Da außerordentliche Gnadenwege immer möglich sind, weil Gott ja allmächtig ist, so können, dürfen wir aufgrund Seiner Allmacht, Allliebe, Allbarmherzigkeit, Allgerechtigkeit hoffen, ja die Gewissheit haben, dass Er für die Ungeborenen und die ungetauften Kleinkinder das Mögliche auch tut, um ihr ewiges Heil zu sichern.
Einwand: Die Kinder kommen eben nicht in einem “neutralen” Zustand auf diese Welt und sie verlieren eben nicht erst den Himmel, wenn sie sich gegen Gott entscheiden. Nein, sie haben durch die Erbsünde von Anbeginn ihres Seins kein Anrecht auf den Himmel.
In einem gewissen Sinne haben sie sehr wohl ein Anrecht auf den Himmel. Sie sind Geschöpfe Gottes, berufen und befähigt, Kinder Gottes zu sein, und der Heiland hat auch für sie, für ihre Erbschuld, Genugtuung geleistet. Er kann ihnen diesen ererbten Makel auf dem außerordentlichen Gnadenweg tilgen, z.B. durch einen vorübergehenden Aufenthalt im Purgatorium (meinetwegen für sie speziell genannt Limbus puerorum). Hier werden sie sich dann ganz von selbst bewusst für Ihn entscheiden und so die explizite Begierdetaufe empfangen.
DOKUMENTATION
Eine gute Zusammenfassung in Englisch zu dem, was wir hier diskutieren, wäre diese:
Where Do Unbaptized Babies Go When They Die?
The Holy Innocents received the most excellent form of Baptism
Interessant, was der Leser namens Frank Davidson ergänzend dazu ausführt:
Frank Davidson said…
Thank you for an excellent and thoughtful post. However, I would not be too quick to dismiss the idea that the aborted innocents are also martyrs. The Vatican’s own International Theological Commission, in its document The Hope of Salvation for Infants who die without being Baptised…, states (86b) of such children: “In their case, we may readily refer to the example of the Holy Innocents and discern an analogy … to the baptism of blood which brings salvation.”
Considerable theological work has also been done on this subject by Fr Philllipe Jobert, OSB and Fr Francis Frost among others. A vast amount of information is contained in the book “Mercy Reigns” (at 300-plus pages too much to condense into a short post) that is deserving of very careful, serious study (with abundant evidence from scriptural and patristic sources). I can supply details to anyone interested in exploring this issue further.
I personally believe these children are indeed martyrs, baptised in the blood of Christ, and witnesses to the truth of the Commandment “Thou shalt not kill” Remember too that abortion, in the present day, is not just a private matter but sponsored, promoted, proclaimed as a “right” and even imposed by godless governments and international bodies. This is truly an assault on God’s very creation and in this sense also its victims could arguably be said to die “for Christ” (cf also Rev 12:17). This is a vast subject, but an immensely important one, I believe. It needs to be more wiedly discussed – not speculation, but serious theological debate.
Frank Davidson said…
@ Reginaldus
Father,
You are of course entitled to disagree with the theologians of the ITC, and with the other theologians whom I have cited in my previous post. This is a matter in which we are all entitled to hold our private opinions – with none being necessarily more authoritative than another.
This issue is too vast to be discussed in detail here, but there are a couple of points I would like to put to you:
First, you say, “The idea of “martyr” for the Gospel of Life, would make us think that everyone murdered is a martyr … but that simply cannot be right.”
No, not everyone. I would like to suggest the following ways in which the aborted children are different from other victims:
1. They are totally innocent, and in their innocence more perfectly conformed to Christ. Their baptism is a baptism of blood – their own innocent blood, and the innocent blood of Christ. In their innocence they are indeed like the Holy Innocents. (It has even been suggested that all totally innocent victims could be seen as martyrs in the sight of God – take Abel for example. This is not an argument I wish to make here myself, though I do not think it can be too lightly dismissed on theological or philosophical grounds.)
2. They are utterly helpless – even more so than the Holy Innocents. As Pope John Paul II says in Evangelium Vitae (58): ‘No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined… He or she is weak, defenceless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defence consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby’s cries and tears.’
3. Their sacrifice is a total one. They have not even been allowed to breathe one breath of life in this world – unlike other victims, even the Holy Innocents, who at least enjoyed some brief moments of earthly life.
4. In the manner of their death (after conception but before natural birth) they are particularly and uniquely associated with the divine act of creation. Hence, the taking of their lives, no matter what the human motivation, is a direct affront to the Author of life and at the same time a direct denial of the fifth Commandment (and as you know, this Commandment applies particularly to the taking of innocent life).
