Unbaptized Infants

[-I---Love]

If a few here would enlighten and indulge me please, I'd like to create a list of the possible positions one as a Catholic may hold concerning unbaptized infants and what happens to their soul after death.

New Advent from 1907 says the following which I found particularly intriguing - "Finally it must be borne in mind that unbaptized infants, if deprived of heaven, would not be deprived unjustly. The vision of God is not something to which human beings have a natural claim. It is a free gift of the Creator who can make what conditions He chooses for imparting it or withholding it. No injustice is involved when an undue privilege is not conferred upon a person. Original sin deprived the human race of an unearned right to heaven. Through the Divine mercy this bar to the enjoyment of God is removed by baptism; but if baptism be not conferred, original sin remains, and the unregenerated soul, having no claim on heaven, is not unjustly excluded from it."

So anyone willing to do my homework for me, please proceed and offer thoughts

[thessalonian]

Here is what I understand can be the outcomes.

1) God can just automatically baptize them and they go to heaven.
2) They go to a state such as limbo where they are happy but have no beautific vision of God.
3) They go to hell.
4) God illuminates their minds and gives them the choice of heaven or hell at death.

I think all of these would be considered orthodox.

[-I---Love]

Thanks Thessalonian! Hmmm now if anyone has interest in discussing any of these 4 options or others please go for it!

[thessalonian]

One thing that I will say is that I find the option that they just go to hell unlikely. The reason I say this is because in December there is the feast of the Holy Innocents which is a celebration of those who were killed when Herod tried to kill Jesus in his infancy.

[Hirsap]

I think the Catholic Encyclopedia encapsulates a Catholic attitude to this issue very well.

I believe Limbo must be considered a [i]default[/i] position regarding the issue. While it is indeed possible for God, for instance, to enlighten the infant's mind at the time of death to exercise free will for or against God, this would be an [i]extraordinary[/i] thing, a miracle. We should not presume this to be the case, especially when God has not revealed this is what happens. However, given from what God has revealed (i.e.: Baptism the only way for infants to have remission of original sin, dying in original sin means no beatific vision etc) Limbo is the logical deduction. Moreover, some form of Limbo has virtually universally been upheld in the Church throughout the ages...

Regarding the Holy Innocents, they received the baptism of blood (i.e.: because they were killed out of hatred for Christ, meaning they receive the effect of the remission of original sin, even if they were not water baptised). Obviously, nearly all cases of infants dying would not fit that category.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='thessalonian' post='1530827' date='May 16 2008, 08:26 PM']One thing that I will say is that I find the option that they just go to hell unlikely. The reason I say this is because in December there is the feast of the Holy Innocents which is a celebration of those who were killed when Herod tried to kill Jesus in his infancy.[/quote]

I was thinking the same thing. Though we deserve hell because of original sin, I'm sure God takes into account the fact that the infants in no way cooperated with sin personally. I think the other three options are WAY more plausible.

[Paddington]

[quote name='Hirsap' post='1531769' date='May 17 2008, 10:13 PM']Regarding the Holy Innocents, they received the baptism of blood (i.e.: because they were killed out of hatred for Christ, meaning they receive the effect of the remission of original sin, even if they were not water baptised). Obviously, nearly all cases of infants dying would not fit that category.[/quote]

Is this correct? I think of martyrs as choosing martyrdom instead of another option.

[Apotheoun]

The point is this: the holy innocents, like all children before they reach the age of reason, are innocent.

No one is damned who does not deserve, through his own actions, to be damned (Pius IX, [i]Quanto Conficiamur Moerore[/i], no. 7).

[Hirsap]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1532365' date='May 19 2008, 05:29 AM']The point is this: the holy innocents, like all children before they reach the age of reason, are innocent.

No one is damned who does not deserve, through his own actions, to be damned (Pius IX, [i]Quanto Conficiamur Moerore[/i], no. 7).[/quote]

Though I suppose that would depend on what you mean by "damned". It's certainly true that no infant is culpable of any personal sin, so there can be no positive punishment so to speak. Yet the joys of Heaven are not owed to human nature, and God can attach any conditions he pleases to the reception of such gifts (i.e.: the Beatific Vision). But perhaps infants dying without baptism can be regarded as "damned", if by that you mean the simple absense of the supernatural joys of Heaven. I believe Pius IX was speaking of "damnation" in terms of punishment for actual (personal) sin.

