A reader writes:
Dear Mr. Akin,
You recently wrote,
"If it were easier to be saved as a non-Catholic than as a Catholic then God would have perversely commanded people to enter a suboptimal situation; one would then maximize one’s chances of salvation be entering a state that is out of conformity with God’s known will, which is crazy."
This implicates a question I have been concerned about for some time: if a baptized person dies before committing any actual sins, then he is assured of salvation, correct? But this seems to lead to the disturbing and obviously wrong conclusion that, in terms of assuring their salvation, it would be optimal to murder newborn infants immediately after baptizing them.
To state this in terms of your quote above, "one would then maximize one’s child’s chances of salvation by committing an act that is out of conformity with God’s known will." Which is crazy, but also seems to be true! So why isn’t this situation analogous to the one you were talking about?
We know that God wills a number of things:
- He wills our salvation.
- He wills that we have reason.
- He wills that we have free will.
- He wills that we have good in this life as well as the next.
- He wills that we have greater glory in the next life based on the good we have done in this one.
- He wills that the human race continue.
- He wills that his Church spread the gospel to the unevangelized for their salvation.
- He wills that we not be murdered.
When trying to figure out the answer to the "Why not murder newly baptized babies?" question, one must keep the different goals in mind. It is true that God wills our salvation, but that is not the only thing that he wills. If it were his only will for us then the thing to do would be to take the most expeditious route to heaven, in which Christianity would become a kind of suicide cult. But this is not the only thing God wills for us, and Christianity is not a suicide cult.
Notice what would happen if the murder-after-infant-baptism policy were adopted:
- Goal #1 would be facilitated for the babies in question.
- Goal #2 would be thwarted because the children would not be allowed to grow up to exercise the reason that God made integral to their nature.
- Goal #3 would be thwarted because the children would not be allowed to grow up to exercise the freedom that God made integral to their nature.
- Goal #4 would be thwarted because they would have their earthly lives taken away from them.
- Goal #5 would be thwarted because babies would not have the chance to grow up and do good.
- Goal #6 would be thwarted because the human race would die out in one generation if this policy were enacted by everyone (though that would not be the case, because . . . ).
- Goal #7 would be thwarted because the Church would go extinct before it could carry out its mission of evangelization.
- Goal #8 would be thwarted for obvious reasons.
Also, the few remaining adult Christians would end up locked away in prison or put to death themselves, because no successful society can tolerate mass murder and suicide cults in its midst. There are laws against these things for a reason, and that reason points us in the direction of why God doesn’t want us to commit these abominations.
The fact that God has more than one goal that he wishes to achieve with us means that he allows them to exist in tension with each other. He doesn’t just will our salvation. He wills our salvation AND these other things.
The biggest tension among the goals is that between #1 and #3, and that’s where the biggest mystery lies. God could just fix all our wills on good and put us in heaven, but he apparently wants the saved to freely choose their fate rather than having it thrust upon them.
That’s true of us adults, and it’s true of infants.
This is accomplished, in the case of infant baptism, by allowing the child to grow up and exercise the free will that God made integral to their nature.
He’s willing to allow baptism to infants to provide for their spiritual development as Christians on their way to the mature use of reason and free will, and he’s willing to allow it as a guarantor of their salvation in the case that they don’t make it to the age of reason, but he is pursuing more than one goal with respect to babies, and all his goals for them must be kept in mind.
Starting a Church to lower people’s chances of salvation, though? That’s just plain crazy. (And contrary to goal #7.)
These are crucial points, and are very important in understanding why, e.g., abortion is an evil not only for the mother and the doctor but also for the baby, even if we take for granted that aborted babies go to heaven.
A baby who dies and goes to heaven goes to heaven, but is deprived of the opportunity to win glory for God and for himself in this life, to please God by striving for eternal life rather than merely being born to it, to earn and merit through the proper use of his free will.
He is also deprived of the opportunity to serve his fellow man, to do good in this life, to work to make this world a better place, help those in need, etc.
Granted, once in heaven he could offer his prayers for this world. But in the first place, God seems to want us to work to do good in the world by our actions in this life.
In the second place, there seems to be this idea (perhaps Jimmy can speak to this) of divine aid or blessing in response to prayers, including the prayers of the saints in heaven, coming as a reward for the merits or righteous deeds of others. If heaven were entirely populated by saints who had earned no merit in God’s eyes, how much help would the prayers of heaven be to us?
I’m not saying that those who die in infancy can’t pray for us. But the idea of the treasury of merits does seem to prevent us from seeing death in infancy as the optimal path to heaven, even if it is the safest.