5. In the particular historical circumstances of today, abortion is no longer merely a private, individual sin but is sponsored, promoted, funded and even imposed by states and international bodies in a deliberate and organised manner. Equally, the scale of it is so vast as to assume almost apocalyptic dimensions – over one billion registered abortions, according to the World Health Organisation, since the late 1960s and continuing at roughly 50 million each year – to say nothing of the millions more unrecorded abortions and the killings through abortifacient drugs and contraceptives. (It is quite possible that the number of children martyred by abortion now exceeds the total number of all Christian saints and martyrs of preceding ages). I believe this amounts to a premeditated assault on the Creator himself by the forces of evil – and that for this reason too the aborted children do actually die “in place of Christ”. Taken together with the preceding point – and with Rev 12:17 which I referred to earlier and which I think is very significant in this context – I believe this makes their situation very closely analogous to that of the first Holy Innocents.
[my apologies for the length. I am inexperienced in this business! I will have to send the rest in another post]
Frank Davidson said… @ Reginaldus, part 2
Secondly, you say in your post to Dolly, “In the case of the Holy Innocents, we do not hesitate to say that they are in heaven, because they are clearly martyrs.” I put it to you that we in fact know they are in heaven only because the Church has declared them to be martyrs. We would not otherwise know this since their martyrdom does not fulfil all the normal criteria of martyrdom. They were unbaptised Jewish, and possibly in some cases even pagan children. But as St Quodvultdeus says (Office of Readings for the feast), “The children die for Christ, though they do not know it.” and the concluding prayer for the Morning Office states: “Lord God, the Holy Innocents bore witness to you not by speaking but by dying”. I suggest that the aborted children likewise “die for Christ, though they do not know it” and that, just like the Holy Innocents, they “bear witness not by speaking but by dying”. Hence, in the same way, the Church can also claim these children for Christ. Indeed there is no other power on earth except the Holy Catholic Church that has the power or the authority to do so. I fervently believe that the time has come for her to do just this, as she has already done for the Holy Innocents of Bethlehem. The evidence is there; it remains for the theologians to study it carefully and honestly. I refer you again to the book mentioned in my earlier post.
One final point: I do not weep for the aborted children, because I firmly believe them to be in heaven, just like the Holy Innocents. I do however weep for the spiritual death of so many involved in this hideous carnage. The reason for claiming the aborted children as martyrs is not for their own sake but for the sake of those who have committed this sin and need conversion, and for the children of the future, that they may be spared this terrible fate. The burning question is this: what is the Church during for the millions of souls in danger of eternal damnation? If she does nothing, she is handing the victory to Satan. There is a greater need for the theologians and the hierarchy to address this issue afresh in the light of present day realities.
God bless you Father, and thank you for your interest.
Frank Davidson said…
Father, you introduce the term “Christian martyr” into our discussion and assert that the aborted children are not “Christian martyrs”. The Holy Innocents were not “Christian martyrs” when they died, but Jewish and possibly also pagan children. They are seen as “Christian martyrs” today only because the Church has subsequently claimed them – and significantly, there is (I understand) no evidence of any Christian liturgical memorial for them before the late fifth century, nearly 500 years after their death. Thus their claiming as “Christian martyrs” was by no means as immediate or self-evident as it might appear. The permissive abortion laws have been with us for less than 50 years, so it is not surprising if the idea of martyrdom in their respect sounds somewhat novel. But that does not mean that it is wrong.
I am also a little puzzled by your use of the term “natural martyrs”. A martyr is a witness – so what does a “natural martyr” witness to? John the Baptist was not, in the strict sense, a “Christian martyr”, but a martyr to the truth of the Sixth Commandment. St Bede the Venerable says of him, “His persecutor did not order him to deny Christ but to be silent about the truth. Nevertheless he died for Christ. For as Christ himself said, ‘I am the truth’, in shedding his blood for the truth he therefore certainly did so for Christ.” In the same way, I believe, the aborted children witness to the truth of the Fifth Commandment – and thus to Christ, who is the Truth. That makes them to my mind just as much Christian martyrs as the Holy Innocents. I agree of course that the Holy Innocents died directly in the place of Christ and that the connection in relation to the aborted children is not so immediately apparent, but that does not mean it is absent, or invalidate the analogy.
I do not feel you have fully addressed points 4 and 5 of my previous post. The act of creation is both natural and supernatural, since the children are created body and soul and in the image of Almighty God. Likewise, both the act of creation and the act of redemption involve all three persons of the Trinity, and so the children can be said to witness to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If this is not “Christian”, I don’t know what is.
Secondly abortion, or rather the ideology behind it, is much more than a crime but in fact a monstrous heresy that proclaims “You may kill, if you find it expedient” and “man, not God, is the arbiter of morality”. Ultimately, there can only be one author of this monstrous evil, and that is why I again refer to Rev 12:17, which I think applies especially to the unborn children in our day. Today it is not Herod who is seeking to kill the Child, but Satan who is now “making war” on the image of Christ in “the rest of his children”. That is why these children are dying for Christ.
