Abortion and the Beatific Vision

"Aborted Children and the Beatific Vision"
An Argument in Favor of the Beatific Vision

In 1984 Pope Benedict XVI expressed his doubts about the existence of Limbo when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he stated: "Limbo has never been a defined truth of faith. Personally, speaking as a theologian and not as head of the Congregation, I would drop something that has always been only a theological hypothesis."

Furthermore, it had been widely speculated that Pope John Paul II wanted to abandon the concept of Limbo, and in fact he called for and directed an International Theological Commission to write a position statement called "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized." John Paul II died before the Commission could complete its work, but its statement was approved for publication by Pope Benedict XVI in 2007 and follows this reflection.

And there are those who argue that the most we can say about unbaptized children is what the Catechism teaches, namely, that we can only "hope" for the salvation of unbaptized children, but they are mistaken. In fact, Pope John Paul II issued an infallible encyclical entitled 'Evangelium Vitae' which goes beyond the word "hope" when speaking about aborted babies. The first version of 'Evangelium Vitae' states that aborted children "are alive in the Lord", and the final, official version tells us that we can have "sure hope" that they are with the Lord. Both versions of 'Evangelium Vitae' remain on the Vatican website.

To state the obvious, this article is not the official teaching of the Catholic Church. It is an argument in favor of the beatific vision for aborted children. And it goes without saying that the author of this article submits to the definitive teaching of the Catholic Church regardless of what it may determine in this matter.

About this article, Monsignor Hilary Franco, an official of the Congregation of the Clergy for 24 years at the Vatican said the following: "My Dear Roger, I have read with great attention your article and I wholeheartedly concur with your defense of the beatific vision of the unborn." Monsignor Hilary Franco

Man brings death into the world.

If abortion is the killing of one's child, and it is, we know the great tragedy of abortion began in Eden when our first parents chose to abort all of humanity, and we know this because God told them to be fruitful and multiply before they chose to sin. They knew they were to have children, and they knew all the consequences for themselves would flow to their children if they chose to sin. Their sin would kill all of humanity in both body and soul, so they were the first abortionists who tried to be the Lord and Master over life and death in their desire to be God. Every abortion that takes place since that event is the echo of what took place in Eden in the hallways of time and place attempting to be Lord and Master over life.

It would behoove us to be mindful of the Lord's words when He said, "Fear not he who can kill the body, and after that no more can they do, but fear him, who after he has killed the body has the power to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you to fear him" (Matthew 10:28, Luke 12:4,5). Advocates for abortion continue to kill not only the body, but they assist the enemy in casting impenitent souls into hell.

Yet, in spite of this, God gives life where man brought about death..

We know the Catholic Church teaches that aborted children are, at a minimum, happy and that they are with God even if they are not in the beatific vision (seeing God face to face). But just as there are fundamentals regarding original sin and redemption in Jesus Christ alone, there are fundamentals about the incarnation and redemption that open paths for the restoration of families in the beatific vision of God which includes unbaptized infants who have been aborted.

One of the reasons we have not focused on the fundamental happiness of children who have been aborted, and their powerful role as advocates, is because it has been asserted that Scripture does not explicitly tell us what happens to unbaptized infants. We shall see if that assertion is correct. Nevertheless, this assertion has resulted in much theological speculation and tension over the centuries about whether or not unbaptized children who are alive in the Lord actually get to see God face to face.

In fact, those things that gave rise to conflicting positions and tensions disappear when we look closer at Scripture and the teaching of the Catholic Church. So then, let us be clear at the outset, the Church has never taught that 'Limbo' is to be held as a dogma of faith. And this means we must understand there are distinctions between what the Church teaches as Dogma as compared to Common Doctrine (Which is not the definitive teaching of the Church), and Theological Opinion.

Before we look closer at Scripture to see if unbaptized children obtain the beatific vision we need to keep several things in mind that serve the purpose of this reflection ...

They are:

1) In Jesus Christ there exists a consubstantial union (to be made one with) between those of faith and those who are aborted. As a result of this union the door to the beatific vision opens for children who are aborted by means of the faithful who desire their baptism before they are aborted.

2) If we, who are not yet in the beatific vision, can pray for each other, then aborted children who are alive in the Lord can pray for their parents, their families, and those who have participated in their abortion calling them to be contrite for what they have done and return to God.

3) Parents who have aborted their children must know that their children want to enter into a prayerful relationship with them to help them in their journey home to God where they can be reunited with them.

4) Although we must never cease to pray for the end of abortion, we must not fail to recognize there is something more that we need to do. This reflection is a call for us to recognize children who have been aborted as our advocates in the Pro-Life cause. They are a vast, powerful group of people numbering in the billions, and they are waiting to be recognized as such and to be called upon to assist us in this battle over life and death of which they have been victims.

The Fundamental happiness of children who have been aborted.

From the English version of Pope John Paul II's encyclical 'Evangelium Vitae' (1995), section 99, which remains on the Vatican Website we read the following:

"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. . . . The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord."

(http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0141/__P10.HTM)

And from 'Acta Apostolicae Sedis' which is the 'newspaper' used to officially publish all decrees of the Vatican, and which is also posted on the Vatican Website, we read:

"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. . . . The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child."

(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html)

There are those who would argue that the official version of 'Evangelium Vitae' found in 'Acta Apostolicae Sedis' changed the original words of the Holy Father to something of less certainty about the state of aborted children, but they are mistaken. There is no difference in theology between the first writing of Pope John Paul II and the official version found in 'Acta Apostolicae Sedis'. The official version does not limit or reduce our "HOPE" that aborted babies have access to the beatific vision to a mere "possibility." In fact, the Holy Father used the words "SURE HOPE" - "To the same Father and his mercy you can with SURE HOPE entrust your child."

So then, we must examine the word "SURE" for what it actually means. It does not mean "not sure", nor does it mean "uncertain" which are antonyms for the word "sure." Nor does the word "sure" mean "maybe", or, "that it is possible" which are expressions that have no certainty. In fact, the word "sure" is an adjective which means to be "firmly established, safe from harm, reliable, steadfast, and trustworthy." And the synonym for the word "sure" is "certain." To be "sure/certain" is applicable to basing a conclusion or a conviction on definite grounds or indubitable evidence such as "the police are certain about the cause of a fire," or, "the pope is certain about the state of aborted children."

No one can dismiss the Holy Father's use of the words "sure hope" as though they are irrelevant. Nor can they be downgraded to mean "mere hope."

We must now consider the word "HOPE." The word "hope" means to cherish a desire with anticipation - i.e., to hope for a promotion. Therefore, one cannot argue that "hope" means to hope against hope: to hope without any basis for expecting fulfillment.

The Holy Father's use of the combined words "sure hope" means that in the Mercy of God we can expect that the children who are slaughtered in the womb will enter into the beatific vision. And we can expect that they will obtain the beatific vision with "sure" and "certain" confidence, and that we will not be disappointed for having done so.

So then, the official version of the Vatican uses the words "sure hope" which is identical to saying "certain hope", and this is identical in theology regarding children who are aborted to that which is stated in the original version of 'Evangelium Vitae' where we read "they are now living in the Lord." And the fact remains that the Vatican Website itself retains both versions of 'Evangelium Vitae' which shows that there is no distinction in theology between the two.

