A great Saint on why children die April 18, 2013
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disconcerting, Four Last Things, General Catholic, Interior Life, Saints, Tradition.trackback
From The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 57, an extract from St. Gregory of Nyssa’s On The Untimely Death of Infants. I found this interesting. I don’t know if people will find it comforting, or capricious, or what, but it’s an interesting thought I hadn’t considered before:
It is a reasonable supposition that God, who knows the future just as well as the past, checks the advance of an infant to perfect maturity of life so that the evil which, by virtue of His foreknowledge, He has detected in the future, may not actually develop……This, we suspect, is the reason for the deaths of infants; He who does all things rationally withdraws the material of evil in His great love for men, granting no time for the actual doing of evil works to one whom, by virtue of his foreknowledge, He knows would indulge a propensity to evil.
————-End Quote———-
Well, that’s interesting, but it makes me a bit uncomfortable, for it reminds me of an argument pro-aborts have used for why pro-life Christians should be in favor of abortion. Starting with an error – that babies that die very young, before baptism, or in utero, go to Heaven – the pro-aborts say that Christians should be glad for children to die, so that they can fly to Jesus. Protestants, who almost universally reject limbo, have a hard time with this argument. But Catholics believe that such children, who have committed no sin of their own but have also not been baptized, go to limbo, a place of perfect natural happiness that is technically part of hell but where there is no suffering (Officially, this is not doctrine. It is not a required belief. But it is the belief of the vast majority of Saints, theologians, and Doctors through the history of the Church, most notably with St. Augustine).
As a theory for why children die early, obviously, we know much more of the technical reasons for how children die, in the womb or out; the diseases, congenital defects, etc. But that doesn’t explain why they die, why that would be God’s Will. But I think there are many other potential reasons for the death of any infant, aside from insulating the child itself from sin. But it is, in a mystical, heavenly sense, profoundly charitable. But it’s rather hard on the parents…..
Mostly, I just found this interesting. Feel free to discuss. Gregory of Nyssa is a great Saint, but not a Doctor of the Church, as his close friend St. Gregory of Nazianzen and his brother St. Basil are. His sister is St. Macarina! Quite a family! Perhaps St. Therese and her family, including her Blessed parents and venerable sister, will equal or exceed these Eastern greats at some point!
Comments
Sorry comments are closed for this entry
A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics 
Great comments, Tantam.
Warped Catholicism also purveys the idea that aborted souls go to Heaven. In fact, you can find Catholic teaching on the need for baptism neatly deconstructed in the “green” Catechism leading precisely to this conclusion.
Few people pay attention to catechisms – other than a few Catholics. But once this thinking enters the public domain, so to speak, it becomes part of the background consciousness, so that anyone who has any real practical experience at counseling young ladies in “problem pregnancies” is not surprised to hear, as part of a more overall excuse mechanism, some variation on the assertion that, well, “my little baby will go to Heaven anyway.”
Voila! The “feel good” catechism scores one for the pro-aborts.
This is further ingrained by all of the grieving post-abortion parents naming their little saints in Heaven and the twisted Catholic “pro-life” literature which contains stories about aborting parents’ guilt being somewhat assuaged by the knowledge that their baby is in Heaven.
“Well, we can have hope, can’t we?” A response often heard to these objections.
Certainly we can. And there is a gulf between hope and certainty. Meanwhile, to soothe guilt we suggest that aborted souls go to Heaven as though it were de fide.
If aborted souls go to Heaven, would that make abortion a quasi-sacrament? If this is certain, what is a responsible prospective parent to do? Guarantee salvation or risk it?
Tough stuff, Truth. Hard stuff, sin.
Since Jesus stated that you cannot enter heaven without baptism, perhaps that is why you do not abort babies. Abort the baby, you prevent that child from getting to heaven. Where is the decision maker going, now?
Point of order:
While it is permissible for Catholics to believe in Limbo, it is NOT the case that Limbo is a doctrine of the Church. Yes, I know you have heard an FSSP priest teach otherwise from the pulpit, but he taught error when he did this.
The Church is required to teach us about our eternal destiny. If Limbo exists, it would be an eternal destiny. Heaven and hell are both described in the catechism of Trent and in the CCC. Purgatory is described in both the catechism of Trent and the CCC. Limbo is not mentioned at all.