Allow me to leave you with another beautiful quotation from Dom Guéranger. He is speaking of the Holy Innocents of course, but I believe his comments are also applicable to the victims of abortion – especially in relation to the goodness of Christ and the efficacy of his grace in the children:
“Is there reason to believe that those children were true martyrs? Where is the merit to obtain the crown of martyrdom? To this doubt, I answer: Would the goodness of Christ be defeated by the cruelty of Herod? Could that impious king order those innocents killed, and Christ not crown those who died because of Him? … Certainly those children were Thy martyrs, O God, but neither men nor Angels could see their merit, which was before Thy eyes alone. The favor of Thy grace stood in place of their merit. We who have been baptized by water should be all the more ready to honor those little ones who were baptized in their own blood, and therefore linked to all the mysteries of the Divine Infancy.”
Zitat aus: Chapter 43 – Abortion and The Catholic Church – American Life League:
BAPTISM FOR PREBORN BABIES.
Is Their Baptism Possible?
Many Catholics believe that the greatest tragedy of abortion is not the actual deaths of preborn babies, but their loss of Heaven due to the fact that they were not baptized.
However, it is rather presumptuous to state as fact that all unbaptized people go straight to Hell (or even to some Limbo-like state), because this includes a broad assumption that God is restrained by certain laws as understood by man. God’s power obviously cannot be limited by the desires or opinions of men; His power is infinite, and He can do anything He wants, including welcoming to Heaven unbaptized preborn babies. Some theologians believe that, after their deaths, God gives aborted and miscarried babies full knowledge and does so that they may make their own decision about eternity, just as they would have done on earth.
It is a repugnant concept that God would condemn to Hell a person who, through no fault of his own, has never heard of Christ. Therefore, the Catholic Church teaches that even persons who have never heard of Christ may be worthy of Heaven if they live a benign lifestyle that generally adheres to the precepts of Christianity. Since unborn babies are guilty of no sin other than original sin, they certainly fit this category.[18]
As proof of this, the Catholic Church has formally canonized as Saints a group ofunbaptized persons the Holy Innocents, who died directly because of others who hated Jesus, just as all of the aborted babies are dying for hate of Him today.
The Baptism of Desire.
Catholic pro-life groups, including Catholics United for Life and the Shield of Roses, commonly pray the Rosary for the dying and the dead outside abortuaries. The purpose of these Rosaries, in part, is to request the baptism of desire for the unborn babies being slaughtered there that day. Even if the aborting mothers are atheists and couldn’t care less about their babies’ souls, Catholics believe that it is possible to request baptism for them. This is essentially the same understanding used by mothers who conditionally baptize their miscarried babies.[18]
The Baptism of Blood.
Many religions share the belief that those who die for God are martyrs who gain Heaven. Catholicism is no exception. Many believe that the little preborn babies who die of abortion are sacrificed for convenience (or necessity, in rare cases), and are therefore true martyrs, as were the Holy Innocents, the babies who died at Herod’s hands in place of Jesus.
The Catholic Church canonized the Holy Innocents due because their deaths were toodium fidei, or hatred of the Faith. Father Benedict Groeschel says that it is reasonable to expect that unborn babies may also be killed due to odium fidei (or odium Dei), and therefore assume the status of latter-day Holy Innocents.[19]
On Extreme Unction for Infants.
Many pro-abortionists practically go into a frenzy looking for perceived ‘inconsistencies’ in the teachings of the Catholic Church, and will bellow triumphantly when they ‘find’ it even if their conclusions are mistaken because they have failed to do proper research.
One typical example of mistakenly-perceived ‘inconsistency’ deals with the administration of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction (“The Last Rites”) to infants. As illegal abortionist Ruth Barnett asserted, “However, somewhat contraditory [sic] I would think, it the fact that Catholic priests do not, ordinarily, give a fetus the usual extreme unction or burial services afforded a still-birth. It seems to me that this kind of differentiation, in practice, is in variation with their beliefs. If they do consider the fetus to be alive, why do they deny it the extreme unction given the child born dead? I have never heard this question answered.”[20]
It is quite obvious that Barnett never bothered to ask a competent Catholic priest her question on Extreme Unction, or she would have heard it properly answered. To begin with, Barnett flaunts her ignorance of the Catholic faith by asserting that stillborn babies receive Extreme Unction. This is impossible, since this Sacrament can only be given to living people. Stillborn babies are dead. If there is some question as to whether or not the baby is living, this Sacrament may be administered conditionally.
As for her ‘unanswered’ question, Extreme Unction is not usually given to any children under the age of reason (about seven years). This is because intent is a necessary part of any sin and children under seven are deemed incapable of having the intent necessary commit serious sin. Therefore, priests generally do not administer Extreme Unction to very young children because they have no intentional sins to remit.
