jump to navigation

Abortion Is Not a Kind of Martyrdom, Nor Is It a Sacrament August 14, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, Basics, catachesis, contraception, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, unadulterated evil.

Another good contribution from Fr. Albert OP and The Fatima Center.  I know some people struggle with this one, including many well meaning pro-lifers – they don’t want to believe God could be so “cruel” as to deny Heaven to a perfect innocent who is murdered in abortion. But this sentiment has many problems, and reveals an ignorance, which while I am certain is entirely innocent, is potentially quite monstrous, or at least severely disordered.

All souls, regardless of any actual sin, stand condemned under Original Sin.  Christ’s Sacrifice effaces the punishment due to Original Sin IF we receive Baptism.  There is no approved way to baptize souls in the womb.  Thus those souls cannot be saved.  Now, God, while infinitely just, is also infinitely merciful, so it is believed He does not condemn souls innocent of actual sin to eternal punishment.  But neither can these souls, still stained by Original Sin, exist in His perfect Presence.  Thus, they go to Limbo, a state of natural happiness but outside the Beatific Vision of God in Heaven.

To cling to the idea that the souls of aborted infants are somehow saved is, in a sense, to either endorse the notion that they are martyrs, and thus receive a Baptism by Blood, or that, monstrously, that abortion somehow constitutes a Sacrament that conveys supernatural Grace and thus allows the soul entrance to Heaven.  Obviously the latter is out, but even the idea that these souls are martyrs is not supported by the Tradition.  To be a martyr one must desire union with Christ, explicitly at least on some level, which is something still-natal infants are incapable of.  Pope Sixtus V regarded the inability of aborted souls to be saved the most heinous aspect of abortion.

However the doctrine of Limbo has never been so specifically defined that it rises to the level of a Dogma.  At least, I am unaware of such a definition, though fully willing to accept such.  If I am correct, there is room for souls to disagree on this matter, though I would regard any opinion that attempts to confer “salvation” on the souls of the aborted as disordered, at best (though surely coming from the best of intentions), not least because of the impact such beliefs have on the mothers considering abortion, where a sense of assurance that their babies will be happy forever in Heaven with God and spared the sufferings of this life serve as a positive inducement to abort, and often amount to a source of infinite impediment to acknowledging the intrinsic evil of this barbaric act.

I’ve covered this matter before but it usually excites some contrary opinions so here is one more explanation:

On a related note, Google and Facebook continue to reveal themselves as thoroughgoing partisans of the culture of death and persecutors of conservatives generally and Christians specifically.  Google and Facebook are funding an effort to stage large protests outside Atlanta-area crisis pregnancy centers, in the hope of having laws passed that force the CPCs to very publicly declare they don’t perform abortions, or at least ruining their reputations.  The ultimate goal is the destruction of CPCs as alternatives to baby murder and as “competition” to the practical baby murder monopoly in the US, Planned Barrenhood.

Google and Facebook are giving thoughtful citizens, and especially Christians, ample reasons to fear and loathe these prying vast repositories of personal data and growing vehicles of politically-motivated repression.  Time to ditch smart phones, especially Android and all the Google apps?  Time to delete the Facebook account, no matter how “useful” it is?



1. Marc - August 14, 2017

This is the most comprehensive explanation on limbo that I’ve heard.

This is a great relief that one of our 9 children enjoys (at worst…we did a conditional baptism) perfect natural happiness. One priest referred to it as permanent breast feeding 🙂

2. Tim - August 14, 2017

Contrary opinions?! Say it isn’t so! These Father Albert videos get it going don’t they?

Tantumblogo - August 14, 2017

There’s another more explosive one casting doubt on most all the Sacraments administered in a Novus Ordo manner. Not that they are invalid in every case simply due to the whole VII issue, but for a variety of subordinate reasons – wrong intent on the part of the priest, errors in the matter and form of the Sacrament, etc.