Why? Because it is merely a theological opinion, not a doctrine. No Catholic is required to accept that it exists. It is the case that councils have taught that unbaptized infants go to hell. However, this is an objective teaching, not a subjective teaching. That means that while, objectively speaking, there is sufficient cause in original sin alone for someone who has that stain to consign themselves to hell, it is not the case that we know any particular person has actually gone to hell because of it. We know it is sufficient, we don’t know if God handles the situation that way.
Private revelation, such as Fatima, is completely irrelevant. Fatima’s second prophecy was wrong in every particular (click here to see why), the vision of hell may have also been improperly understood, and it is – in any case – not part of public revelation, therefore Fatima has no bearing on our salvation. Yes, I know FSSP priests have told you differently. They are not teaching in accordance with the Church on this point.
The green CCC does NOT deconstruct the teaching on baptism – it merely says what the Church teaches: we don’t know what happens to unbaptized infants.
Gregory of Nyssa’s argument is identical to the argument in Freakonomics, wherein the economics professor opined that abortion is a good thing because it kills future criminals and low-lifes, thereby contributing directly to a reduction in crime. As you point out, this Gregory is not a doctor of the Church, and this paragraph may well explain why. Freakonomics has been refuted numerous times by pro-lifers. It, like the teaching you present here on Limbo and like the Fatima “prophecies”, is simply erroneous.
[…] ahead and publish this post, not merely because the subject of Limbo happened to come up in this article on the Traditionalist, Dallas-area blog Veneremur Cernui, but because it also […]
To Logos and Muse I would reply as follows.
Please review what I originally said, that to suggest that the souls of aborted babies go to Heaven is warped Catholicism. Not only do I stand behind that statement but both you and the gentleman here confirm it when you quite correctly point out that Limbo is not a certainty and that, in reality, we really do not know the disposition of these souls. Now that is a statement of truth. Asserting that we know these souls are in Heaven is clearly not.
Unfortunately, if a person were to simply read “Logos and Muse” they would read that “someone named ‘Dismas’ says that the belief that unbaptized infants go anywhere but Limbo is “warped Catholicism.”
There is a not-so-subtle difference between what I said (that it is an error to assert that the souls of aborted babies surely attain Heaven) and what “Muse” attributes to me (that it is an error to assert that the souls of aborted babies go anywhere other than Limbo.) Somehow I suspect that the readers of this blog are well able to discern that difference. If it were at all difficult to detect it would merit more explanation. The very fact that my original entry does not even contain the word “limbo” would be a clue to many.
“Muse” then makes the leap to the conclusion that I fancy myself more Catholic than the pope. The Logos knows my interior forum. This Muse quite obviously does not.
Hi Dismas, your original comment was: “Warped Catholicism also purveys the idea that aborted souls go to Heaven.” If they don’t go to Heaven, where do they go if not Limbo? Thus, though the word is not there, it’s certainly implied.
You are quite correct that the salvation of any particular infant who dies without baptism is not a certainty. But neither is the salvation of any one who dies *with* baptism and lived a full life. Our certainty about the salvation of Mother Teresa is no greater than our certainty about the salvation of an aborted baby.
Indeed it might be said that our ability to hope in the salvation of an infant is greater, because an infant (particularly a stillborn or aborted one) has no actual sin. Original sin, yes; and yes, original sin is normatively wiped clean by baptism. In the case of these babies, baptism is not a possibility. Is God going to deny them Heaven on a technicality, or based on the sins of the mother? God and his mercy are greater than the sacraments; he made them for man, not man for the sacraments. He instituted them to provide the means of salvation, not for the sake of denying salvation to those who have no possible way of receiving them. As B16 pointed out, even those theologians who posited Limbo (as a hypothesis) emphasized the reality of a baptism of desire.
Thus though we have no certainty in the same way we have certainty in the definition of the Trinity, we may have the hope of faith that trusts in the mercy of God.
Dear Mr. Alt:
I do appreciate your kind reply. The failings of electronic communication being what they are, I will say that it appears that we are probably in agreement with one exception, which I will spell out after I describe where it seems we agree.
To keep it simple, I would say that we agree that the destiny of unbaptized souls is unknown to us. In fact, this is precisely my point. Since this destiny is unknown to us, it is imprudent to suggest that, as a matter of fact, these souls are currently in Heaven. We are not in disagreement about what the Church teaches about Limbo. Again, I never mentioned Limbo.
In fact, after recognizing that we do not know where these souls are bound my comments became entirely practical – that for Catholics, and especially for high-profile pro-life Catholic organizations to suggest to the world that these aborted souls now enjoy the Beatific Vision actually results in more, not fewer, abortions. This particular statement I make with authority, having ample experience over a broad population and many years confronting women considering abortion and listening to their reasoning.