Furthermore, if the Church had ever definitively taught that unbaptized children were in hell it would never have issued its positional statement entitled "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die without Being Baptized." Why? Because there could be no hope that unbaptized children could be saved, they would be in hell, and Pope Benedict XVI would not have given approval to the positional statement. Furthermore, the encyclical 'Evangelium Vitae' promulgated by Pope John Paul II teaches that we can have "sure/certain hope" that aborted children are in the beatific vision meets the conditions of infallibility which are explicitly stated in the encyclical itself. Let us look closer to see when infallibility is present in Papal teachings.

There are those who think that the actual words "ex cathedra," or, "we hereby declare and define," must be used and included by the Holy Father in his definitive teachings when he teaches as Pope, or when the Bishops teach in communion with him. That is not true. In reality, "Ex Cathedra" is merely "a set of conditions" used by the Pope to teach infallibly which is made clear by the use of the words "that is" in Vatican I. We read of Papal infallibility:

"When he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority."

And the Council goes on to tell us the specific conditions and criteria that the Pope must meet to speak infallibly. There are three conditions which must be declared by the Pope, in any order, when he teaches infallibly (Ex Cathedra). They are:

1) When he appeals to his office in any manner.
2) When he is teaching on faith and/or morals.
3) When he makes known what he is teaching is binding on all the faithful.

These three conditions are present in 'Evangelium Vitae':

1) The Holy Father appealed to his office as head of the Church
2) The encyclical teaches on a matter of Faith and Morals
3) It is binding on the entire Church

So then, no matter how one wishes to argue the point, anyone who concludes that unbaptized aborted children suffer in hell, or that they can never have access to the beatific vision, is at odds with 'Evangelium Vitae' which is now the definitive teaching of the Church on this matter.

In light of this, it cannot be argued that children who have died in abortion can be alive in the Lord but not alive in the beatific vision. We know they are not in hell, nor are they in purgatory, and there is no precedent in Sacred Scripture, Tradition, or the definitive teaching of the Church to make the case that one who has died in the Lord can be alive in the Lord in the next life but not in the beatific vision. To have died and to be alive in the Lord is to be in the beatific vision.

Additionally, in the Catholic Catechism #1261 we read: "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."

The Catechism is not saying a funeral Mass for unbaptized children removes original sin and ushers them into purgatory, so there is no reason of necessity to offer the Mass for them. How do we know this? It is personal sin which demands expiation in purgatory, not original sin. The aborted child is not guilty of personal sin, therefore, the aborted child cannot be in purgatory to expiate personal sin. Nor does the Church offer the Mass for unbaptized children if they are in hell for original sin because the Church does not offer the Mass to relieve the damned of their suffering. Given there is only heaven and hell in the end, one must conclude that child is in the beatific vision with an increase of accidental joy when Mass is said for them because it is Baptism that removes Original Sin, not the Mass. Therefore, aborted children must have access to the beatific vision by some means.

In light of these clarifications, and others that will be made, the purpose of this reflection will be to explain and connect the scriptural and theological dots to demonstrate why unbaptized children who die in abortion, or as still-born children, are alive in the Lord, and that they are in fact in the beatific vision of God without compromising any dogma of the Catholic Church.

We have evidence for this in Old Testament Scripture even though the New Testament does not specifically address the state of unbaptized children.

You may ask, "How do we see evidence for this in the Old Testament"?

The answer is found in light of what God required in the Old Testament and what the Catholic Church definitively teaches (not speculation) regarding Circumcision.

Those of faith stand in for a child that the child may be saved.

In salvation history God enjoined upon Abraham the necessity of a sign that actually brought about entrance into a covenant with God. The sign that God gave to Abraham was Circumcision. Not only was it a sign of entrance into this Covenant with God, Circumcision was itself a cause that produced the effects of grace which removed original sin, the obstacle to the beatific vision. This makes Circumcision a Sacramental Sign in the Old Testament because the sign itself was rooted in the hope and merits of what the Messiah would accomplish when He would come into this world. But there is something more fundamental than Circumcision that produced the 'effects of grace' and opened the door to the beatific vision. What was more fundamental than Circumcision? It was the faith and hope that the people of the Old Testament had in the expected Messiah, beginning with Adam which was long before the time that Circumcision or Baptism had been established and required.

Without this faith and hope, Circumcision would be meaningless. And to drive this point home all we have to do is understand that salvation and the beatific vision was not open to males only, it was open to female children as well, and they were not circumcised. To reject this fact would be to condemn everyone in the Old Testament. This means the hope and faith in the expected Messiah that is found in the people of the Old Testament is met by the effects of grace that flowed back to them from the Sacrament of Baptism itself (once established in time by Jesus Christ) which would eventually replace Circumcision as the means of entrance into the covenant with God. You may ask "How does this happen?" The answer is as follows. Just as the reality of redemption is not limited to the place of one square foot of earth upon which stood Jesus Christ on the cross, the effects of Calvary are not limited to a specific time or place. In fact, the reality of Calvary is present to all place, and to all of time, all the way back to Adam once it takes place as an event in time. And in the same way, once Baptism is established in time the effects of grace that flow from it are present in real time, to all of time and place, and meet the hope and faith of every person who had faith in the expected Messiah all the way back to Adam, before the time of Circumcision or Baptism. This is in fact how original sin, the obstacle to the beatific vision, was removed in the Old Testament. And when you combine this reality to the fact that Jesus Christ is a Divine Person, not a human person, we see the door to the beatific vision open for those who will be aborted. It is in the consubstantial union that we all have in the human nature of Jesus Christ, the divine person, that the faithful are able to obtain for those who will be aborted the remittance of original sin through their faith and hope in Jesus Christ in behalf of that child. The consubstantial union we have with Christ in human nature overcomes geographical limitations so that in our desire to stand in for a child in the womb there is no difference between us and a parent, or anyone else, who stood in for a child who would be circumcised. It was the faith, hope, and desire for salvation in the expected Messiah of and by the one who stood in for the child that justified the child. This is the theological basis for the spiritual adoption and Baptism of desire by the faithful in behalf of the unborn. So then, let us take a closer look at the consubstantial union (to be made one with) that we all have and share in Jesus Christ to understand this more fully.

As God and man (the hypostatic union), the human nature of Jesus Christ is one with His omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent divine person. Even though His human nature as a man was locally present to a specific time and place 2,000 years ago, it can be, and literally is, locally present at any time to all of time and place. This is why even now, in glory, the Divine Person of Jesus Christ, in His human nature and in His divine nature, is present to all of time at once. This is the same reality that we find in the Catholic Mass. Jesus Christ is not dying again and again, rather, the Mass itself is the event of Calvary that is present to all of time and place as one event so that we too can be at Calvary.

In fact, in the consubstantial union that exists between the human of nature of Jesus Christ and that of His divine person there exists also a consubstantial union with the human nature of Jesus Christ and that of the human nature of every person ever conceived. So then, His human nature is one with His divine person, and His human nature is also one with the human nature of every person ever conceived. His human nature which is one with His divine person becomes the bridge, or the means, by which we come to share in His divinity, but His human nature is not a bridge to share in His divine person. The distinction of persons between Jesus Christ and us remains in this consubstantial union. We do not become divine persons which is why we do not become numerical additions to the Most Holy Trinity. Furthermore, the distinction of persons which remains between us and Jesus Christ is the reason that original sin in which we are conceived, and the sins of the faithful, do not touch or become one with the divine person of Jesus Christ.

