Church Has Said About Children Who Die Wi

[Brother Adam]

What the Church Has Said About Children Who Die Without Baptism
Father Peter Gumpel Gives an Overview

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.

[AaronDavid]

Fantastic article!

It comes at an interesting time for me, as my mother (who left the church) and I (who am very much in support and communion with the church) recently talked about her reasons for leaving the church. One of the main reasons for her was that one day she walked into her school (a Catholic all-girls school) and a friend ran up to her in the halls and said:

"Hey, they got rid of Limbo....isn't that great????!!!!"

[popestpiusx]

I am a staunch defender of the existenc of Limbo. I do hope they settle this question though, in either direction.

[Apotheoun]

The most that can be said is that those who die in a state of original sin, but without having intentionally committed any actual sins, will not (1) experience the beatific vision, or (2) suffer the punishment of damnation in hell. I have no problem with the idea of there being some kind of intermediate state of existence (i.e., limbo), so long as it isn't proposed in a scholastic manner.

God bless,
Todd

[popestpiusx]

If it is proposed, it will most likely be proposed in a scholatic manner. I would rather that than, say, a phenomenological proposition.

This is not terribly unusual. So many of the Church's definitions are more or less scholastic. I'm rather fond of it actually. I understand what you are saying though. It's a difficult thing to bridge the east/west gap.

[popestpiusx]

Actually, I re-read your post. If they stuck with what you said that would probably work pretty well. Then the theologians could fight it out with that as a starting point.

[ironmonk]

I haven't read Augustine's statements... but in Augustine's day hell (hades) was not the Lake of Gehenna (pool of fire) which burns with fire and brimestone.

It wasn't until sometime well after 1300 AD that people started refering to Gehenna as "Hell".

If you read in Revelation, you will see that "hell" (hades) is a waiting place... "Hades" means "abode of the dead", i.e. the dead hang out until they go elsewhere. Hades and Limbo could be the same thing.

It is a fact that there is a place that is not purgatory, because we know that purgatory may or may not be a place... we know that this is a fact because of what it says in Revelation.

[b]Rev. 20:12 [/b]
I saw the dead, the great and the lowly, standing before the throne, and scrolls were opened. Then another scroll was opened, the book of life. The dead were judged according to their deeds, by what was written in the scrolls.
[b]13 [/b]The sea gave up its dead; then Death and Hades gave up their dead. All the dead were judged according to their deeds.
[b]14 [/b]Then Death and Hades were thrown into the pool of fire. (This pool of fire is the second death. )


Prison/Limbo/Hades/Hell - whatever you want to call it - Doesn't really need to go to council because it's clearly in Scripture.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited December 20, 2004 by ironmonk

[popestpiusx]

Ironmonk,
So are you suggesting that the early church did not associate hell with eternal punishment? Or that they had no concept of eternal punishment?

I'm not making an accusation here, I am asking. I don't understand what you are getting at.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 20 2004, 01:57 PM'] Ironmonk,
So are you suggesting that the early church did not associate hell with eternal punishment? Or that they had no concept of eternal punishment?

I'm not making an accusation here, I am asking. I don't understand what you are getting at. [/quote]
Please re-read what I posted. It's quite clear.

"Gehenna" aka "pool of fire" is eternal punishment.

Hell/Hades does not mean eternal punishment... it wasn't until the medieval times when people started using the words hell/hades wrongly for eternal punishment. Clearly in Revelation we see that Hell/Hades does not mean eternal punishment.

Given those facts, St. Augustine could have said hell meaning hades/limbo/prison, not the pool of fire aka Gehenna. If St. Augustine wrote Hades, he would not have meant Gehenna/Pool of Fire.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[qfnol31]

I believe that distinction comes in the Greek, and even Jesus uses one vs. the other.

[popestpiusx]

Ironmonk,
in that case you are definately incorrect about Augustine. He is quite clear that he is referring to eternal punishment. The debate is over whether or not that punishment (for unbaptised infants) will include the normal pains of hell (eternal), or just the pain of the loss of the Beatific Vision.

[popestpiusx]

Also, what do you mean by "purgatory may or may not be a place"?

[ironmonk]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 20 2004, 05:45 PM'] I believe that distinction comes in the Greek, and even Jesus uses one vs. the other. [/quote]
Jesus didn't use Greek. He spoke Aramaic.

My point is that the term "Hell" did not mean eternal punishment until the medieval times, protestants started it to mean Gehenna if I remember correctly.

[url="http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm?version=GNTInter_tag&StringToSearch=John+6:63"]http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBi...earch=John+6:63[/url]

Rev 20
{HADES} edwkan
{LAKE} puroV
{OF FIRE} outoV

Matt 5:29
{GEHENNA} geennan


Two totally different words in the Greek. The above is not the greek lettering of course but that is what is pasted when copying the Greek and pasting here.

PS... (edit) I might not have understood what your point was - not sure if you were agreeing or disagreeing.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited December 20, 2004 by ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='popestpiusx' date='Dec 20 2004, 05:59 PM'] Also, what do you mean by "purgatory may or may not be a place"? [/quote]
Purgatory could be a state of being, the instant of cleaning of our soul... Is. 6:5-7... His lips where touched and his sin removed. This is what the Church teaches is purgatory.

Isaiah 6:7
He touched my mouth with it. "See," he said, "now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged."

This is what that the Church teaches on Purgatory...

[b]III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory[/b]

[b]1030 [/b]All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

[b]1031 [/b]The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

[b]1032 [/b]This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611


607: Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.
608: St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. Mt 12:31.
609: 2 Macc 12:46.
611: St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 41, 5: PG 61, 361; cf. Job 1:5.

[ironmonk]

Does anyone know what writing St. Augustine talks about it in?


Thanks, God Bless, & Merry Christ Mass!
ironmonk