On Conscience    

        I have a vague memory of a MASH episode that included an argument between Hawkeye and Frank over a soldier claiming conscientious objector status.  Frank, the hawk of the group, cried out in frustration, “What would you have if everyone tried that?”  Hawkeye replied:  “Peace?”

            Decisions made in conscience can be very inconvenient things, both for the person making the decision, and for those whom it impacts.  A person taking a stand based on fundamental concepts of right and wrong (often based on religious faith) risks consequences from any whom the decision might inconvenience.

            In addition, conscience itself can be a very slippery concept.  Understood as much more than an individual whim or idiosyncratic preference, it is understood by some as being rooted in one’s most intimate contact with God.  The Catholic Church teaches that it is according to one’s adherence to a properly formed conscience that one will ultimately be judged.

            At the same time, it is from that decision in conscience that our nation often finds genuine moral guidance.  It was conscience that directed the abolitionists to run the underground railroad, and more recently it was conscience that inspired Rosa Parks to refuse to give up her seat on the bus.  Other examples are legion.

            Today, we are seeing a disturbing trend in some circles to attempt to trample upon conscience particularly in the health care field.  Physicians are pressured to perform (or at least learn how to perform) abortions against their morals.  Pharmacists are pressured to dispense substances known to be abortifacient, contrary to their religious beliefs.  Hospitals and other institutions run by religious groups are required by law to provide services which contradict their creeds and morals.  Paradoxically, some groups applying this pressure to violate conscience are precisely those whose rhetoric usually champions “choice”!

            These attacks on conscience and individual moral belief must be resisted, for they constitute an attack on our nation’s commitment to religious freedom.  Religion by its very nature demands a life lived in the public square that is consistent with one’s values and faith.  Whether it be found in legislation or in employment policies or in pundit commentary, any attack on conscience is an attack on our national character.

On the Hope of Salvation

A number of years ago, I arrived at the conclusion that while every death is sad, some deaths are particularly tragic.  This was my way of expressing the reality that while we do somehow make sense of some deaths (coming at the end of a good, long life, or as a release from a difficult illness), others seem totally senseless to us.  As such, these kinds of more "tragic" losses can challenge our faith in the very goodness and providence of God.

Few deaths strike us as more tragic than the death of a child.  There remains a sense of being cheated and betrayed ourselves, even as the child is not accorded the opportunity for the long and happy life we anticipated.  And this is true even if the child dies prior to even being born.

In this light, it was a marvelous example of pastoral care when the late Pope John Paul II entrusted to the International Theological Commission the task of re-examining the question of what happens to infants who die before they can be baptized.  That commission concluded its work this past January, and the document they produced has been published this April, with the title, "The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized".  And as usual, some of the media has misunderstood the import and purpose of the document.

Grasping the meaning of this advisory opinion given to the Holy Father requires a look at a bit of history, especially as it involves the concept of limbo.  From the time of St. Augustine, the church has struggled to reconcile two seemingly contradictory positions drawn from the scriptures.  As the commission document put it, "In short, the problem both for theology and for pastoral care is how to safeguard and reconcile two sets of biblical affirmations: those concerning God's universal salvific will (cf. 1 Tm 2:4) and those regarding the necessity of baptism as the way of being freed from sin and conformed to Christ (cf. Mk 16:16; Mt 28:18-19)."

The idea of "limbo", a destination of natural happiness for infants who die before baptism, was one attempt among others to deal with these two beliefs in a way that safeguarded both the necessity of baptism for salvation as well as the desire of God to save all mankind.  And even though this concept was in the Baltimore Catechism which many of us remember, limbo was never actually Church doctrine; rather, it was one theological opinion that was generally accepted at the time.  It's virtue was that it managed to affirm the importance of baptism for achieving eternal happiness  with God (the beatific vision), while avoiding the rather disagreeable idea of these innocents being consigned to the fires of hell.  At the same time, it left many wondering why these innocents, truly beloved of God, could be denied entry into heaven through no fault of their own.

The fact that the Church arrives at one particular solution to a theological and pastoral problem does not mean that other, better explanations might not be arrived at in the future.  Remember that we are dealing with the mystery of God, and how our God works in the world, offering us the gift of salvation through Christ Jesus.  Even as we affirm as definitively true some teachings on this reality, we remain at a loss, always, to completely and exhaustively explain God!

One thing many recent articles on the document managed to overlook was that this document gives a theological foundation to a development that had long been in the works.  Again, we quote from the document in question:

There has even been an important liturgical development through the introduction of funerals for infants who died without baptism. We do not pray for those who are damned. The Roman Missal of 1970 introduced a funeral Mass for unbaptized infants whose parents intended to present them for baptism. The church entrusts to God's mercy those infants who die unbaptized.

In its 1980 instruction on children's baptism the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed that "with regard to children who die without having received baptism, the church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as indeed she does in the funeral rite established for them."(4)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) adds that "the great mercy of God, who desires that all men should be saved [1Tm 2:4], and Jesus' tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them' (Mk 10:14), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism."(5)

It is clear from this that the conclusion of the document, that there is a well-founded hope that infants who die before baptism are welcomed into the bliss of heaven and do enjoy the beatific vision, has been developing for some time.  In areas of teaching that lie outside of defined doctrine, this is precisely how the teaching of the Church develops.

Probably the most significant misperception of this development is that it constitutes some radical and unforeseen break with traditional teaching.  Unnoticed went the absence of the term limbo in the new Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as the fact that the Church has been praying for entry into heaven for unbaptized infants since 1970.

What then is that teaching today?  Quite simply, it remains necessary to provide baptism for infants whenever possible, as soon as practically possible, and always in danger of death.  Baptism remains the ordinary way in which we come to share in the life of grace in Christ Jesus.  At the same time, we do not assume that God is unable to offer salvation and life in heaven with him even to those whom we are unable to baptize. Rather, we commend these infants to God's mercy, trusting in his desire to save all in Christ.

For years now, I have ministered to parents who were not able to baptize their children before they died (due to ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, etc).  Time again, I have seen in them (and supported them in) a firm belief that their child was resting in the loving hands of the God who gave their child life.  This recent document simply affirms that their hope is well-founded, rooted in the love of our God who saves us in Christ Jesus.