some sort of choice, even for that fertilized cell that passes right through the womb unnoticed by a contracepting person, right? :hmmm:Wouldn’t they, too, choose their eternal state? :hmmm:

Isn’t this the gravity of the sin of abortion: That a creation of the Father is not allowed to make that free will choice while flesh and blood? :hmmm:


#13

[quote=John Higgins]Gee, I guess a Catechism issued by Papal authority can be outranked by an older one issued by the authority of the American bishops. Silly me!
John
[/quote]

The Baltimore C. is only rightfully reflecting the teaching of the unchanging Church for many centuries.Yes it is silly to think that the Bishops of that catechism would be countering the perennial Faith of their Church.
.

"Anyone who would say that even infants who pass from this life without participation in the Sacrament of Baptism shall be made alive in Christ goes counter to the preaching of the Apostle and condemns the whole Church, because it is believed without doubt that there is no other way at all in which they can be made alive in Christ’ (St. Augustine, Epistle to Jerome, Journel: 166).

“If anyone says that, because the Lord said ‘In My Father’s house are many mansions,’ it might be understood that in the Kingdom of Heaven there will be some middle place, or some place anywhere, where the blessed infants live who departed from this life without Baptism, without which they cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven which is life eternal: Let him be anathema. For when the Lord says ‘Unless one be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the Kingdom of God,’ what Catholic will doubt that one who has not deserved to be a co-heir with Christ will be a partner of the Devil?” (Pope Zosimus at the Council of Carthage XVI, Canon 3, Denzinger, 30th edition, p.45, note 2).

This would appear much closer to a dogmatic definition than anything from VATII or the CCC. No wonder they only put in “hope” (wish) in the CCC. Any further and they would be condeming a Council & a Saint Pope! Nevertheless it is still denegrating the the RCC and stumbles toward Calvin.

Ecumenical Council of Florence declared: “The souls of those who die in actual mortal sin, or only in Original Sin, immediately descend into Hell” (Denz.693). This is also the explicit teaching of the Council of Lyons II (Denz. 464).

The CCC is reflecting ? Sentimentalsm maybe.
The souls of unbaptized infants can enjoy a perfect natural happiness in Limbo (which, by the way, is part of Hell, not of Heaven), but still they are suffering a punishment: they are deprived of an infinite good not due to nature, but due only to the Supernatural Life received at Baptism.
One of Protestantism’s patriarchs rejuvenated this scheme of Pelagius; his name was John Calvin. As St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori states:

“Calvin says that infants born of parents who have the faith are saved, even though they should die without Baptism. But this is false: for David was born of parents who had the faith, and he confessed that he was born in sin. This was also taught by the Council of Trent in the Fifth Session, number Four: there the fathers declared that infants dying without Baptism, although born of baptized parents, are not saved, and are lost, not on account of the sin of their parents, but for the sin of Adam in whom all have sinned”

Unbaptised infants entering heaven is a Protestant novelty and has no part of the Ordinary or Extra Ordinary Magisterium.
In summary:
We have 2 Doctors of the Church and 4 Councils and a POPE (I could include several more). All of which are clearly against your “I contend…”.
What say you? Are you Roman Catholic or not in this matter?


#14

For additional commentary on this see the thread on Baptism with a protestant:
forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=389863#post389863

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=391683#post391683


#15

[quote=TNT]The Baltimore C. is only rightfully reflecting the teaching of the unchanging Church for many centuries.Yes it is silly to think that the Bishops of that catechism would be countering the perennial Faith of their Church.
.

This would appear much closer to a dogmatic definition than anything from VATII or the CCC. No wonder they only put in “hope” (wish) in the CCC. Any further and they would be condeming a Council & a Saint Pope! Nevertheless it is still denegrating the the RCC and stumbles toward Calvin.

The CCC is reflecting ? Sentimentalsm maybe.
The souls of unbaptized infants can enjoy a perfect natural happiness in Limbo (which, by the way, is part of Hell, not of Heaven), but still they are suffering a punishment: they are deprived of an infinite good not due to nature, but due only to the Supernatural Life received at Baptism.
One of Protestantism’s patriarchs rejuvenated this scheme of Pelagius; his name was John Calvin. As St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori states:
Unbaptised infants entering heaven is a Protestant novelty and has no part of the Ordinary or Extra Ordinary Magisterium.
In summary:
We have 2 Doctors of the Church and 4 Councils and a POPE (I could include several more). All of which are clearly against your “I contend…”.
What say you? Are you Roman Catholic or not in this matter?
[/quote]

If what you say is true, that would make our God cruel and evil. Our God is not cruel and evil. Our God is an infinitely merciful and loving God. Why would he create someone for the sole purpose of eternal torment?? If they are not given free choice to choose him or not choose him, why would they go to hell? In this case, God would create, not spare the life of the unbaptized and then banish the unbaptized into Hell? That’s not a loving God. That is a heartless God who creates a creature, gives it free will, but not the capacity to use it, and then sends it to Hell, away from Him forever? Puhlease. Trust God’s mercy and do not take pleasure in saying cruel things. Does anyone know how many women scroll these messageboards who have had abortions? Are they to believe their children are in Hell? Are the mothers of miscarried infants to believe their children are in Hell?

Do not attempt to restrict the mercy of God. After all, is not a baby’s cry the first plea for mercy, before the human even knows there is a word for it? Would God not understand his own?