So that’s it. Pretty simple. Limbo is not a certainty. To say that aborted souls are in Heaven is an error and inimical to the effort to stem abortions.
Regarding the mercy of God, the possibility of hope and all of that we also share similar views. But our similar views happen to be no more certain than the existence of Limbo, as they relate to the salvation of unbaptized souls, so I will re-insist that to purvey those views as though they are a certainty is to work at cross-purposes, if one’s intention is to save as many babies as possible from murder.
Now to where we do not reason in the same manner. You continue to put words into my text that I do not, in any form or fashion, intend to suggest. I’m not sure that it is worth an effort to continue to emphasize this, but I will try once more.
If I hold as a certainty the uncertainty of Limbo, it is not possible that I would be certain that the souls of aborted babies go there. In fact, it is you, not I, that holds this as the only other possibility. I do implore you to desist in suggesting that I am saying something I have never said and do not hold as a belief. In fact, it is the very uncertainty of Limbo that is prompting my appeal not to suggest that the souls of aborted babies go to Heaven.
The word “Limbo” is, in fact neither stated nor implied in anything I originally wrote. I think this must be clear to other readers. Hopefully it is now clear to you.
I also believe that it could be salutary to reconsider your unfounded published judgment that I consider myself “more Catholic than the Pope.” I could have no idea how the leap to that particular judgment was made, but only God and I know if such a judgment is correct.
AMDG,
Dismas
Dismas,
Thank you for your clarification, and please accept my apologies for my uncharitable and ill-informed expressions on my blog. I hope that you will accept that they came out of my own understandable passion on this subject. But I don’t know you and shouldn’t have made the judgment from a few words in a comment box.
I have rewritten the paragraph in question on my blog, and appended an update regarding the change at the bottom of the article. I’m not quite sure I accept your concern about “more abortions” taking place, but the concern is certainly serious and understandable and comes from the right intentions.
In Christ and Mary,
Scott
Dear Mr. Alt:
I have read your correction on your own blog and I must thank you and acknowledge your very humble comments. I am edified.
I do recognize your passion on the topic. That is a passion we share and yet one more point on which we are in perfect agreement.
I do want to point out, however, for the benefit of everyone, that while there are few areas where I can speak with authority, this is one of them. To suggest to the world that the souls of aborted babies are in heaven most certainly contributes to an increase in the number of decisions made by women in extremis to abort their babies. I want us all to know this and to tuck it away in our effort to at least save a baby or two here and there.
How is it I can speak with such surety? Well, my profession places me directly in the presence of young women with “problem pregnancies” who are mulling in their confused minds the pros and cons of terminating those pregnancies. Actually, by the time I see them many have already made their minds up to opt for abortion, and I have limited time and limited resources to attempt to gently persuade them otherwise.
I have the “advantage”, if you can call it that, to personally hear the various criteria these poor women base their decisions upon and it is not uncommon to hear, somewhere in the mix, a statement akin to, “well, as awful as it is, at least my baby will be in Heaven.”
These are not women who are usually practicing Catholics or whose viewpoints are formed after theological consideration. These are women who come in off the street seeking a “solution” to their “problem.”
On your blog you continue to take issue with my assertion here and I can well understand your objections, because they are objections I often confront when imploring Catholic pro-life writers to please avoid suggesting to the world that the souls of aborted babies are in Heaven.
Your first objection is as follows:
” if a woman is considering an abortion but concedes that the eternal destiny of her child’s soul is a real matter, then she already accepts the humanity of the unborn child and can be persuaded not to have the abortion on moral grounds alone.”
That sounds very good, but it is conjecture. I am guaranteeing you based upon real-life every day experience that in the actual crush of the weight of these things in actual practice a woman who thinks in these terms is apparently not likely to be presenting herself for abortion in the first place, given that, in my experience I have yet to meet her. It is not these women we are concerning ourselves with. I can assure you that the women who are seriously considering abortion do not think in these neat, clean, well-reasoned terms. Would that they did. Were what you say here true, our actual experience would be far more favorable. I do not speak hypothetically.
Your second comment is as follows and is not really an objection to my observation:
“many women who have had abortions later regret it, are deeply wounded, and are in repentance and seeking forgiveness. They are most understandably concerned about where their child is and whether there is hope for eventual reunion in Heaven. Speaking personally, the same is true for parents who have lost their child to a stillbirth. Although I concede that there is no divine revelation on this point, I also put a great deal of trust in the mercy of God and in the statements the Church has made about the baptism of desire and the “serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope.”