Make no mistake about it. Our human nature in its totality defines us as a human person, but this is not the case with Jesus Christ. His fully human nature which is as real and substantial as ours does not define Him as a Person, nor does it make Him a human person. He did not become a human person. He is a Divine Person from all eternity before He assumed human nature, and He never ceased being a Divine Person in the Incarnation.

So then, when Jesus Christ (the Divine Person) became man, His infinite, omnipresent divine person was not squeezed down to fit the size of the finite human nature which He created and assumed. Rather, He took the human nature which He created and made it one with His Divine Person in which there is no change. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Nevertheless, the consubstantial union between the human nature of Jesus Christ and the human nature of every person ever conceived, including the unborn, is a reality. This is why Jesus can say:

"And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me" (Matthew 25:40).

And we see this consubstantial union that we have with each other in the body of Jesus Christ in 1st Corinthians 12:21-23:

"And the eye cannot say to the hand: I do not need your help, nor can the head say to the feet: I have no need of you. And much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body, are more necessary. And those parts of the body which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor."

A culture of death loses its ability to see a child as a member of the Mystical Body of Christ. It considers a child "less honorable" because it is "feeble" and dependent, and this portends woes for us as a people. We have become blind to the fact that these children who will be slaughtered in the womb have a consubstantial union with us in Jesus Christ. And it is in this consubstantial union that we, the faithful, can bestow upon these helpless children "abundant honor" through our desire that they be baptized. This desire will cause the effects of grace that flow from the Sacrament of Baptism by water (for which there is no substitute) to flow to the child in the womb and remove original sin which is the obstacle to the beatific vision.. Scripture itself speaks of "Baptisms" in the plural.

Hebrews 6:2 tells us:

"Of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment."

So then, we have seen that the effects of Grace found in the power of Baptism by water (the Sacrament for which there is no substitute) flow to a child in the womb by means of someone who stands in for a child who will be deprived of the opportunity to be circumcised or baptized by water due to abortion, or stillbirth. We can now look to Scripture for more explicit evidence to show what happens to unbaptized infants not only in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament as well.

From the time of Adam to the time of Abraham, and from Abraham to the time when Christ would institute Baptism by water, the hope found in those of the Old Testament was not hope in something that was possible regarding the beatific vision, but rather in a sure and certain hope of the beatific vision even if they did not possess the fullness of Revelation that we have in the New Testament. This is in fact why Jesus Christ went to the Limbo of the Just (the Bosom of Abraham). He went to bring those waiting for Him into the beatific vision because original sin in them had been removed even though they never had the opportunity to be baptized. Their hope in Him had removed the sin of Adam, and this applied even to children who did not yet have the use of their faculties of free will and intellect.

It has been stated that Circumcision in fact prepared the way for Baptism and the effects of Baptism for those who could not avail themselves of the ordinary means of Baptism by water. To illustrate this point we begin by citing the great St. Thomas Aquinas on this matter:

"We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in Circumcision as to all the effects of grace ... Circumcision bestowed grace, inasmuch as it was a sign of faith in Christ's future Passion: so that the man who was circumcised, professed to embrace that faith; whether, being an adult, he made profession for himself, or, being a child, someone else made profession for him. Hence, too, the Apostle says (Rom. 4:11), that Abraham "received the sign of Circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith."

It is important to note that St. Thomas Aquinas, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church teach that someone else could make the profession of faith for the uncircumcised in the Old Testament or the unbaptized in the New Testament which justified the person for whom it was done. The effect of Baptismal Grace is the removal of original sin that we inherit from Adam, even in the case of a child that did not yet have the use of its intellect and free will to choose Circumcision for itself.

We have evidence of this in the Old Testament.

In Genesis 17:12-14 we read,

12: "An infant of eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock:"

13: "And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant."

14: "The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he hath broken my covenant."

Clearly, this eight day old male child did not have the use of its free will or its intellect to choose circumcision for itself. Yet, God held the "male child" guilty of breaking His covenant if the child was not circumcised within eight days. And it is important to note that God did not hold the parents of the child, or anyone else who stood in for the child, as guilty of breaking His covenant if circumcision of the child was not done within the allotted time. This presents a dilemma for the child because the child was not aware that it needed circumcision to obtain justification by means of the effects of grace. While some might consider God's demand of that child to be an unjust demand, it is not unjust at all when we properly understand this situation. Rather than being unjust, God's demand highlights the fact that God called someone other than the child who had faith in the expected Messiah to stand in place on behalf of the child, and it was their faith that justified the child for whom they stood in. This is scriptural evidence in the Old Testament that supports the position that those who are aborted do in fact have access to the beatific vision by means of those who stand in for them in the New Testament.

Furthermore, the Church definitively teaches that circumcision removed original sin in the Old Testament.

From Pope Innocent III we read he declared as doctrine, without the need of any council, that circumcision removes original sin. in Denziger 410 and 411 we read:

410 - "Although original sin was remitted by the mystery of circumcision, and the danger of damnation was avoided, nevertheless there was no arriving at the kingdom of heaven, which up to the death of Christ was barred to all."

This makes clear the circumcised not only had original sin, the obstacle to the beatific, removed, but that the circumcised also arrived at the kingdom of heaven which IS the beatific vision, once Christ opened the gates of heaven.

411 - "There are indeed three circumcisions. One is external only in the flesh, which is a sacrament. There are two others which are things and the virtue of a sacrament: the one which takes place in the present when the soul is circumcised by the laying aside of iniquity, the other which will take place in the future when through the laying aside of iniquity, the other which will take place in the future when through the laying aside of the corruption."

This is declaratory teaching by a Pope.

Scholastics agreed with what Innocent III taught as well. St Augustine and St Gregory the Great also teach this. Those Fathers who may have held a contrary view must become subject to the declarative teaching of Innocent III. From Moses to Christ, the various rituals and acts of the Old Covenant in addition to circumcision acted for remission (Passover, sacrifices, etc.). We see the same from St. Augustine:

"The sacraments of the old law caused grace, only by means of faith in the Redeemer, of which they were signs." (St. Augustine, de Nupt. ii. chap. ult.[last chap.])

We also read:

"In this sense, the holy fathers assert, that circumcision remitted original sin to those who could receive it; though some think, it was only a bare sign or distinctive mark of the Jews. It is far beneath our baptism, which is more easy, general and efficacious; as the Christian sacraments are not like those of Moses, weak and needy elements. (Galatians iv. 9; St. Augustine ep. 158, ad Jan.; Psalm 73, &c.) (Worthington)

Let's look now at the "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Ludwig Ott.

1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact it a truth is contained in Revelation, one's certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are "de fide definita."

2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.

3. A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.

4. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).

5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.

6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opinio tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.

With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible.

Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called "silentium obsequiosum," that is "reverent silence," does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.

Regarding what Ott had to say about this dogma of circumcision we read:

"The Old Testament Sacraments wrought, ex opere operato, not grace, but merely an external lawful purity. (Sent. certa.)