This last point is the sticking point, because of course by raising children to maturity we do give them the opportunity to serve God in this life, to win glory for him and for themselves, to serve their fellow man and make the world a better place — but also to do the opposite, to sin as well as to serve God, to do harm as well as good to themselves and their fellow man, and ultimately even to be lost as well as saved.
But that seems to be the way God wants it. He would rather we be free than safe. He would rather some of us use our freedom for good and some for evil than all be good without freedom.
Pardon my ignorance here, but…
Some of the 8 goals listed for what God wills for us seem obvious. Some I could even point to particular references. This is not true for all of them though ( in particular #4 and #5 ), so I was hoping that someone might be able to point me to some sources that would help me to explain this list of things that God wills for us.
“But that seems to be the way God wants it. He would rather we be free than safe. He would rather some of us use our freedom for good and some for evil than all be good without freedom.”
This seems to be an unavoidable conclusion. But it also seems incompatible with these words of Jimmy’s (from the “naming guardians” post that was quoted in the original question):
“the fact that what happens to us in the next life is infinitely more important than what happens to us in this one.”
If that were strictly true, then don’t many of the goals (especially #s 2, 3, and the first half of 4) simply drop out of the equation?
Brian: Scripture! 🙂
Regarding #4, I think that God’s concern for even our physical well-being is demonstrated in all of Jesus’ life and teachings. For example: a) Jesus turns water into wine, b) Jesus multiplies the loaves & fishes, c) Jesus calms the storm, d) Jesus heals the sick & exorcises the possessed, e) Jesus makes works of mercy the entry requirement for Heaven, g) etc. etc. etc. All these good things are done for the *physical* well-being of people.
Regarding #5, the parable of the servants (& talents) comes to mind.
If you want a comprehensive source of things that God wills for us, I’ve heard that Scripture is an excellent resource. As is the Catechism. 😉
The answer to the objection is that being allowed to live is not a suboptimal position to dying as a baptized infant.
For one, if everyone Christian died in infancy Christianity would die out. Ultimately less souls would be saved.
But this isn’t a utilitarian calculus. We’re not allowed to do evil even if good may come from it.
I feel that some people have the temptation towards a certain type of Christian utilitarianism, that is, do deny that good every really comes of evil, and outweighs the evil. But this is precisely why God allows evil in the first place, to bring a greater good out of it that wouldn’t come about otherwise.
Jimmy,
The question isn’t asked on an abstract level. If that were the case, one might as well say “God says murder is wrong,” and leave it at that.
The question is more asking, why not be anathema for Jesus? Would there be something noble in being a sort of damned soul bringing salvation to others? Like that wretched movie with the “sin-eaters.”
The questioner is also hinting that living one’s life is more a liability than a benefit. That life is not worth living, because we might be damned.
Ashton,
I got that much 🙂 Thanks! I guess I was looking for more of a comprehensive ( read bulletproof ) defense of the list. For example, could I not just cite something like a miscarriage in opposition to #4.
Thanks for all of your excellent thoughts though.
Because, for one thing, as Jimmy pointed out, you can only give them entry-level salvation without possibility of promotion, and God ideally wants more for us than that.
That kind of thinking only works from a limited and confused perspective. If you start with the correct understanding of God as the source of all good, including every kind of “nobility,” then no kind of departure or rebellion against him can properly bring about any species of goodness.
If nothing else, it may be enough here to say “God disagrees, and he knows more about it than we do,” and leave it at that.
I think murdering babies is a bad idea because it’s a mortal sin.
Wow, that reminded me of something. Back in high school, during a history lesson, we were studying the time of general chaos and religious wars surrounding the Reformation. I remember the teacher mentioning a sect that indeed held the very belief explained in this post… they murdered newborn babies, expecting to go to Hell but in doing so ensuring salvation for the children.
I don’t have time right now to search about them on the net. If I find anything I’ll let you know.
I love the “God forbid(s)” in the DouayRheims version but, in short, Paul answers the question with a, “WHAT ARE YOU CRAZY?”
Romans 6:1 What shall we say, then? shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
2 God forbid. For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein?
22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting.
23 For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting, in Christ Jesus our Lord.
“optimal to murder newborn infants immediately after baptizing them.”
It won’t be optimal because babies don’t sin until they reach the age of reason. You could still enjoy your babies for a few years after baptism before murdering them.
I do think however, that if you had intended to murder the baby, then the baptism is invalid because you were committed to raising the child in the faith and if your plan was to murder it, then your faith did not fill in for the child’s faith properly.
MP3 download, Music CD, Online music
Download the sheet music for your current favorites and explore our … Download sheet music for Grammy®-winning and related titles, composers, and artists…