YES. The Church teaches EXACTLY that. But of course you don't know it, since you are no "catholic", much less a "deacon".
And you won't find this solemn teaching in the NCR either. Don't you forge it.
I'll give you a hint where to find this solemn teaching before you go bother Bishop Bruskewitz.
"Unbaptised infants do not enjoy Beatific Vision in Heaven" could be found in the teaching of Second Council of Florence, Council of Trent, Aquinas, Trent Catechism, St. Pius X Catechism, The Douay Catechism of 1649 , and various legitimate catholic teachings that you probably don't read or learn from.
That's your homework for the evening. Go get it before embarrassing yourself further.
The last I heard, used trash paper pays about 75 cents a pound. You may be rich with your stash of NCR.
Please cite specific passages. You made the assertion that it is infallible teaching. It is your responsibility to prove it.
If you don't, which I suspect you will not, then all the lurkers here are free to believe whatever they want about the fate of unbaptized infants.
1261 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 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.
So, you see, there is no definitive teaching about unbaptized infants.
Some basic catechesis is in order, m. Perhaps you ought to come to my RCIA catechumenate instruction. You might learn something.
I have recently gone around with Sinkspur at length concerning this very subject, and the most convincing evidence that I could find was a book by Fr. Murphy issued under the Imprimatur and the Nihil Obstat of the Roman Catholic Vicar-General of Westminster.
Sinkspur was good enough to admit that Vicar-Generals shouldn't go around tossing off Nihil Obstats for teachings which he believes to be "Pure Speculations", and he basically admitted that such blanket approvals make a Mockery of the alleged authority of the Roman Catholic Church's so-called "Teaching Magisterium".
But since Sinkspur has been intellectually-honest enough to admit this obvious deficiency of operation in the Roman Catholic Church's alleged "Teaching Magisterium", it behooves me to demonstrate intellectual honesty in return: One Vicar-General's Imprimatur does not necessarily define the Dogmatic Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
And thus I hold to the teaching of John Calvin, that "The Reprobate procure their own Damnation", God judging them by their Works; whereas of those whom He has ordained to die in Infancy, He has Elected to Save "by a secret operation of the Holy Spirit", Electing in a dispensation of Pure Mercy to apply the atoning Merits of Christ against the Original Sin of those who die with no Volitional Sin on their account (whether Baptized or not).
While John Calvin's teaching can not be precisely proved from Scripture, I believe his teaching to be a Biblically-Economic and Apparently-Correct Resolution of the dichotomy between God's determination to Judge the Wicked by their Works, and His Mercy towards Infants. And so it gives me great pleasure in this affair to be a Calvinist, and to uphold the teaching of Saint John Calvin -- the Anointed Reformer of the Most High God.
But YOU have claimed that the Teaching "Unbaptised infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven" could be found in the teaching of Second Council of Florence, Council of Trent, Aquinas, Trent Catechism, St. Pius X Catechism, The Douay Catechism of 1649, and various legitimate catholic teachings that you probably don't read or learn from.
Well, as an old-school College Debater, I seem to remember that THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE.
YOU have claimed that these many authoritative (indeed, Dogmatic and "Infallible") Roman Catholic sources do teach that "Unbaptised infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven". Unless you can present Evidence of this fact, Sinkspur can simply say "No, they don't!" And then it's nothing but He-Said, She-Said.
In other words, the "Homework Assignment" is not Sinkspur's, it is yours.
YOU have claimed that these Dogmatic (and supposedly "Infallible") Roman Catholic Sources do teach that "Unbaptised infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven". If you can present Evidence of this Fact -- YOU WIN THE ARGUMENT!! But if you can't, you don't. That's how Debate Rules work.
You have claimed that these Dogmatic (and supposedly "Infallible") Roman Catholic Sources do teach that "Unbaptised infants do not enjoy the Beatific Vision in Heaven". Do they, indeed? THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE.