comments

1. Andrew Simone on April 20th, 2007 at 2:36 pm

   That is awfully kind of them.

2. Daryl Scroggins on April 20th, 2007 at 2:40 pm

   Isn’t it interesting that it would take these people so long to know what most people would know in an instant: that a baby is less corrupt than any of us will ever be, and any system of thought that would send them to a place where their cries would go unanswered forever is the embodiment of evil, and not the bastion of mercy they would so selectively offer.

3. Deron Bauman on April 20th, 2007 at 3:23 pm

   “there is reason to hope”

4. John Buaas on April 20th, 2007 at 5:08 pm

   This would also seem to open the door for admission to what Dante called Virtuous Pagans–something which I would be glad to see the Church acknowledge.

5. Cindy Scroggins on April 20th, 2007 at 5:29 pm

   I’m having a hard time getting happy about this. I suppose, for people in the Church, any movement is significant. But their statement that “there is reason to hope” that babies might be eligible for Heaven is just so lame that it makes me angry more than anything else. That there should be a debate about this issue at all is profoundly troubling to me. Before I die, I hope to understand the mind and heart of a person who would want to be in a Heaven that excludes unbaptized babies. For Christ’s sake.