Replies

There is a serious theological point OP is making. Answer his objections.

I have.

Since the Church has made no definitive statement about the fate of unbaptized infants, there is no "doctrinal error" in anything any theologian or non-theologian speculates about this subject.

As far as my own opinion is concerned, I find it ludicrous to assert that the souls of unbaptized infants, through no fault of their own, are in the pits of hell.

God is not bound by the sacrament of baptism in offering heaven to those who cannot receive that baptism. He is all-loving, and desirous that all men be saved, and He offers His salvation to even the souls of the unbaptized infant in the womb, though I don't know how.

I don't imagine that anyone who believes that God, from all eternity, predestines certain souls to perdition will buy my explanation, however.

In this case, YOPIOT does apply, since there is no dogma.

Since the Church has made no definitive statement about the fate of unbaptized infants, there is no "doctrinal error" in anything any theologian or non-theologian speculates about this subject.

You have just defined "Nihil Obstat" down to the level of Oprah's Book of the Month Club.

I am certain, when a Vicar-general issues a "Nihil Obstat", that is precisely what he means: "Nihil Obstat: Pure Speculation! You pays your money, and you takes your chances!"

"We Must Conclude That Unbaptized Infants Do Not Enjoy The Beatific Vision In Heaven"

Nihil Obstat

"totally free from error"

Except I don't really mean that this Teaching is "totally free from error; what I really mean is, it's "Pure Speculation!!"

It's sorta like John Kerry -- when it seemed like he was declaring of Iraq "It should be clear to the United Nations that this is not something that can be dragged out," what he actually meant was that the Case against Iraq was.... Pure Speculation!

That's what he meant! Really!!
And that's what Nihil Obstat means! Really!!

Learn to think like John Kerry, and you can be a Roman Catholic too!!

Oops. Erk.

Come to think of it, that's actually true.

***"We MUST Conclude that Unbaptized Infants DO NOT ENJOY the Beatific Vision in Heaven."***

Not we MIGHT conclude, we MUST conclude. I would have no problem if this were labeled as speculation. But a Nihil Obstat when a theologian says I must conclude something that the RCC church has left open IS a problem.

The author is presuming the position to determine what MUST be concluded. He should have been told to reword it before getting the God Housekeeping seal.

***I don't imagine that anyone who believes that God, from all eternity, predestines certain souls to perdition will buy my explanation, however. ***

Cheap shot, I embraced Calvinism after for many months listening to people with whom I disagreed. I became convinced their statements were congruent with Scripture.

We Proddys CAN and are ENCOURAGED listen to reasoned exposition and compare it to Scripture.