"As an objective confession of faith in the coming Redeemer, [circumcision] was for God the occasion of regularly bestowing the grace of sanctification." And he also says, "By awakening the consciousness of sinfulness and faith in the coming Redeemer, with the co-operation of actual grace in the recipient, they created a disposition favorable for the reception of sanctifying grace which God then conferred and thus these Sacraments brought about inner sanctification ex opere operantis."

As for females, I believe their sanctification came through the rites of worship and faith available straight from being cast out of the Garden. Circumcision and the other rites were more definite means of preparing the people for the coming Redeemer. The rites themselves were not effective, but did serve as motives for faith and grace (ex opere operantis).

Hugo of St. Victor and Bonaventure, Ambrose, Gregory, Bede, Aquinas, and Lombard taught the same.

Now let's go to a Council of the Church that teaches on this matter which shows circumcision was adequate to remove sin for the Old Testament but not for the New Testament.

Q. 1. What does the Catholic Church teach regarding circumcision? Should it be practiced?

A. 1. From the document, "Cantate Domino" (A.D. 1442), signed by Pope Eugene IV, from the 11th session of the Council of Florence (A.D. 1439, a continuation of the Council of Basle, A.D. 1431, and the Council of Ferrara, A.D. 1438), we learn the following:

[The Catholic Church] "firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our Lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the Passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practice circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

Some Catholics to support their distortion of the aforementioned proclamation, state that the Catholic Church has condemned circumcision. In truth, the aforementioned proclamation of the Catholic Church was written in condemnation of those who continued to practice the Mosaic Law AFTER promulgation of the Gospel. Note the following parts of the Proclamation:

1. Identifies what is condemned: "the legal prescriptions of the Old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future.."

2. Identifies when it came to an end: "came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning..."

3. Identifies the Jewish tradition: "Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the [Jewish] sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ..." (Not just circumcision alone, but other practices alongside of it.)

4. Condemns the association of the Jewish tradition with the Christian faith: "Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practice circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation."

In summary, no one is saved by the practice of circumcision. No Christian is saved by practicing the Mosaic Law. This truth is supported by passages that are found in the Holy Bible where it says, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that counts is faith working through love." [Gal. 5:6] "Was anyone at the time of h is call already circumcised? let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything." [1 Cor. 7:18-9]

Chapter 15 of the Acts of the Apostles tells us that when certain individuals came down from Judea, they were teaching the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.' [Acts 15:1] On that subject, the Church proclaimed: "Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles [regarding the necessity of circumcision] who are turning to God..." [Acts 15:19]

Let's look closer at the relationship between original sin and female children in the Old Testament? Are we to say that female children did not inherit original sin, or that original sin could not be removed from them because they were not circumcised? Of course they inherit original sin, and of course original sin could be removed from female children because they need redemption as much as male children. How then, was original sin removed from female children in the Old Testament? The answer is found in the relationship that existed between Adam and Eve, before the time of Abraham, before the time of Circumcision.

Consider first that Eve had no mother. This means it is impossible to argue that original sin was transmitted to Eve by the seed of Adam in the womb of Eve's mother because Eve had no mother. If original sin is only Adam's sin, and if its consequences are transmitted only through the seed of the man, it would be impossible for Eve to be guilty of original sin. In fact, it would be impossible for Eve to die, or to become ill, or to have pain in child-bearing because she was not conceived by Adam's seed. So then, if we fail to acknowledge that Eve was guilty of original sin by her choice to sin (without the seed of man being involved) we could only argue that Eve was exempted from original sin. But, in fact, Eve was not exempted from original sin and its effects because her sin is part of original sin even though we refer to original sin as the sin of Adam. Original sin is the sin of both Adam and Eve, and this means the sin which is passed through the seed of the man carries with it the stain of original sin and its respective consequences for male and female.

Therefore, just as the transmission of original sin was in play for both male and female children before the time of Circumcision, the removal of original sin was in play for both male and female children during the time of Circumcision, and even before the time of Circumcision, through the faith of the parent(s) on behalf of both male and female children.

And just as Baptism would do away with the distinction between male and female in the New Testament, the faith of the parents on behalf of their children would remove the sin of Adam from both male and female children in the Old Testament before and during the time of Circumcision.

Why Circumcision for the male only? Circumcision in the male child pointed to the covenant in Christ who would assume the human nature of a male in the Incarnation. And in the Incarnation, in like manner to Eve who had no earthly mother, there would be a child conceived in a woman that had no earthly father. And redemption brought about by this child who would not be conceived by the seed of a man would not be limited to male children who were circumcised, in fact, both male and female would be redeemed.

We see the Incarnation in Genesis 3:15 which tells us:

"I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

Here we see the "seed" of the woman. There is no seed of a man involved in the Incarnation. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ is conceived. He did not yet have flesh, Mary did, and it was her flesh that He would take to be the Son of Man. And this means that if Mary had not been preservatively redeemed, the time that lapsed between the time of the Incarnation itself to the time that He cleansed His own human nature from original sin, no matter how small the increment of time, original sin would have been introduced into the very Divine person of Jesus Christ for that period of time that lapsed while the cleansing took place. This would have been the case by virtue of the consubstantial union between that of the human nature of Jesus Christ with that of His Divine Person in which there is no passage of time from the first instant of the Incarnation. And this means that without preservative redemption in the case of Mary, original sin would have been introduced into the very Heart of the Trinity. And in this we see the necessity of preservative redemption for Mary in whom He would be conceived. Her flesh would not be touched so that His flesh would not need to be cleansed.

Therefore, the preservative redemption found in the Immaculate Conception of Mary is necessary for the consubstantial union that we all have in Jesus Christ so that original sin in which the rest of us are conceived can be removed. It is in the Immaculate Conception of Mary who was preservatively redeemed from original sin that we who are conceived in sin can stand in on behalf of a child conceived in original sin and preserve that child from dying with original sin on its soul before it is put to death in the womb.

We have seen how children in the womb, and for a certain period of time after birth, cannot yet exercise their faculties of intellect and will, and how this relates to the removal of original sin by one who stands in for the child. Clearly, in light of this, there is no difference between a child of the Old Testament and any child in the New Testament. In both cases these children do not yet have the ability to exercise their free will or use their intellect to choose circumcision or Baptism for themselves. And in both the Old and New Testament someone stands in for the faith of the child whereby the child enters into the Covenant of Justification and the sin of Adam, the obstacle to the beatific vision, is removed, one through Circumcision, the other through Baptism.

So then, entrance into the Covenant is required for both the Old and New Testament, the only thing that has changed is the manner by which we enter into the Covenant. Circumcision is no longer required because Baptism now takes its place.

In fact, from the time of Adam until the time that God required circumcision there was no required manner of entrance into the covenant except that of hope in the Messiah who would redeem mankind. A knife did not have to touch the flesh of a child because circumcision was not yet required, and that applied to both male and female children. Nor was there any time frame limiting a child as to when it could receive the benefit of the effects of grace from the faith and desire of the parents in its behalf. The hope and desire in the Messiah expressed by the parents on behalf of their child was already in place during pregnancy which brings the effects of grace into the womb to cleanse the child of original sin if that child were to die before it was born.

Do the Fathers of the Church support this? Yes. In one of the most important statements on the subject, St. Augustine (City of God, XIII.7) has the following to say of the catechumens who were killed by the pagan Romans before receiving Baptism:

"For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of Baptism. For He Who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven"; and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it."

