Souls of Aborted Children

Msgr. Charles Pope The Catholic Answer

Q. What does the Church teach about the souls of aborted children and those unborn children who die as a result of miscarriages? They have souls, right? Should they all receive funerals? Should parents name their miscarried children? Name withheld by request, via e-mail

A. “Should” is a word that is too strong here. Parents may both name and have funeral services for miscarried or aborted children. But they are not required to do this, and each case will be unique. How far along the child was is often a factor. In some cases there are remains that can be buried, in other cases not. If there are no remains that have been collected for burial, a memorial Mass may be celebrated. The Sacramentary contains prayers for children who die before baptism and these may be used along with other prayers from the Rite of Christian Burial. Yet another possibility is that one of the general parish Masses can be offered in memoriam.

Yes, children who die before birth and baptism have souls. While there is no definitive teaching by the Lord or the Church as to what happens to their souls if they die before baptism, it is clear that they did not merit hell. The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say: “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism” (No. 1261).

Further, the International Theological Commission, at the request of Pope Benedict XVI, studied the question of infants who die without baptism. It issued a lengthy report (“The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized,” 2007) and concluded as to what the Church can say with these words: “What has been revealed to us is that the ordinary way of salvation is by the Sacrament of Baptism. None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of baptism or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.

Rather, as we want to reaffirm in conclusion, they provide strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church” (No. 103).

Funny, any true Traditionalist I know knows the Catholic Faith much better than any follower of the post Vatican II Church. This thread is just one example of this.

Post Vatican II : unbaptized infants with original sin (and for all intent and purposes) unborn babies can go to Heaven.

Pre-Vatican II: unbaptized infants can not go to Heaven.

Contradiction. Now the post Vatican II teaching is much more palatable, but I’ll stick with the Truth. Catholic Truth has never been easy.

Then you need to clarify to readers that you are of a sect that denies the Post-Vatican II Papacy that does not represent the Church's teaching.

He is the Successor of St. Peter, whether or not you are happy with Vatican II. Check what the Baltimore Catechism says about the Papacy. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. You don't choose not to follow the Church's teachings and be Catholic. If you question the Holy Father's Authority, Why not set your beliefs at the era prior to Alexander VI if you deny the Papacy? I understand that V-II turned a lot of people away, but denial of the Papacy is the same kind of disobedience that led to the Reformation.

Like it or not, that is what the Church teaches.

Was St Vincent Ferrer part of a sect or not a good representative of the Catholic Church when he believed an anti-pope was a true pope?

I know very well what the Catholic Church teaches about the papacy. I have done a lot of research into Catholic teaching prior to Vatican II and, in the areas ecumenism and religious liberty, it is not the same; it is not Catholic.

Here is what St Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church said of popes who are heretics:

"The fifth opinion therefore is the true one. A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction. "

Francis is a manifest heretic, especially with his latest non-Catholic, heretical belief called "ecumenism of blood". He even suggested it was heresy....and didn't care. According to St Bellarmine, he loses his office immediately.

I'm sorry, but I can not submit to a heretic. I was once where you were and I do get it, but I just can not do it anymore. No Catholic should submit to a heretic. I remain faithful to the Catholic Faith. Someday God will intervene and fix this mess.

Pius, I understand your point. I felt the same way once, too: check out my home page! But think of something: Limbo was not dogmatic. Also, consider what the latter portion of the 20 th century brought. There are things that were not issues before, and changes in attitude that went with them.

Would a child on its mother's womb be burnt with a saline injection: dismembered by suction, literally pulling them apart? What of the barbarism where a full term baby's head is delivered, and instead of Baptismal water poured on the little one's head, scissors are inserted in the back of the head; the baby's brains sucked out while the skull collapses, and the baby's body delivered- while the mother is there consenting?

Yes that child has not been Baptised, but has it not suffered in innocence, despite original sin? "For my mother and father have abandoned me, but the Lord hath taken me up." And is this not also a Baptism of blood?

What about The Pill, which not only prevents pregnancy, but acts as an abortifacient? Now the Morning After Pill? We believe that a new human being is created by God at the moment of conception. In JPII'S time there came babies conceived in Petri dishes and test tubes, with the unwanted extra babies frozen or discarded.

Councils have been held throughout the centuries for various reasons pertinent to the times. The problems I see with V-II lie more in implementation than doctrine and liturgy. The changes were sweeping; they were drastic changes; the Baltimore Catechism was not replaced until JPII, and we needed one badly, because those who wanted their own agendas promulgated, giving false info in."the spirit of V-II" (ever read "AA1025"? It's about a communist plant. Just as Jesus was subverted from within and suffered, died and rose in His Earthly Body, so it is with His Mystical Body, the Church. Paul VI stated, "the smoke of satan has entered into the Church."

My point is, no matter what we think of individual Popes, they're still elected by the Guidance of the Holy Ghost. There is a in ubiquitous list of bad Popes that pop up on forum. Yet the Church has survived, because "the gates of hell shall not prevail against It.

I'm sorry, Pius, that I lost my cool with you, but I went through it, as I said, and my time away was painful. You can't just deny what is: just persevere. God be with you! PS: I have a BC of my own, as well as a Benzigers Bible History! :)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.