Fake catholics


First off, let me say I am new here and I needed someplace to rant, lol. I am not Catholic, but have taken classed about it and am married to a catholic man. I also am pregnant and on a pregnancy board I was visiting there is this woman. Here’a her background. Her parents are catholic but they wanted her to “chose Jesus for herself” so they NEVER baptized her or anything. She doesn’t want to baptize her child coming because she wants them to “chose” it for itself. Her fiance (yeah she’s pregnant and not married) is catholic as well and says he DOESN’T CARE if the baby is baptized but his mom DOES care. But this woman says she doesnt’ care what his mom wants - that it’s “HER” baby.

So, some guy takes this as a chance to rip on the catholic church and how they believe babies go to hell if they are not baptized. One of my pet peeves is people spouting off about religions they have no concept of. I told him he needs to get his information straight and that is NOT a belief of the church and that in fact for centuries, babies in that situation would go to Limbo and be in total bliss but away from God and I explained that the pope said this is not a teaching either and that he has every belief/hope these babies ARE in heaven with God.

So, this poster who is supposedly supposed to be cacholic says that "I* don’t know about the Cathlic faith and I quote “you should be a little more familiar with what you are talking about. If a child is not baptized, they cannot go to Heaven nor Hell. They would go to Purgatory in all technicality. Just saying. And to be baptized is to repent your sins, believe that Jesus died on the cross, and rose on the 3rd day. So please don’t jump on my case, without having proper knowledge to answer this question in a logical manner!”

Uhh! She doesn’t even know about Catholicism and she “claims” to be catholic (even though she’s not baptized there or apart of the church from RCC rules). Even Satan acknowledges Jesus rose on the 3rd day but I doubt he’s baptized. If that’s what she believes baptism is, she is sorely mistaken, And unbaptied babies go to PURGATORY??? Uhh, where is she getting THIS from???

She just rubbs me the wrong way. I mean, how can you claim to know so much about a faith you know so little about. And she claims to be Catholic and she’s not. She is totally going to ignore her future mother in law’s wants because she wants to put her foot down and show who’s boss when it comes to “her” kids. I mean, how do you even respond or get through to someone like this???


Welcome to CAF! :wave:

A very frustrating situation! It sounds like you definitely are more familiar with Catholic teaching than she is. If someone is so confident in their own ignorance, I’m not sure that you’ll be able to get through to her. You could ask her for documentation that the Church teaches than unbaptized babies go to Purgatory (which she won’t find because there is none), but if she’s so convinced she’s right, she probably won’t feel the need to prove herself to you. You could try printing out the International Theological Commission’s document The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized, but, again, if she is so closed off to the possbility that she’s wrong, she probably won’t bother reading it.

You could also try pointing her to what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in regards to Baptism: CCC 1213-1284. In a way, there is a kernel of truth to what she’s saying. Baptism does involve a profession of faith and a removal of sin. But she definitely has a poor understanding of Purgatory. Purgatory is, by nature, transitional (see CCC 1030-1032). All those in Purgatory will eventually go to Heaven. Purgatory is not a permanent place for anyone.

Has this woman still never been baptized? How odd. She’s basically purporting to be Catholic, but she has bothered to become Catholic. She needs to know the necessity for Baptism (CCC 1257-1261) not to mention the Church’s moral teaching regarding fornication (CCC 2353).

As much as it stinks, it really is her (and the father’s) decision to make, though. They can take into account the wishes of the grandparents, but she is right that it is ultimately their decision. She shouldn’t make her decision to spite the father’s mother, but there’s nothing anyone can really do to stop her in that regard.


…peace be with you…really…

…let me congratulate you re: your pregnancy…i pray/hope the child will add to your devotion to Truth and Goodness as it is expressed in Life and implied in your posting…

…i would, for now, not worry about these people…concentrate on your immediate and extended family…cultivate peace and tranquility in yourself and family members - anticipate the joy the new baby will bring - share it with your husband and others…there is a time for all things - now, i think, is a good time to care for yourself and the life you bear within you…if Spirit moves you to do otherwsie, by all means, obey… Wisdom and Love are consistent even if we may not understand…He said, “…they know not what they do…”…and…"…weep for your children…"…

…take care…give as much peace as you can give to the child you carry while he/she is in the womb…the child and you will have plenty of conflict/trial/tribulation to deal with after the birth, for such is the world…



Dittos to the previous posts. On the internet, there are all kinds of whackos; some have legitimate issues and some are just being jerks to yank other people’s chains.