And there is also St. Ambrose. When the Emperor Valentinian II, a catechumen. died before he would receive Baptism by water, during his funeral oration St. Ambrose said of him: "Did he not obtain the grace which he desired? Did he not obtain what he asked for? Certainly he obtained it because he asked for it."

With Saints Augustine and Ambrose we can say in behalf of those who will die in abortion: "Did they not receive that which we desired for them?."

Furthermore, the Church teaches that anyone can baptize in the New Testament, not only the parents, which means that anyone can stand in on behalf of a child and express the faith and desire for the Baptism of a child through the consubstantial union that we have with them in Jesus Christ, even for a child in the womb. And that is because the consubstantial union that we have with the unborn who are conceived in original sin begins at conception. In light of these facts we must now consider the Church itself which is the Sacrament of Salvation containing all of the Sacraments, including Baptism, and its members.

By virtue of being members of this Church we can stand in the place of a parent and desire that the effects of grace which come from the Sacrament of Baptism be applied to a child in the womb because the child in the womb is a person. This will remove original sin which is the obstacle to the beatific vision. In principle, this is no different than a person in the Old Testament who was not the biological parent of the child they brought for Circumcision. They were able to stand in for them at Circumcision, and in the consubstantial union that we have with the unborn in Jesus Christ, even though we are not the biological parent holding them in our hands, we can stand in for them. When the faithful petition God to apply the effects of grace which flow from Baptism to those who will be slaughtered in the womb, they are standing in for that child in the place of a parent who has turned away from their own child.

The aforesaid removes the distinction and the tension that existed over the centuries between Limbus Infantium (children's limbo) and Limbus Patrum (Limbo of the Fathers, the Bosom of Abraham) because the false distinction between the two regarding access to the beatific vision was predicated on the necessity of the child having to be circumcised or baptized in water, or that the child lacked the ability to choose or desire Circumcision or Baptism for itself. Children who died before they could be circumcised were waiting in the Limbo of the Just as eagerly for the beatific vision as those who were circumcised. And Christ brought them all into the beatific vision without exception. And this reality flows into the New Testament so that no one is detained in Limbo because the Gates of Heaven are now open providing access to the beatific vision.

This also offers hope to men who are in great distress over a decision to abort the child because very often they have no say over whether or not their child will live or die. They can stand in for their own child who is still in the womb and desire Baptism for their child.

Let us now consider this reflection in the light of the Council of Trent and St. Thomas Aquinas when speaking of the necessity of the Sacraments.

The Council of Trent teaches that Baptism is "necessary for salvation", but there are those who would have us believe that is the only thing the Council said about Baptism.

We see the objection by those who say that the desire for Baptism is insufficient which St. Thomas addresses in the Summa Theologica. Their objection is as follows:

"The sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Aristotle's Metaphysics V). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism."

St. Thomas Aquinas replies to their objection and states:

"The Sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as there can be no salvation for man unless he at least have it in desire which, with God, counts for the deed." (Summa Theologica 3, 68, 2)

In light of this, when anyone stands in on behalf of a child and desires Baptism for that child, it counts for the deed of Baptism itself. In such a case, the sacrament that is "necessary for salvation" may be received unto salvation "actually or in desire."

We see the same regarding the Sacrament of Penance when someone does not have the opportunity to confess. The effects of the Sacrament are received through the desire to confess.

From the Council of Trent we read:

"Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only a cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or, a contrite and humble heart, but also the sacramental confession of the said sins, at least in desire, [saltem in voto], and to be made in its season, and sacerdotal absolution and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for the eternal punishment,- which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament, but for the temporal punishment, which, as the sacred writings teach, is not always wholly remitted, as is done in baptism." (Denz 807)

And to confirm that one's desire to confess is attached to the Sacrament itself given the opportunity to confess, the Council of Trent teaches:

"The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this Sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the Sacrament which is included therein." (Denz. 898)

So then, in the desire to receive the Sacraments a person receives the "effects of grace" rather than grace itself, and this desire produces the same results as we have seen from the Council of Trent. But the Sacraments themselves are foundational for the "effects of grace" which flow from the Sacraments for those who have not yet received them.

From St. Thomas Aquinas we read:

"Moreover, the sacraments of grace are ordained in order that man may receive the infusion of grace, and before he receives them, either actually or in his desire, he does not receive grace. This is evident in the case of Baptism, and applies to penance likewise." (Summa Theologica, Supplement 6, 1)

We see the same when it comes to the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. From the Council of Trent we read:

"Now as to the use of this holy Sacrament, the Fathers have rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving it. For they have taught that some receive it sacramentally only, to wit sinners; others spiritually only, those to wit who eating in desire [voto] that heavenly bread which is set before them, are, by a lively faith which worketh by charity, made sensible of the fruit and usefulness thereof; whereas the third (class) receive it both sacramentally and spiritually, and these are they who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand, as to approach to this divine table clothed with the wedding garment." (Denz. 881)

From St. Thomas Aquinas we read the same:

"In another way one may eat Christ spiritually, as He is under the sacramental species, inasmuch as a man believes in Christ, while desiring to receive this sacrament; and this is not merely to eat Christ spiritually, but likewise to eat this sacrament." (Summa Theologica 3, 80, 2)

So then, from the Council of Trent we see the same regarding the desire for Baptism:

"And this translation [to the state of justification], since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, at least in the desire thereof [aut eius voto], as it is written; "unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."" (Denz. 796)

The same applies when someone stands in on behalf of a child who will be aborted.

Furthermore, when we think of 'Baptism' we think of the New Testament only. But we have evidence that the Apostles not only understood that 'Baptism' applied to the Old Testament in light of the consubstantial union that they had in Christ (and therefore with us), but the word 'Baptism' was actually used for the Old Testament.

In the 1st Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians Paul speaks about "Baptism in Moses", long before the entrance into the covenant by Baptism of Water. In verses 1 - 5 we read:

1: "For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea"
2: "And all in Moses were BAPTIZED, in the cloud, and in the sea."
3: "And did all eat the same spiritual food."
4: "And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.)"
5: "But with most of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the desert."

These people of the Old Testament received the effects of grace by figuratively receiving Baptism when they passed under the cloud and went forth into the waters of the Red Sea. After passing through the waters they had been saved from the Egyptians. They also partook of eating the manna which was a prophetic precursor for the body and blood of Christ which He gives to us in the Last Supper. They also drank the miraculous water which came forth from the rock, and this is to be seen as a spiritual rock because it was a figure of Christ.

God does not limit the entrance into His covenant according to the ordinary means of circumcision and Baptism by water. The Old and the New Testament come together in Jesus Christ.

There is yet another consideration. The co-mingling of blood in the consubstantial union with Christ.

In the case of abortion there is yet another consideration. We often hear the term 'Baptism of Blood', but it is necessary to state more clearly what this means. The assertion that a baby is baptized in its own blood during an abortion would be an impossibility if we think of this in terms of a 'formula' such as that used in the sacrament of Baptism by water. Jesus Christ never gave such a formula that uses blood instead of water for Baptism. So, whence the term 'Baptism of blood'? When we speak of 'Baptism of blood' we speak of the blood which the child will shed during an abortion because the child's blood will mingle with the Blood of Christ through the consubstantial union that they have with Him when He shed His blood on the cross. Every instant of His life is consubstantially united to every instant of every person's life who has ever been conceived, and this means that the blood of aborted children is mingled with the blood that Christ shed on Calvary. So then, when we speak of 'Baptism in blood' we go more to 'martyrdom' rather than a visual of someone being baptized in blood. We must now consider how martyrdom applies to a child who is aborted.

