Without being united to regenerated humanity, men remain forever in the initial order, below their destiny, inchoate existences, with their nature unfilled, devoured alike by an everlasting want which cannot be supplied, and an everlasting self-reproach for having by their own fault neglected the means of salvation once within their reach. Hence the never-ending sufferings of those who die unregenerate. Even infants dying unbaptized, that is, in the initial order, unregenerate, the holy Council of Florence defines, go to hell - in infernos; though they will not suffer for any actual sins of commission or omission, of which they were incapable. Some tender-hearted theologians think they will not suffer at all, but no rational creature can remain forever below his destiny, with the purpose of his being unfilled, without experiencing a want, and therefore not without a greater or less degree of suffering.
And a rejoinder:
In this some number Dr. Brownson ironically terms tender-hearted theologians those who think that the loss of the intuitive or beatific vision does not cause children who have died without sin to suffer.Dr. Brownson proves to his own satisfaction that it is absurd to suppose that these children are exempted from suffering; but he has forgotten, if he ever knew, who the tender-hearted theologians are that believe in this absurdity. The reader will be astonished to learn that they are St. Thomas, who says, cancerning these children: Nihil omnino dolebunt de carentia visionis divinae.(supplem qu. 71, art 2); St. Bonaventure(2 a p distinct. Qu 2); Suarez( de peccatis, disp 2, sect 6); and others of at least as much authority in such matters as the editor of Brownson’s Quarterly Review.
If he will take the trouble to study the reasons they give in favor of their opinion which they regard as at least the more probable, he will no doubt follow them, and abandon the doctrine of Gregory of Rhimini, to whom Catholic instict has applied the energetic epithet of tortor puerorum,: ‘the children’s torturer.’
With a reply annexed:
But it seems in the estimation of the Pilot’s theologian we erred in representing unbaptized infants dying in infancy, and of course in invincible ignorance, as suffering from the loss of heaven, and he quotes St. Thomas, St. Bonaventura, Suarez, and others, to prove the contrary. Does he suppose the possession of heaven is a small affair? That they suffer the pain of sense we have never pretended; but it is certain that they do suffer the pain, that is, the penalty of loss. That they do not suffer the pain of sense in consequence of being deprived of the beatific vision, is the common opinion of theologians, and we have not the temerity to contradict them; but, deprived of that vision, they remain and must forever remain infinitely below their destiny, with the end for which they were created unattained and unattainable: and every natural creature necessarily suffers, morally and spiritually, if not sensibly, so long as it remains below its destiny, with the end for which it exists unrealized. Hence Pope St. Gregory the Great recognizes but two states after death; the one, happiness in heaven, and the other, suffering in hell. The holy council of Florence defines that unbaptized infants dying in infancy go to hell, "in infernum." That God may hide from them all sense of their loss, and provide for them a flowery sort of delight in which they will be conscious of no suffering, of no loss even, is a theological opinion; but we understand not how it can be without a miracle of divine mercy. And if we suppose a miracle for so much, we can see no reason why we may not just as well suppose a miracle big enough to admit them to the vision of God in glory. The loss of heaven is the greatest of all possible evils.
Those dying in original sin are said to descend into Hell, but this does not necessarily mean anything more than that they are excluded eternally from the vision of God. In this sense they are damned; they have failed to reach their supernatural destiny, and this viewed objectively is a true penalty. Thus the Council of Florence, however literally interpreted, does not deny the possibility of perfect subjective happiness for those dying in original sin, and this is all that is needed from the dogmatic viewpoint to justify the prevailing Catholic notion of the children's limbo, while form the standpoint of reason, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus pointed out long ago, no harsher view can be reconciled with a worthy concept of God's justice and other attributes.Theirs is the state of perfect and natural happiness, although perhaps not of supernatural happiness of the beatific vision, -- which, however, the good Lord is sovereign enough and merciful enough to grant.