(Death, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell)
Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults
|
|
INFANTS WHO DIE WITHOUT BAPTISM
Fr. William Most
The words of the Council of Lyons speaks of those who die in original sin as
going to hell. The Latin word used is <infernum>, which means the realm of the
dead, and need not mean the hell of the damned. As to the word <poena>, often
translated as punishment, in Latin it need not mean the positive infliction of
suffering, but could stand for only the loss or deprivation of some good. If
unbaptized infants are deprived of the vision of God, that is a <poena>, but
would not have to involve any suffering. We are certain of this from the
teaching of Pope Pius IX, in <Quanto conficiamur moerore>, August 10, 1863:
"God... in His supreme goodness and clemency, by no means allows anyone to be
punished with eternal punishments who does not have the guilt of voluntary
fault." Of course, the infants do not have any voluntary fault. Hence they
cannot be in the hell of the damned.
Tragically, Leonard Feeney cited this text of Pius IX, and, in effect, ridiculed
it and charged Pius IX with the heresy of Pelagianism, saying (in Thomas M.
Sennott, <They Fought the Good Fight>, Catholic Treasures, Monrovia CA. 1987,
pp. 305-06): "To say that God would never permit anyone to be punished eternally
unless he had incurred the guilt of voluntary sin is nothing short of
Pelagianism... . If God cannot punish eternally a human being who has not
incurred the guilt of voluntary sin, how then, for example can He punish
eternally babies who die unhaptized?." The teaching of Pius IX agrees with the
teaching of St. Thomas in <De malo> q.5 a.3 ad 4: "The infants are separated
from God perpetually, in regard to the loss of glory, which they do not know,
but not in regard to participation in natural goods, which they do know... .
That which they have through nature, they possess without pain." So when the
Synod of Pistoia taught that the
idea of St. Thomas was "a Pelagian fable", Pius IX, in 1794, condemned that
teaching of Pistoia: DS 2626.
Vatican II, in the Decree on Ecumenism #7 taught: "... if anything... even in
the way of expressing doctrine - which is to be carefully distinguished from the
deposit of faith - has been expressed less accurately, at an opportune time it
should be rightly and duly restored." Paul VI agreed, and in Mysterium fidei
Sept 3, 1965, 23-24, AAS 57, 758, said we must still not say the old language
was false, only that it could be improved. Surely that is the case with the
language of such texts as the Council of Lyons.
The new Catechism of the Catholic Church, in #1261, after carefully explaining
that those who without fault do not find the Church, can still be saved, quoted
the words of Christ (Mk 10:14) "Let the little children come to me, and do not
prevent them," added: "[this] permits us to have hope that there is a way to
salvation for infants who die without Baptism."
Many theological attempts have been made in our time to find such a way. Let us
offer something a bit new here: First, as St. Thomas said (III. 68.2. c): "His
[God's] hands are not tied by [or:to] the Sacraments".
Theologians commonly hold that God provided for the salvation of those who died
before Christ in some way. Girls of course were not circumcised, cf. III. 70. 4.
C): "By circumcision there was given to boys the power to come to glory." It was
enough to belong to the people of God.
In a similar way, St. Paul says (1 Cor 7:14) that the unbelieving mate in a
marriage of a Christian and a pagan is consecrated or made holy through union
with the Christian who does come under the Covenant: "Otherwise your children
would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy" So they are holy precisely by
belonging to a family with even one party Christian. Paul does not at this point
mention Baptism as the reason for their status - he speaks of the mere fact that
they belong to a family with one Christian parent. (The word holy seems to
reflect Hebrew qadosh which does not mean high moral perfection, but coming
under the covenant). Similarly the Jews believed that merely belonging to the
People of God insured their salvation, unless they positively ruled themselves
out by the gravest sins: cf. Genesis Rabbah 48.7: "In the world to come, Abraham
will sit on the
doormat of Gehinnom and will not allow a circumcised Jew to enter." and
Sanhedrin 10.1:"All Israel has a share in the age to come." The latter text adds
that there are three groups who do not have a share: those who deny the
resurrection, those who deny the Law is from heaven, and Epicureans (Cf. E. P.
Sanders <Paul and Palestinian Judaism> pp. 147-82).
St. Paul insists in Romans 3:28-20 that if God had not provided for those who
did not know the Law, He would not be their God. So He must have provided, and
He did it through the means of faith. Could we argue that if God makes no
provision for unbaptized infants, He would not act as their God? It seems yes.
Further, St. Paul insists many times over (Romans 5:15-17) that the redemption
is superabundant, more so than the fall. But since God did provide for infants
before Christ, if He did not do so after Christ, the redemption would not be
superabundant, it would be a hellish liability for infants and millions of
others. Really, Feeney and those of his followers who insist that God sends
unbaptized babies to hell - along with countless millions of others who never
had a chance to hear of the Church - they make God incredibly harsh, even a
monster. God is not a monster, a God of that description could not exist as a
God at all. So logically Feenyism calls for atheism. And in the parable of the
talents (Lk 19:22) when the one servant told his master he hid the talent since
he knew the master was harsh, the Master replied that he would judge the servant
according to his own evidence. Since he thought the master was harsh, He would
be harsh.
Also, God shows great concern for the objective MORAL order (cf. the appendix on
SEDAQAH in my commentary on St. Paul). There is some reason to think He has also
great concern for the objective PHYSICAL order. Thus in the parable of the rich
man and Lazarus, Abraham explains (Lk 16:24):
"Remember that
you in your lifetime received good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil
things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish." There was no
mention of sins on the part of the rich man or virtue in the poor man, just the
reversal of the objective physical order. Similarly in the series of four woes
in the Great Discourse (Luke 6:24-16), there is a reversal for those who were
rich, for those who were full, for those who could laugh, for those who were
well spoken of. There is, again, no mention of moral virtue, just of reversal of
the objective physical order. Also, in the account of the Last Judgment (Mt
25:31-46) the excuse of those on the left that they did not know they did not
help the Judge is not accepted.
So could it be then that God decides: These infants according to my plan should
have had many goods things in life. They were deprived of all - and in the case
of abortion, were cut to pieces savagely - so now there should be a reversal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Trinity Communications 1994.
Provided courtesy of:
The Catholic Resource Network
Trinity Communications
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
The Catholic Resource Network is a Catholic online information and
service system. To browse CRNET or join, set your modem to 8 data
bits, 1 stop bit and no parity, and call 1-703-791-4336.