A thorny question. I am not yet one who believes every post-conciliar Sacrament invalid, but I think more are invalid than many would like to think. This was an argument of Fr. Cekada against the Eucharistic Consecration formula of the Novus Ordo, it removed enough specificity and allowed enough doubt (especially in “Eucharistic Prayer II”) that whereas the form of the Eucharistic Sacrament in the TLM is so specific it is valid irrespective of the intent of the priest (such as one who has lost faith and no longer believes he is confecting the Real Presence), in the Novus Ordo it is not so and the intent of the priest actually enters into the matter of validity.

Not saying I was 100% convinced but it is definitely something to consider.

On the contrary, there are some very good priests limited to offering the NO by circumstances outside their control, and who I have no doubt are offering 100% valid Masses/other Sacraments. But for the crazies……….Lord, have mercy.

Tim - August 14, 2017

This is the reason I only attend the Novus Ordo for funerals, and then in a nonparticipantary role. I’ve had a diosean priest and 3 FSSP priests tell me privately that if one cannot get to a TLM or Byzantine Divine Liturgy then no obligation for Sunday Mass exists. The modern Church does not in most circumstances provide the means for meeting the Sunday obligation. Of course the SSPX priests tell you the same thing as the Church cannot demand you to do something that endangers your faith. I make no judgements on folks who attend the Novus Ordo. That’s for God to sort out. But once you’ve lived and studied all this, you eventually have to surrender to facts and logic and avoid this dangerous liturgy. Just, for the record, I did not say it is invalid. Validity is not relevant to this issue as a “black mass” is technically valid if offered by an ordained (albeit turncoat) priest.

NickD - August 15, 2017

The question of intent compels me to attend Mass in the extraordinary form or, when that is unavailable, an Anglican Use Mass, an Eastern rite, or at the very least, a Novus Ordo Mass offered by a priest whom I know to be well-formed. In situations with a nutty modernist/progressive priest, I tend towards a) doubting the Mass’ validity and/or b) uncharitable thoughts toward the priest. I never have either of those issues in the aforementioned instances.

3. Blaine - August 14, 2017

I’m in the process of de-Googling my life right now. it’s not easy but it gives me something to pass the time with. Between what you describe and the firing of Damore, I want none of their generosity and the cost of my privacy anymore.

4. JMM - August 15, 2017

What about baptism by desire? I’ve often wondered if the three babies I lost due to miscarriage could fall under this. If they had been born, I would have baptized them.

Margaret Costello - August 15, 2017

Yes, I was thinking that too. When I ask my mom (who works with post abortive women) about this, she points to “Baptism by desire” on the part of parents as a possible “in”. But that would mean, as you noted, that all children who were miscarried would be eligible too. And I think the “baptism of desire” the post abortive counselors apply to women who currently desire baptism for the child and not necessarily thought so at the time of the abortion.

Limbo might not be dogma but I believe it IS doctrine, and a higher level one to boot. The Church Fathers were for the most part agreed that unborn children went to where Abraham and the other “Fathers” went before Christ opened Heaven. I believe it was only St. Augustine who disagreed with the others saying the unborn went to Hell.

Here is a good article written by the late beloved John Vennari on the subject: http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/e012rp_Limbo24Reasons.html

There are also levels of doctrine where we cannot “agree to disagree” or have other “opinions”…actually most levels of doctrine do not allow you to have other “opinions”. I think there is only one level and even then you become suspect of supporting heresy in some way.

God bless~

Margaret Costello - August 15, 2017

And Limbo IS Scriptural. Our Lord Himself speaks of it when He talks of Lazarus going to the “bosom of Abraham” when he dies while the rich man is across the gulf. It’s sad that most of us lay Catholic now have to turn into mini theologians to fend off the modernists who try to use the levels of doctrine as an excuse to undermine or destroy it. God bless~

Tim - August 15, 2017

Baptism of desire and blood is speculative theology and not de fide.

JMM - August 15, 2017

Interesting. Yet, this is taught as fact in the Baltimore Catechism.