As we see, your comments here relate to dealing with the sensitive issue of post-abortion crises. These, as you mention, are your feelings, your wishes, what you prefer to hope. The fact is, they are identical to mine.
Again, in my day-to-day work I deal with the effects of post-abortion crisis more than I deal with pre-abortion decision-making. These unfortunate people deserve to be treated with sensitivity, short of lying to them, and each person must be dealt with individually based upon a number of factors. Treating this topic, however, takes us away from the theme we have been discussing, namely that suggesting to people that aborted souls go to Heaven makes it more difficult, across the board, to dissuade people from opting to kill their babies. Your comment here, while very well-taken, do not address this topic.
I have every reason to be sure that you are of perfectly good will and desire the very same thing I am sure the rest of us reading this desire – that is to save as many babies from abortion as possible. While your objections are theoretical, my comments are based upon what I do every day after my morning coffee. I hope that you consider them and take them to heart and eventually decide to charitably work against the suggestion, by credible Catholics, that one may be confident that aborting babies sends souls to Heaven.
AMDG,
Dismas
Dismas,
I can concede that what you say to a woman in the circumstance you’re describing, where you’re trying to save a baby from abortion and there’s little time, is in a special context that doesn’t lend itself to a discussion of the finer subtleties of theology.
The purpose of my article itself was to clarify what Church teaching is, and I stand by that, but admittedly there are always unique circumstances that create special problems, like what you face every day, and nothing that’s said even as a generic truth is applicable or appropriate in every conceivable context.
God bless you for the work you do.
In Christ and Mary,
Scott
Scott:
Leaving aside the nuances and cutting to the chase, what we are trying to do is dissuade women from having abortions. It may seem that the circumstances I describe are unusual, as I am sure they are to those not engaged in them. They are not, however, unusual in actual practice. They are very common, in fact.
We understand what your article was about, and regarding the major theme of your article we have taken no issue. You did, however, elect to step off into conjecture regarding certain common nuts and bolts of dealing with women strongly considering or already having decided upon abortion. Given that it is a fact that these women commonly mention that their babies will go to Heaven if they are aborted it seems only prudent for those of us who were not aware of this to now become aware of it and consider taking steps to suggest that folks not purvey ideas which we have all agreed have no basis in Catholic doctrine.
It is a generic truth, applicable in all circumstances, that to promote the idea that aborted babies go to Heaven works against efforts to dissuade abortion. Nothing unique, nothing special, nothing extraordinary.
Thank you for providing a forum where this can be heard. From this particular discussion I would now like to retire, given that I have run out of ways to try to drive this home.
AMDG,
Dismas
Regarding whether or not the CCC “deconstructs” the Church’s teaching on the necessity of baptism for salvation it is possible that our misunderstanding might hinge on the word “deconstruct.” I will leave this to those most interested to turn to that portion of the CCC themselves, specifically #1257-1261.
I will not reproduce the entire section here. It begins by saying that “The Lord Himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation…” It ends by suggesting that Our Lord’s words “‘Let the children come to me…’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.” This “hope” is quickly turned into certainty in the practical world.
Nowhere, by the way, does the CCC say what is suggested above, that “we do not know what happens.” Now THAT would be a true statement if it were positively mentioned. It is not. And the practical applications of this section contribute to decisions to abort.
The point of my comment was not theological – it was entirely practical. As a person directly involved in dealing with a wide spectrum of young women who are considering abortion, I have found in my 25+ years of experience that the idea that an aborted baby may attain Heaven is no mean incentive to carry on with a considered abortion. This sort of fuzzy thinking is entirely prevalent. One can easily see it purveyed in publications of Catholic pro-life groups, particularly when the topic of post-abortion crises are addressed.
I have contacted some of these groups pleading with them that suggesting this sort of thing may make post-aborters feel better, but that it is inimical to efforts to dissuade abortion on the ground, in real life. I have been directed to this very section of the CCC as a defense of this action by editors of well-known Catholic pro-life publications.
If for some this particular section does not begin with a Catholic dogma and then proceed through clear steps to deconstruct that dogma I have not much to say about that. I am not qualified to speak as a theologian. I am qualified to speak to practical applications of these sorts of things in the real world with real people contemplating real abortions. As a non-theologian the section in question clearly represents deconstruction. I will allow others to arrive at their own conclusions while at the same time imploring people not to suggest that aborted babies go to heaven. There is a gulf between certainty and hope.