[Hirsap]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1532361' date='May 19 2008, 05:19 AM']Is this correct? I think of martyrs as choosing martyrdom instead of another option.[/quote]

Yes this is correct.
I suppose one can compare this to how infants are water baptised, receiving all the effects of the sacrament (e.g.: sanctifying grace, indeluble character on the soul) despite not opting with their wills to receive the sacrament.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Hirsap' post='1533259' date='May 18 2008, 11:23 PM']Though I suppose that would depend on what you mean by "damned". It's certainly true that no infant is culpable of any personal sin, so there can be no positive punishment so to speak. Yet the joys of Heaven are not owed to human nature, and God can attach any conditions he pleases to the reception of such gifts (i.e.: the Beatific Vision). But perhaps infants dying without baptism can be regarded as "damned", if by that you mean the simple absense of the supernatural joys of Heaven. I believe Pius IX was speaking of "damnation" in terms of punishment for actual (personal) sin.[/quote]
There is no such thing as a "natural" end for man; thus all men, including the damned, receive a "supernatural" end. God is the sole beginning and end of creation.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Hirsap' post='1533259' date='May 18 2008, 11:23 PM']Though I suppose that would depend on what you mean by "damned". It's certainly true that no infant is culpable of any personal sin, so there can be no positive punishment so to speak. Yet the joys of Heaven are not owed to human nature, and God can attach any conditions he pleases to the reception of such gifts (i.e.: the Beatific Vision). But perhaps infants dying without baptism can be regarded as "damned", if by that you mean the simple absense of the supernatural joys of Heaven. I believe Pius IX was speaking of "damnation" in terms of punishment for actual (personal) sin.[/quote]
My views on this issue can be found in the thread linked below:

[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=79951&st=60"][u]Limbo And Extra Ecclesiam[/u][/url]

Edited May 19, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Hirsap]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1533282' date='May 19 2008, 06:46 PM']There is no such thing as a "natural" end for man; thus all men, including the damned, receive a "supernatural" end. God is the sole beginning and end of creation.[/quote]

This may well be a simple misunderstanding of what I mean. Indeed, God is the beginning and end of all creation, no question. The highest angel to the lowest rock has God as its origin and end.

When I say natural end of man, I mean still God being that end, but in a natural way, according to the nature of man, [i]only[/i]. Whereas, we know in fact that God pleases to elevate mankind through grace, and God is still our end, but in a way beyond (yet not contrary to) our nature.

Of course, it is improper to speak as though the natural and supernatural ought to seperated; for we know that God as as our supernatural end encompasses (yet goes beyond) God as our natural end.

BUT, in the case of infants, it is possible that they enjoy God in a 'natural' way after death, in not having the grace to enkjoy the Beatific Vision, i.e.: in a similar or identical way that the rightious would enjoy God after death had God not willed to elevate mankind to the supernatural order.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Hirsap' post='1533294' date='May 19 2008, 03:54 AM']This may well be a simple misunderstanding of what I mean. Indeed, God is the beginning and end of all creation, no question. The highest angel to the lowest rock has God as its origin and end.

When I say natural end of man, I mean still God being that end, but in a natural way, according to the nature of man, [i]only[/i]. Whereas, we know in fact that God pleases to elevate mankind through grace, and God is still our end, but in a way beyond (yet not contrary to) our nature.

Of course, it is improper to speak as though the natural and supernatural ought to seperated; for we know that God as as our supernatural end encompasses (yet goes beyond) God as our natural end.

BUT, in the case of infants, it is possible that they enjoy God in a 'natural' way after death, in not having the grace to enkjoy the Beatific Vision, i.e.: in a similar or identical way that the rightious would enjoy God after death had God not willed to elevate mankind to the supernatural order.[/quote]
This is a Western way of looking at things, and I rejected it when I changed sui juris Churches more than three years ago.

There is no "natural" way of enjoying God in the next life, as if nature can be separated from the supernatural gift of God's uncreated energies. Unbaptized babies will share in the glory of God given through the incarnation, which means that they will see God, and grow more and more divine throughout eternity. Divine glory, appropriate to the personal reality each individual, awaits all those who have committed no sins. Only the damned will experience any suffering or loss in relation to God, for they will have only a discursive knowledge of the good in the next life, since they separated themselves from the good through their actions during their earthly life.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Hirsap' post='1533294' date='May 19 2008, 03:54 AM']When I say natural end of man, I mean still God being that end, but in a natural way, according to the nature of man, [i]only[/i]. Whereas, we know in fact that God pleases to elevate mankind through grace, and God is still our end, but in a way beyond (yet not contrary to) our nature.[/quote]
[i]Theosis[/i] is according to man's nature, because God created man to transcend himself by the power of His uncreated energies, for "in Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

Edited May 19, 2008 by Apotheoun