Margaret Costello - August 16, 2017

From what this link says, it is de fide:


However, from what I can pick up (and I could be wrong), the desire has to be from the person themselves and can’t be done by a third party. I also note that Fr. Albert calls Limbo a doctrine AND dogma of the faith. Interesting. *sigh* Like I noted above, it looks like we are going to have to morph into theologians to stave off the modernists in the Church and in our lives. At least we are learning more and more about the faith:+)

God bless~

JMM - August 15, 2017

Thank you for the link. I’m still not certain about number 24. Our babies are baptized because we desire it for them. Perhaps this is also true for the unborn of the faithful? Nonetheless, it is enough to leave my babies in God’s merciful arms and trust they are as happy as He permits them.

Tim - August 15, 2017

If that is so then any water baptism after birth would be conditional or a sacrilege. One can only be baptised once. It would also render Pope Sixtus V a fool for his concern. Also, it would be the ultimate act of charity to desire baptism for the baby and then abort them, sending them straight to heaven.
That dog doesn’t hunt. The inability to get to heaven for the unbaptized is what makes abortion so reprehensible. If tbey all go to hesven then abortion is the greatest act of love you can perform for them.

JMM - August 16, 2017

Words just fail. I really don’t know what you are talking about. We were addressing miscarriages, not abortion. The two clearly do not equate.

Tim - August 16, 2017

Perhaps I got off track. If parents can simply desire baptism for an unborn child, then why is the “formal” Sacrament needed? We should all just desire it and poof! Original Sin is gone. It makes no sense. Thinking it through it would be a logical thing to desire baptism and then death before birth. That would guarantee salvation. Why risk life outside the womb and actual sin if we had this option? Who wouldn’t want guaranteed salvation over risking life and potential mortal sin. Can we desire baptism for unbaptised people and assume it occurs? This is not logical in the least. I do not make lite the loss of a child to miscarriage, but this notion of desire for baptism from another party on another’s behalf does not add up. If this were true then water baptism is not needed as you can’t repeat the Sacrament without commiting sacrilege. Can we desire Confirmation for the unconfirmed? Can we desire Marriage gor a cohabiting couple? When does it end? This idea makes a mockery of the Sacramental system.

JMM - August 16, 2017

Baptism by desire is a form of baptism for those who cannot receive baptism by water (no Christian to do it, some poor Muslim in Afghanistan, etc). It cannot replace baptism by water. That is not the argument. Babies cannot request baptism by water; parents do that for them. The discussion centers around if a parent wills the baptism in the same manner as the unbaptized pagan who would seek it if he could. Can the child benefit from the desire of the parents just as an adult could in India who, for whatever reason, cannot get another to bapize him with water?

Tim - August 16, 2017

Unfortunately, baptism by desire and blood is speculative theology an d not de fide…..a theory…….not doctrine or dogma. Thos gets used alot today in our culture of “universal salvation”. Nothing in life is fair. Unbaptized babies go to limbo as they still have original sin but have no actual sin meriting hell. Perfect natural happiness is much better than hell. The only way I see around this is for God to ressurect these babies before the end of time and have them baptized……He is perfectly capable of such a feat. This 3rd party desire substituting for a Sacrament is nonsensical.

JMM - August 16, 2017

An argument against the possibility of baptism of desire applied to the unborn is that the desire must come from the individual. Baptism of water can be given with or without consent, but desire maybe not. However, I disagree with it being speculative. If so, then those prior to Jesus are also in Limbo since they did not receive baptism of water (the prophets, Moses, Abraham, etc). I think it is dogma and is taught accordingly in the Baltimore catechism.

5. dthy - August 18, 2017

Thank you for addressing this important issue. The idea of Limbo certainly meets the criteria of both the mercy of God and Divine justice. The child in Limbo could be happy in the same way that people on earth who live in God’s grace can enjoy happiness. It can’t be perfect, because we know there’s a better life beyond, but nonetheless, as good as can be under the circumstances. The idea that an unborn child could receive Baptism of desire if the parent desires it would be impossible for the aborted child even if such were possible for miscarried babies because if you desire something for someone, than you are willing to undergo whatever sacrifice is necessary to make that which you desire possible. That would mean giving birth so the child could be baptized.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: