It is Catholic doctrine that God wills the salvation of
every human being. This has been bindingly declared in the condemnations of
Calvinism (Trent) and Jansenism (Prop. v Jansenii damn.). Therefore, the
salvation of each human being must be a possibility.
Therefore, when Ann Barnhardt speculates in her essay "The one about… DO ABORTED BABIES GO TO HEAVEN?" that miscarried babies absolutely
all definitely go to the Limbo of the Innocents--technically a part of Hell,
but one of natural happiness-- and that miscarriage itself is God intervening
in order to effect "the best possible outcome" for them, who would
otherwise end in a worse region of Hell, she is wrong. Per the previously
cited doctrine, "the best possible outcome" for a person cannot be
not being saved.
However, the idea that she is primarily addressing in the
essay: that all unbaptized infants absolutely all definitely go to Heaven, is
indeed an error and a pernicious one. As she points out, the logical
conclusion of the idea of guaranteed salvation for the unborn would make
abortion a good deed.
Several years back, the Vatican held a conference on the idea
of Limbo and concluded with a declaration that "we may have hope" as
regards the final fate of unbaptized infants. This was before the antipapacy of Bergoglio, so while not an
ex cathedra teaching, it should not be simply rejected as a matter of course; it
came from under the auspices of a valid Pope. Hope. That means not
presumption--the idea that they all are guaranteed Heaven; and not despair--the
idea that none of them can possibly be given Heaven.
So yes, Barnhardt is right that infants do not deserve
the Beatific Vision, and that it cannot be taken as certain that they are given
it upon death. However, it must be acknowledged that there must be some possibility
for individual infants to be admitted thereunto. If there were no possible
hope, it would be imperative to develop surgical baptism, nanobaptism even, which
would make for a very cool aspect of a science-fiction story, but it is clear
from the Church's practicum through the centuries that this is not an
imperative.
And Barnhardt's basis for her speculation that miscarriage
is God intervening to prevent a worse outcome than Limbo for these souls: her
interpretation of Christ's statement that it would be better for Judas had he
not been born, yields some logical conclusions that are seriously faulty.
She takes this statement about Judas as evidence that in
other cases, God foresees that a person will damn himself and thus He causes him
not to be born, but that He didn't do this in Judas's case because of the
necessity of Christ's death. But if Judas is some kind of exception to a
rule, God's plan is imperfect.
The truth of the matter is, God's plan is perfect. Yes, He
came to die on the Cross and that was necessary. But it didn't absolutely have
to be via betrayal by Judas. And even after the betrayal, Judas could have
repented and not killed himself. Jesus' statement didn't lock him in. The
statement was contingent on Judas's final impenitence even though it preceded
it in time. Like the Immaculate Conception of Mary was contingent on the Cross
even though it preceded it in time.
If miscarriages are a smiting of the would-be damned, it
would be reasonable to conclude that no one who survives unto birth is
ultimately damned and that every person dies via smiting while in their best
possible spiritual state. This is the logic of "the best outcome"
without possibility of salvation for some. It is, frankly, semi-Calvinistic.
Not to mention, going by this logic desperately makes one question why God couldn't wait to
smite until right after babies are baptized, indeed, why He doesn't do just that in most cases!
Here's the thing. God does not operate so that "the
best outcome" overrides our free will. Our free will is of utmost
importance to God. He does not circumvent our free will to get us saved, nor
does He circumvent the consequences of our actions. Thus the Redemption,
atoning for our actions of sin, He allowed to be brought about by free human
actions including Judas'. And we should imagine that the eternal destiny of
unbaptized infants is, like the eternal destiny of everyone else, determined by
free will in response to grace, though we may not be able to tell how.
Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 has to say on
the matter:
The most difficult problem concerning
this Divine will to save all men, a real crux theologorum lies in the
mysterious attitude of God towards children dying without baptism.
Did God sincerely and earnestly will the salvation also of the little
ones who, without fault of their own, fail to receive the baptism of water or
blood and are thus forever deprived of the beatific vision? Only a few
theologians (e.g. Bellarmine, Vasquez) are bold enough to answer this question
in the negative. Either invincible ignorance, as among the pagans, or the
physical order of nature, as in still-births, precludes the possibility of the
administration of baptism without the least culpability on the part of the
children. The difficulty lies, therefore, in the fact that God, the author
of the natural order, eventually declines to remove the existing obstacles by
means of a miracle. The well-meant opinion of some theologians (Arrubal,
Kilber, Mannens) that the whole and full guilt falls in all instances not
on God, but on men (for example, on the imprudence of the mothers), is
evidently too airy an hypothesis to be entitled to consideration. The
subterfuge of Klee, the writer on dogma, that self-consciousness is awakened
for a short time in dying children, to render baptism of desire possible to
them, is just as unsatisfactory and objectionable as Cardinal Cajetan's
admission, disapproved of by Pius X, that the prayer
of Christian parents, acting like a baptism of desire, saves their
children for heaven. We are thus confronted with an unsolved mystery. Our
ignorance of the manner does not destroy, however, the theological certainty of
the fact. For the above-cited Biblical texts are of such unquestionable
universality that it is impossible to exclude a priori millions of children
from the Divine will to save humankind.
So, Barnhardt's speculation about the solution of this unsolved
mystery has clear problems and cannot be admitted.
As the conclusion of this essay, I offer my own speculation.
It is only speculation, and should it be proven to be likewise contrary to the
logical conclusions of Catholic doctrine, I will readily withdraw it. I cannot
fully explain my reasons, since some it of derives from the religious
experiences of someone I know that I do not have permission to reveal, but here
it is:
I speculate that there is a battle.
For the soul of the child, between angels and fallen angels,
which humans can aid.
The aid that can be given is analogous to spiritual
influence, such that of parents on surviving children. Kierkegaard was a heretic;
no soul is alone. Christ founded a Church and gave us means to aid in each
others' salvation. While, as stated in the quote, the idea that parents can
give proxy consent for Baptism of Desire has been disapproved (though not
anathematized), their intentions do make some kind of difference I am sure.
Other humans, especially the parents, can alternatively aid
the fallen side. Sins do damage even to the innocent; think of all the parents
presently having their children injected with genetic agents made from aborted
babies, one of the reported side-effects of which is lessened function in the
parts of the brain that respond to religious experience. And recently, the
Satanic Temple issued a ritual for women to recite while procuring an abortion.
It is clear the main purpose of it is to ensure the mother's full knowledge and
consent and thus mortal guilt, but I fear it may have some dark spiritual
effect on the baby as well. However, it is always possible for Divine Light to
overcome darkness.
Finally, I note that just as the Church does not order
surgical baptisms, She does not forbid the reception of Holy Communion by
pregnant woman. It is another matter of mystery how minutely the Eucharistic
species can be dissolved while retaining Christ's Substance, but I find it
suggestive that a pregnant woman nourishes her unborn child through sharing
blood.
St. Colette, pray for us.
St. John the Baptist, pray for us.
Our Lady of Good Remedy, pray for us.
Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.