When we consider the martyrdom of an unbaptized person who died for the faith we generally acknowledge that in such cases the person had the full use of their intellect and free will to make offer their sacrifice as a witness to faith in Christ. In such a case, a person who is martyred for the faith would receive the effects of grace that flow from Baptism of water, even though they have not come into contact with the 'waters of Baptism' (not the blood of Baptism). How then would martyrdom apply to an aborted baby who did not come into contact with the waters of Baptism, nor have the use of its intellect and free will to make such an offering?

The Church refers to the Holy Innocents of the Old Testament as martyrs, but they did not have the use of their intellect or will, nor did they know to offer themselves as martyrs. Why then, would they be counted among the martrys? One may argue that the children of abortion did not die in the place of Christ, but one can also argue that the Holy Innocents were not able use their reason or free will, nor did they know why they were dying in order to meet the conditions of being considered a martyr who knowingly and willingly gave their lives for Christ. Consider the following.

A person can be sought out by an unjust aggressor. In the process, the unjust aggressor murders innocent people who had nothing to do with the person who was being sought out, much like King Herod did when he sought out the Christ child. These innocent children died not knowing the 'why' of their death, or who they died for, so they would not be counted as someone who willingly died in place of the Christ. Some have suggested that in the case of the Holy Innocents, God, by a particular grace, raised their intellect in the moment of their death so they could offer their lives for Christ, but that we cannot know for certain. We don't have to consider that possibility in order to establish a basis for their martyrdom and that of children who are aborted.

We must now compare the consequence of sin to the opposition to grace. A child is innocent of personal sin which means there is no repentance necessary for a child that is aborted. It is here that we must consider two facts.

Fact one: The natural will of a child conceived in sin will not tend towards supernatural life and the beatific vision of God without grace, and a child conceived in original sin and has not been baptized is without grace.

Fact two: A child did not commit personal sin, why then should the child be deprived of the beatific vision when it is innocent of going against God? Even though no one has a 'right to the beatific vision of God', and even though the natural will of a child does not tend towards supernatural life because of original sin, we know that God wills all to be saved and that all who do not oppose his will and are repentant will obtain the beatific vision. But that implies a "knowing of his will" which is impossible in the case of a child in the womb who does not have the use of its free will or intellect.

So then, we have to acknowledge that the resolution to the tension that exists between these two facts is found in the merits which Christ obtained for us when He shed His blood on the cross which not only mingles with the blood of the child who dies in the womb, but the merits found in the shedding of His blood are applied to the child in the womb by means of those who stand in for the child and offer their death to the Lord as did the parents of the Holy Innocents.

Keep in mind that a child in the womb is innocent of personal sin, rejected and outcast in a culture of death. In this way the child is like Christ who died innocent and rejected among men as an outcast in the culture of death on a cross. The womb now becomes a mystical Golgatha where innocence mingles in the consubstantial union that these children have with Jesus Christ. We must now consider what it was that brought about this culture of death in order to see more clearly the martyrdom of children in the womb.

Abortion is not just about man killing man that constitutes the murder that it is. Satan was a murderer from the beginning. This began as a battle against the 'Seed of the Woman', Mary, and the seed of Satan which began in Genesis. Satan, and those evil spirits who followed him wish to kill those made in the image of God. In his attempt to kill those made in the Image of God, Satan is in violation of God's commandment that thou shalt not kill. Those who give themselves over to abortion have done the bidding of Satan in a war against the seed of the Woman, Mary, and against God by murdering those made in His Image.

Children who are aborted have been attacked by Satan because they are made in the image of God just as much as Satan used Herod to attack Christ in the Holy Innocents which he felt threatened his kingdom. Christ had consubstantial union with the Holy Innocents in their death and so too with aborted children. And a person who is killed directly by a demon or through his agents because they are made in the Image of God and the object of redemption is a martyr in the consubstantial union that they share with Christ in His death. To despise a person because of their faith in Christ, or to kill someone just because they are made in the Image of God, cannot be separated from the attack of Satan and his minions which began in Eden when he convinced our first parents to abort all of humanity. Satan targeted every single one of us when he waged war against the Seed of The Woman. We who were aborted by our first parents but redeemed by Christ are like those who continue to be aborted. They are the targets, as were we, in a culture of spiritual and physical death which began in Eden. So then, we can say that a child who dies in abortion dies a martyr at the hands of a culture of death, and their death stands as a judgment on the conscience of those who murder them. Their death stands as a witness to those who violate the commandment of God that says we are not to kill. Nevertheless, for those who repent of such a crime, the Mercy of God is there for them just as much as it is for anyone else. We are all 'prodigal children'.

In virtue of the personal innocence of Jesus Christ which He shares with the personal innocence of those in the womb who will be aborted, we who share a consubstantial union with them in the mystical body of Christ, by desiring that these innocent children receive the effects of grace which come from Baptism, we conquer Satan's attempt to frustrate the will of God which is to deprive each soul of the beatific vision.

In the case of the Holy Innocents, their parents would have raised them up in life to seek the expected Messiah, but their temporal desire, not faith, was thwarted by Herod's sword. Their desire for their children is what saved them and stood in for them as they offered up the deaths of their children as martyrs even though they did not know in advance why their child would die. The children of abortion die with Christ through the faith of those who stand in for them, like the parents of the Holy Innocents, and we, the faithful, offer them up to the Lord as martyrs, just like the parents of the Holy Innocents. If the Lord accepts the faith and desire of those who stand in for a child regarding the effects of grace in the matter of Circumcision and Baptism, and He does, why would He not accept the offering of those who intercede for the unborn to offer up their slaughter as martyrs, as ones who died at the instigation of Satan who sought to kill them because they are made in the Image of God?

The Church, as the Sacrament of Salvation itself, is united to children who die in abortion as a parent who stands in for them and offers their slaughter in advance of their death to be a martyr for the Lord Himself. It is this adoption by the Church, this offering of the child to the Lord in this terrible time of need, that the Church holds them close to her heart as the most innocent and helpless of martyrs like we see in Jeremiah (31: 15):

"A cry was heard in Ramah, sobbing and loud lamentation: Rachel bewailing her children; no comfort for her, since they are no more."

The Lord Himself said that He will not leave us orphans. Why should we not expect Him to gather these innocents in such a way as to give them glories in the beatific vision that are beyond what eye has seen or ear has heard!

The world is sprinkled with the blood of little crosses which is soaking this earth and which calls out to heaven for vengeance. Nevertheless, where man turns the womb into a tomb, the Church turns the tomb into a place of resurrection.

We must now, in our day, turn the expression "they are no more" into a cry from the roof tops in behalf of these children that says "I am not lost, I am still here, I am in the Beatific Vision." They are still with us in the Lord, and the parents who aborted their child can call out in the same words of their child and say "I am not lost, I am sorry for what I have done", and they will then find themselves joined in purpose with their child.

God wills that all men be saved in spite of the fact that the evil one seeks the destruction of children made in the image of God, but the Church sees those who take the lives of children in the womb in the same way it sees those who took the lives of the Holy Innocents. It is barbarism which acts out of selfishness and fear and overt pressures in a culture of death.