Post a link to the CAF for accurate Catholic teachings, or ignore her. :shrug:

Congrats on the baby. :slight_smile:


This woman you are talking about isn’t a fake Catholic because she is not Catholic. She was never baptized in the church and (unless i missed something in your post) she wasn’t raised catholic. An unbaptized baby doesn’t go to Hell or any place painful. They go to limbo and are happy, but would be happier if their parents would have had them baptized so they could have been in the presence of God total joy and bliss. Though in this situation, the father’s mother could baptize the baby. Just some holy water and a quick moment alone with the baby and mom would never know. Yes it is decietful, but concidering what is at state here, it is justifiable. It seems the be a growing number of parents who don’t seem to care about their child’s soul. I know a few of these people who don’t want to force their beliefs on their child and want to let the child decide what religon to follow. An unbaptized baby goes to limbo, a good place. The child grows up and when they die they will go to Hell (unless they have themselves baptized along the way). I am a “godmother” to a number of children whose parents have not had them baptized and there are circumstances as to why I have not done a baptizim on these children., trust me I would do it!! It is so sad to see how parents are too lazy for their children and their (the parents) pride gets in the way of what is right.


Um…limbo is not an official Church teaching.


Nor is it a teaching that an unbaptized baby cannot go to Heaven.


Limbo is regarded in Jewish Tradition.
The following article entertains an interesting discourse on official Catholic views about Limbo
See: newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm


It may no longer be …but it was. In the 1950’s Priests spoke of unbaptised infants going to Limbo.Has this changed…officially? NLM


It was a common POV, but it was never official Catholic teaching.

Recently it has been “officially” re-emphasized that it was never official, and that no one really knows what happens to any unbaptized person. As well, there has been the suggestion from the Vatican - again not as an official doctrine - that the idea of Limbo is not a very good one.

I can’t remember what the most recent statement was in or what group made it, perhaps someone else knows?


Its best to not talk about what happened in the church during the 1960’s there are certain people that look unkindly to tradition.


I don’t remember either, but ditto the rest of your post. :thumbsup:


The Brothers of the Christian Schools, in their," Course of Religious Instruction", taught the following: Limbo is a place where the souls of infants who have died without baptism are detained.The souls of these infants are shut out from life everlasting, which consists essentially in the vision of God, face to face.This has been defined by several councils.
Sounds very official. However, it is very good for the RCC to rethink this teaching as it has caused much grief to many parents who, through no fault of their own ,had infants die not baptised. One of my aunts loss several infants, a few not baptised. She still prays for them but is saddened to know she will never be reunited with them.God Bless. NLM


I guess my first post was too long for people to find it (:o), but I already posted a link to the document:

The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Baptism from the International Theological Commission

Of course, the ITC is itself more of an advisory group than an official teaching body of the Church, but they conclude that Limbo is rather weak theologically.

It’s always important to keep in mind that, simply because this or that priest (or even bishop) taught such-and-such doesn’t meant that it was official Church teaching. Not everything that comes out of a priest’s mouth is official Church teaching (nor is it intended to be). Limbo was taught, but it was never official Church teaching. That doesn’t mean that Catholics can’t still believe in it if they want to. It’s not obligatory to believe or disbelieve in limbo at this point in time.


Well, she (the Church) has clarified that it’s not an official teaching. Where does the RCC in any council teach about Limbo? Seriously, I’ve been taught that it never was an official teaching and would evidence to the contrary, if it’s available.

I can see where such a teaching, whever it came from, could be heartbreaking to parents who ahve lost a child.


Hello Newbie2.I have a copy of the textbook I referred to in my earlier post. The information in my post is taken straight from it. That is where the reference to councils came from.It actually says that Limbo was defined by " several councils". A few pages have been torn out so the date is not present.The teachings about Limbo in my aunt’s case came from her parish priest in the early to mid 1950s.That source of information was very official…at least to her.God Bless. NLM


This is not what the Church teaches.Those that are unbaptized do not automatically go to Hell (the Church leaves those souls to God’s judgement) and one can not baptize children secretly against the parents wishes. A lay person can only baptize if the person to be baptized in danger of immediate death.


Not to be disrespectful, but a textbook and a priest’s teaching aren’t necessarily in sync with official teachings. I’d like to see specifically what councils and where such is documented. Are there references in the back of the book, per chance?


No, there are no references in the book.If I understand correctly, one can receive religious instructions from a priest, or from religious groups such as the Institute of the Brothers of the Christian Schools, whose mission it was to teach in Catholic schools, or in my case from an order of teaching nuns and still not get the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church ?The book I am referring to here was specifically used by the Brothers in teaching religious instruction in high schools and colleges among others.God Bless, NLM


Yes, that is about the size of it. It was a very popular theory, and widely accepted by many.

Interestingly, no such theory is required in the Orthodox Church, because while they feel the effects of original sin are passed down, the guilt of original sin isn’t. So babies, according to them, aren’t required to worry about that particular problem.

It’s very sad about poor mothers who thought they would never be able to see their children in Heaven.

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.