If you go to the VATICAN’S site (vatican.va/phome_en.htm because they wouldn’t have something contrary to Church teachings on the official Vatican Web page, now would they?), and click on the Catechism and you might read something like this:

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.


#16

[quote=sweetchuck]…If you go to the VATICAN’S site (vatican.va/phome_en.htm because they wouldn’t have something contrary to Church teachings on the official Vatican Web page, now would they?)
[/quote]

Read Post #10 and 13. I covered all that. You are just repeating the question.

The CCC in the post does NOT teach any doctrine in regards to salvation of unbaptized infants. A HOPE (wish) for a possibility is not even close to a doctrine. It is a comment of sentiment.

While I’m gone, read the reference posts on my last POST in regard to God’s cruelty.
Also, read the DOCTRINES I did post above, and please respond to them… the Doctors of your Faith, the Councils of your Faith, and the Popes certifying those Councils. All those Councils were DOGMATIC. After all, they are the source, not me. Why not refute those? Please don’t ignore them. They are the basis for my position.
When you do that, then my approach fails automatically.
Speculating about God’s mercy, and ignoring God’s justice gets us nowhere. What you see and what God sees are so often quite different. No? I will later show you that the DOCTRINES can very well be a Mercy.
You might also answer the question I asked J Higgins in that earlier post that references the Councils, etc. (#13)

When you respond to those here, then we can engage again.Hopefully with some progress and not rehash in a circle?
Meanwhile I must travel today.
Until then, stay Roman Catholic and
God Bless your interest here.


#17

[quote=TNT]Read Post #10 and 13. I covered all that. You are just repeating the question.

The CCC in the post does NOT teach any doctrine in regards to salvation of unbaptized infants. A HOPE (wish) for a possibility is not even close to a doctrine. It is a comment of sentiment.

While I’m gone, read the reference posts on my last POST in regard to God’s cruelty.
Also, read the DOCTRINES I did post above, and please respond to them… the Doctors of your Faith, the Councils of your Faith, and the Popes certifying those Councils. All those Councils were DOGMATIC. After all, they are the source, not me. Why not refute those? Please don’t ignore them. They are the basis for my position.
When you do that, then my approach fails automatically.
Speculating about God’s mercy, and ignoring God’s justice gets us nowhere. What you see and what God sees are so often quite different. No? I will later show you that the DOCTRINES can very well be a Mercy.
You might also answer the question I asked J Higgins in that earlier post that references the Councils, etc. (#13)

When you respond to those here, then we can engage again.Hopefully with some progress and not rehash in a circle?
Meanwhile I must travel today.
Until then, stay Roman Catholic and
God Bless your interest here.
[/quote]

Your posts are contrary to even hope. “Cannot enter”…where is there hope in that? Seems rather definitive to me. Might it be that the Church has changed? If God damns unbaptized infants without giving them a chance to exercise their free will and choose Him or not choose Him, He is certainly cruel. I do not believe God is cruel. Do the math. I would argue that many infant baptism quotes from saints are reactionary to problems of their respective era. What do people do when confronted by someone who is certainly wrong on most things (i.e. Calvin)? Disagree first, think about it later. Just because St. Alphonsus says something, doesn’t make it church doctrine. I could concievably be a saint someday (though I’m certainly not on that track now). I’d hate to have someone look up some of the things I’ve written in all my days. They’d say, “oh, look. Sweetchuck the Great says in 1994 that capital punishment is OK.” See? I told you the church teaches that!

And your assertion that they cannot enter heaven is cruel as well … cruel to all the mothers here who’ve had stillborn babies; cruel to all the mothers who’ve aborted; cruel to all the mothers whose children have died before baptism; cruel to all the mothers who’ve contracepted and, implicit in this, sent perhaps countless souls into Hell; cruel to all the fathers in the same cases; cruel to the non-Catholics who come here for answers and are mislead or put off by your posts.

I do not contend that all the unbaptized enter heaven. But I cannot reconcile with my faith that they all go to hell, either (even the mini-hell to which you prefer). There must be some sort of predeath or postdeath exercise of free will to choose God or not to choose God. What would a Just God do?


#18

Ok, I see this discussion in various forms a lot on this forum. I will throw in a quick question I have harbored for a while, but never see brought out in these discussions. Do we have original sin from conception, or from birth? Is it the act of being born onto this earth that assigns the original sin? Then it would mean that babies who are never born, wouldn’t be “guilty” of original sin, and in fact, would be sinless. In a way, I can see the argument that once they are born it is our (parents) fault for not baptizing them, but the idea that they are just doomed (after all, how can you baptize a baby before it is even born???) doesn’t make sense. How can we be required to do something impossible in order to get the child to go to heaven?


#19

[quote=TAS2000]Do we have original sin from conception, or from birth?
[/quote]

Conception. Hence the feast of the Immaculate Conception.


#20

[quote=sweetchuck]Might it be that the Church has changed?
[/quote]

I hope not. It is a difficult issue. We have clear teachings of the Church that the unbaptized do not enter heaven. On the other hand, we have the statements in the new Catechism that we may hope for their salvation.

And your assertion that they cannot enter heaven is cruel as well …

I don’t understand what’s so cruel about stating what he believes to be the teaching of the Church. He has some facts to back up his postion too.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.