The mercy of God is available to all people without exception so there is absolutely no need to fear God or for parents to fear approaching the children they aborted to pray with them. These children long for a prayerful union with their parents and family.

One can never do evil in the moral order that good comes out of it.

To the wretched of heart and mind who would think that they do their baby a favor by having an abortion so that the child may go to the beatific vision, they do an unspeakable evil that calls to heaven for God's wrath upon them. To the wretched who are presumptuous enough to think that they can go ahead and abort their child and that God will forgive them later, their false and presumptuous contrition does not meet the standard of true contrition. Their evil deed will never undue what is murder. The Lord could require the very life of such a presumptuous mother during the abortion procedure in which she kills her own child.

Furthermore, in Revelations 6: 9-11, we see the martyred saints in heaven cry out in a loud voice to God to avenge their blood on the presumptuous and impenitent who dwell upon the earth. The aborted children who are now in heaven will call upon God to avenge their blood on the wicked who do not repent of the holocaust of abortion. The death of these children is the greatest of all holocausts and it is a cry that is screaming to heaven for God's vengeance. When the world must face the Justice of God for this great evil no army will be able to stand against these children who will march against this world with the vengeance of God as their armour and strength.

And there are the Pharisees who think that women would be encouraged to have an abortion if they know that their child will enter into the beatific vision. To follow their line of reasoning they may as well argue that the Church should do away with the Sacrament of Confession because knowing that we can turn to the Sacrament of Confession when we sin, the Sacrament itself entices us to commit mortal sin, therefore let us sin to the full.

For those who will not avail themselves of God's mercy and who continue to push the child they aborted out of their life, they must not forget that Christ said:

"Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." (Matthew 25:40)

Who is more innocent and deserving of these words in the Kingdom of God than an unborn child in the womb!

And for those who would never consider having an abortion we can thank God, but they must not be tempted to consider this reflection as an excuse to put off baptizing their child after birth. The obligation of the parent is to work within the framework of the ordinary manner of Baptism by water as required by Jesus Christ Himself, and as He teaches through His church. Adults cannot put off baptizing their child thinking that God will remit original sin at a later time. In fact, parents who put off Baptism of their child after birth without a valid reason risk much because they fail in their obligation to live out the precepts of the Church and could endanger their own souls. This is one of the reasons why the Church has always recommended that the parents have their child baptized as soon as possible after birth.

In conclusion, we recognize and honor groups of people such as those who died in the holocaust. We speak of Angels in categorical terms according to groups or as choirs of Angels, we acknowledge a category of people who are saved but are yet in purgatory, and we must yet acknowledge another category of people without hesitation. When we think of the victims of abortion as a category of innocent people, how much more will mercy flow from their intercession as a group of people if we recognize them as advocates in our lives. In all of this we see yet again the mercy of God giving life where man brought about death. It is better that this world meets the Mercy of God before it meets His Justice.

In the hope that parents who have aborted their children will embrace the Mercy of God and enter into a prayerful and loving relationship with their child who is with God acting as advocates in their behalf, we implore their intercession towards this end. And we implore the advocacy and intercession of these countless children who have been aborted for the sake of their family members and all those who have participated in abortion in any manner, that they too unite with these children in prayer that they may find peace in the Mercy of God and become workers for the cause of life. May God grant this through their intercession. Beseeching the intercession of these holy souls for the salvation of all souls, surely their voices will be heard by those who honor these innocent ones who dwell in the beatific vision of God.

In the Lord in the company of those with Him in Heaven,
Roger LeBlanc C

Copyright © 2009 Roger LeBlanc All Rights Reserved Permission to use the above reflection "Aborted Children and the Beatific Vision" in any manner in whole or in part must be granted in writing by Roger LeBlanc.

Supporting Scriptural Evidence for the consubstantial union that Jesus Christ has with every person through the incarnation. This union opens the door for subsidiary intercession among the communion of the faithful at any time in history. This intercession is applicable in behalf of those who will be aborted and for stillborn children. This is by no means an exhaustive examination and explanation of supportive Scripture:

* Genesis 20:17 - God hears Abraham's intercession and heals Abimelech along with his wife and slaves.

* Genesis 27:2 - If we bless each other our blessing will return to us.

* Exodus 32:11-14, 30-34; 34:9 - God will hear our intercessions for each other.

* Numbers 24:9 - We are to bless each other which blessing returns to us.

* Numbers 14:17-20; 21:7-9 - We see many times where God responds to the intercession of Moses.

* 1st Samuel. 12:23 - Samuel tells us that he would be sinning against God if he didn't continue to intercede for the people of Israel.

* 2nd Chronicles 30:27 - We see that the prayers of the Priests and Levites came before God's holy dwelling place in heaven and were answered.

* Tobit 12:12,15 - We see that the angels place Tobit and Sarah's prayers before the Holy One. In this we see that angels are co-intercessors as well.

* 2nd Machabees 15:12-16 – We see the High Priest Onias with the prophet Jeremiah, deceased for centuries, and yet interact with the living to pray for the holy people on earth.

* Job 42:7-9 - We see that Job interceded and prayed for three of his friends who were in sin and God listened to Job as a result of his prayers.

* Psalms 35:1; 59:1-17; 139:19, in ; 15:15; 18:19; - We can pray for each other. * Psalm 141:2 - David himself asked God that his prayer be heard by him and that it be counted as incense that rose up to God.

* Proverbs 15:8, 29 - We see the prayers of the just effect on others. This is why we seek the prayers of both the saints in heaven and those on earth who petition the Lord for others.

* Isaiah 6:6-7 - an angel touches Isaiah's lips and declares that his sin is forgiven. The angel is a subordinate mediator of God who effects the forgiveness of sins on God's behalf.

* Jeremiah 7:16 - We see that if the people had not been so hard of heart God would have acknowledged their ability to intercede.

* Jeremiah 11:20 - The saints in heaven pray for those on earth.

* Jeremiah 15:1 – We see that God acknowledges the intercessory prayer and power of Moses and Samuel.

* Jeremiah 37:3 - We see that King Zedekiah sends out messengers to ask Jeremiah to intercede for the people by praying for them.

* Jeremiah 42:1-6 - The people of Israel beseech Jeremiah to intercede for them by praying to the Lord for them.

* Baruch 3:4 - We see that Baruch asks the Lord to hear the prayers of the dead of Israel. They too can intercede on behalf of the people of God.

* Daniel 9:20-23 - We see that Daniel intercedes on behalf of the people of Israel and that he confesses his own sin and the sins of the people to God.

* Zechariah 1:12-13 - The Lord listens to the intercession of Creatures.

* Matthew 5:44-45 - We are to pray for each other as commanded by Christ. This is co-intercession for others that Christ requires of us. And since He requires this prayer it cannot be considered an attack on His role as the sole mediator and intercessor between God the Father and man.

* Matthew 17:3; Mark 9:4 and Luke 9:30 - Those who have died are not cut off from the faithful.

* Matthew 22:32; Mark 12:27 and Luke 20:38 - God is the God of the living not the dead. Those alive in heaven and on earth are one family.

* Matthew 17:1-3; Mark 9:4 and Luke 9:30-31 – This is evidence we are not cut off from the deceased. Their desire as the Church Triumphant is not cut off from the Church Militant or the Church Suffering.

* Matthew 26:53 – The Lord could have called upon Legions of Angels in His defense. In Matthew 22:30 Jesus said that we will be "like angels in heaven." This means those in heaven, saints and angels, assist those of us on earth.

* Matthew 27:47,49 and Mark 15:35-36 – Those of the Old Testament were aware that they could call upon others for intercession. The Rabbis thought they heard Jesus call upon Elijah for his intercession, and waited to see if Elijah would come to save Jesus on the cross.

* Matthew 27:52-53 - When Christ rose from the dead there were those who had died that resurrected after Him and appeared to the faithful. They even went into the city, and we can presume that in like manner with Christ they interacted with the faithful.

* Mark 16:20 - We see again the Lord "worked with them" ("sunergountos").

* Mark 11:24 - The Lord Himself says that we are to be intercessors for each other when He tells us that whatever we ask in prayer, we will receive it. The faithful can stand in for the unborn who will be aborted and offer to stand for them in place of their parents who turn from their children.

* John 15:1-6 - Jesus is the vine and we are the branches which remain united to those in heaven.

* Romans 8:28 - Again, God "works for good with." The Greek is "sunergei eis agathon" which is for those who love Him. We are subordinate mediators who go to Christ in behalf of others. He joins our prayers and petitions to Himself through His own transcendent power.

* Romans 8:35-39 - The union we have with each other is not cut off in death.

* Romans 12:5 - We are members of the one body of Christ through the Holy Eucharist.

* Romans 15:30 - The Apostle Paul petitions the family of God to pray for him.

* 1st Corinthians 3:9 - We are called by God to be fellow workers in the body of Christ. The phrase used to describe "fellow workers" is "sunergoi," which means synergists. This means we are those who cooperate with God in the salvation of others. Surely God does not "need" fellow workers, but He wants us to share in this work which is an act of charity.

* 1st Corinthians 12:12,27 - We are members of the one body of Christ through the Holy Eucharist.

* 1 Corinthians 12:26 - When one member suffers, all suffer, and that includes the unborn in the womb who are slaughtered in abortion. Just as when "one" is honored, all rejoice, any "one" from among the "all" can stand in for a child who will be aborted. Just as "all" suffer when "one" suffers, "one" can offer for another member who cannot offer for themselves.

* 2nd Corinthians 1:11 - The more the family of God prays as a family the more effective will the prayer be.

* 2nd Corinthians 6:1 - Again, we see "working together", which in Greek is "sunergountes", with him.

* Galatians 6:2,10 - St. Paul tells us that we are to bear one another's burdens and to do good to others without exception.

* Ephesians 1:22-23 - We are one body in Christ.

* Ephesians 3:14-15 - Those in heaven and on earth are united as children of the Father through Jesus Christ.

* Ephesians 5:23-30 - We are one body in Christ.

* Ephesians 6:18 - St. Paul commands the faithful to pray for each other as one in the Family of God.

* Ephesians 6:19 - St. Paul asks the Ephesians to pray for him. This is evidence we are to be co-mediators with Christ in our prayers for others.

* Philippians 1:19 - St. Paul readily acknowledges the fruit and power of the intercession of the Philippians. He is delivered by their prayers and the Holy Spirit.

* Colossians 1:3 - St. Paul tells us that he and the elders are praying for the Colossians. This would be impossible if St. Paul did not consider himself to be a co-mediator in the body of Christ.

* Colossians 1:9 - St. Paul tells us that both he and the elders have not ceased to pray for the Colossians, and that through this intercession that they gain wisdom. * Colossians 1:18 - Christ is the head of the body.

* Colossians 1:24 - We make up for what is lacking in the passion of Christ as subsidiary intercessors.

* Colossians 3:15 - We are members of the one body of Christ through the Holy Eucharist.

* Colossians 4:4 - St. Paul tells the Colossians to pray for the elders of the Church in their work that God may open doors for the Word of God to be heard. If God did not expect us to be subordinate mediators with Christ St. Paul would not have called us to this. He would have left all of this up to God and never said a word about co-mediation.

* 1st Thessalonians 5:11 - St. Paul tells us to encourage one another and build one another up in the body of Christ.

* 2nd Thessalonians 1:11 - St. Paul tells the family of God that he prays for them once again.

* 2nd Thessalonians 3:1 - St. Paul asks the Thessalonians to pray for the deliverance of Him, Silvanus and Timothy.

* 1st Timothy 2:1-3 - "I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men..." - Children in the womb are persons who are counted among all men and we can stand in for as them as intercessors that they receive the effects of grace by means of the desire of the one who stands in for them.

* 1st Timothy 2:3 - Our intercession for each other in Christ is good and pleasing to God.

* 1st Timothy 2:5 - In the one mediator between God and man, in Christ we become co-mediators with Him to the Father in His mediation.

* 1st Timothy 2:5-6 - As intercessors for each other in Christ, He is glorified.

* 2nd Timothy 1:3 – St. Paul tells the faithful "I remember you constantly in my prayers." This is co-mediation and co-intercession.

* Hebrews 1:14 – the author writes, "Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?"

* James 5:16 - We see the prayers of the saints, sometimes referred to as the righteous, which includes those who are in heaven, produce results and have powerful effects on others. This is why we seek the prayers of both the saints in heaven and those on earth who petition the Lord for others.

* 1st Peter 2:9 and Revelations 20:6 - We are members of the Royal Family of priests by virtue of Baptism. And as members of the Royal Priesthood we can intercede in behalf of each other.
* 1st Peter 2:5 - The Royal Priesthood consists of its members which are to offer spiritual sacrifices to God. In this we participate in Christ's work of redemption.

* 2nd Peter 1:4 - The Most Holy Trinity is the eternal family. As adopted children of God we are partakers of His divine nature as a united family through the consubstantial union that we have with each other in Jesus Christ.

* 1st John 5:14-15 - St. John tells us that God will grant us anything we ask of God according to His will.
* 1st John 5:16-17 - St. John tells us that our prayers for others will bring life to others and to help them in resisting sin.

* 3rd John 2 - St. John intercedes by praying for the health of Gaius. The life of the soul is more than that of the body. How much more beneficial that the original sin of Adam be removed in those who will die in abortion.

* Revelations 1:6, 5:10 - In Christ we are a Kingdom of Priests interceding through Christ on behalf of God's people which include the unborn in the womb for whom we stand in for in their behalf that the effects of grace be applied to them.

* Revelations 6:9-11 – We see the martyred saints in heaven cry out in a loud voice to God to avenge their blood "on those who dwell upon the earth" who are impenitent in their wickedness. For those who do not repent of the holocaust of abortion of which they are part these children will call upon God to avenge their wickedness. These imprecatory prayers are a petition for God's judgment upon the wicked.

* Revelations 8:3-4 – In heaven we see the angel mingle incense with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne of God. The smoke of incense rises with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God. These prayers "rise up" before God and effect what takes place on earth. The children of God who are in heaven and on earth are heard by God.

 Copyright © 2009 Roger LeBlanc All Rights Reserved
Permission to use the above reflection "Aborted Children and the Beatific Vision" and supporting Scriptural explanations in any manner in whole or in part must be granted in writing by Roger LeBlanc.If you would like to email Mr. LeBlanc click HERE.