Can infants who we wish to baptize(but die) be baptized in an extraordinary way?

[Xavier]

Today, Dec 28th, Mother Church celebrates the Feast of the Holy Innocents, who as martyrs for Christ were Baptized in Blood. As we know, they died sanctified with the grace of an extraordinary means of Baptism, but had to remain in limbo till Christ's Sacrifice is completed. Then, they were taken by the Lord Jesus to Heaven.

We have discussed this before, but it's worth considering again - since there are now demonstrably over 1.8 billion children whose lives have been brutally taken away in just the last 50 odd years by abortion-killing worldwide - is there any possibility of some kind of extra-ordinary Baptism applying to these infants and to other prematurely dying children?

I'm sure many traditionalists would answer no. Dr. Ott has this, "Other emergency means of baptism for children dying without sacramental baptism, such as prayer and the desire of the parents or the Church (vicarious baptism of desire—Cajetan), or the attainment of the use of reason in the moment of death, so that the dying child can decide for or against God (baptism of desire—H. Klee), or suffering and death of the child as quasi-Sacrament (baptism of suffering—H. Schell), are indeed possible, but their actuality cannot be proved from Revelation." Cf. Denzinger 712." Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Book 2, Section 2, § 25 (p. 114 of the 1963 edition)

We will discuss in more detail subsequently. There is a private revelation in Nigeria where Jesus is purported to have given a prayer for the Baptism of Aborted Babies. See below. It has been given some Church Imprimaturs but not full approval. Thoughts?

The article on RT forum here mentions various speculations. http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt65.html

Jesus said: "Today the blood of innocent children has filled Heaven. Their number is too great, too great; the wrath of the Eternal Father is about to fall on mankind -- Their blood disturbs My Agonizing Heart and increases My agony --- Through this prayer, large numbers of innocent unborn babies will be saved; pray it daily and make it known to the world. Anyone who teaches it will not be lost. Innocent souls in Heaven will not let them become lost. I, with My Love and Mercy, will protect them from falling into mortal sin."

Heavenly Father, Your love is eternal. In Your ocean of love, You saved the world through Your only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Now look at Your only Son on the Cross Who is constantly bleeding for love of His people, and forgive Your world. Purify and baptize aborted children with the Precious Blood and Water from the Sacred Side of Your Son, Who hung dead on the Cross for their salvation, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. May they, through the Holy Death of Jesus Christ gain everlasting life, through His Wounds be healed, and through His Precious Blood be freed. There to rejoice with the Saints in Heaven. Amen.

[Josephine87]

This is one of those "can't wait til I die to ask God" questions, especially in light of how many miscarriages occur (1 in 4 pregnancies and possibly higher). I'm closer to the "they are saints" side of things but I won't presume anything.

[Tales]

Cannot rule out miraculous baptism, but also no evidence to be assured such occurs.  It's a disturbing situation.

[Non Nobis]

Perfect natural happiness is (just as it sounds) natural bliss. Those who go to limbo will not have a twinge of envy of others, but will praise God and understand His ways. We should try to do the same (to accept, even if we don't understand) so long as God does not give us knowledge of special exceptions (as He has for the Holy Innocents).

If EVERY single unbaptized baby (even regardless of prayers) is given a chance to accept God himself then I don't understand why we are taught that baptism (the sacrament) is so important to infants, and why we are urged not to wait too long. 

It is right to be sad on earth about a child dying without baptism, but wrong to think "it's just not fair, God".  God's mercy is His to give; and He does give it in an immeasurable way to those in limbo, even if not in an infinite way.  There is only happiness in heaven and in limbo.

It contradicts the long traditional teaching of the Church to say that maybe limbo does not exist at all. If all babies are given a chance to consciously  accept God, they go to heaven or hell, never limbo.

Of course we should still pray for these children, but trustingly.  God will use the prayers, perhaps to bring baptism to others. And of course we don't finally know God's ways... We can hope, I would think, but not with the certainty of faith.

[TheReturnofLive]

Cannot rule out miraculous baptism, but also no evidence to be assured such occurs.  It's a disturbing situation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07419a.htm

[Tales]

Cannot rule out miraculous baptism, but also no evidence to be assured such occurs.  It's a disturbing situation.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07419a.htm

I am well familiar with the Holy Innocents for very persnal reasons.  It is unclear when baptism became necessary for salvation (think unbaptized OT saints).

[Gardener]

Holy Innocents:
Aquinas speculated that circumcision prefigured Baptism at least in the taking away of Original Sin (wherein he counters the Master [Lombard?] and states it conferred Sanctifying Grace), though he doesn't have a satisfactory answer for Israelite girls. He covers this in Part 3, Q 70: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/summa/TP/TP070.html#TPQ70OUTP1

More problematically, his reply to Article 2's objection 4 almost intimates that either 1) females do not receive Original Sin or 2) a circumcised father cannot pass it on. He really left a lot of threads loose on that reply in my opinion and just skirts around it.

Either way, Baptism having not yet been instituted there would have been no onus for it, discussions of Feeneyism being barred here notwithstanding.

Since the Holy Innocents were all males under the age of reason (and assumed to be circumcised), none would have had Original Sin if Aquinas is correct on its remission thereof, and the giving of sanctifying grace.

Limbo:

Limbo is in fact not a Traditional belief as much as we'd like to think it, if we accept the Augustinian tradition. In its present understanding it's a theological speculation which was a Thomistic break from Augustine's massa damnata theory. If one wishes to counter this with the idea that it is Traditional (as in, since the teaching of the Apostles), then that throws out Augustine's theory and with it the Augustinian understanding from which St. Thomas worked on Predestination (as he could not find the intersectionality of the true Universal Salvific Will of God and the massa damnata of Augustine) -- found now in the Banezian school on the Augustinian aspect.

Augustine was troubled by the issue of infants, but was at least intellectually honest in reaching the conclusion his theory forced: Infants go to the hell of the damned, being actually guilty of Adam's sin as members of Adam, though nothing more. That they have no other sin is what allows them the "mildest" punishment. In other words, they aren't going to suffer the punishment of mortal sin, just Original Sin. But punishment nonetheless. Aquinas tried to rehabilitate Augustine on this point, but no one buys it and his conclusions are plainly contra-Augustine.

However, in the Appendix of the Summa, there are some quotes which counter Augustine's theory, and show a hint, though not a full explanation, of Limbo -- that is, the quotes themselves. But insofar as the theory itself, Aquinas (or at least Piperino), the argument for it is made from that of proportion of guilt: where Augustine started, the punishment's quality was in consideration of damnation and punishment, simply; he did not consider proportion except by starting with damnation itself. But the writer/compiler of the Appendix understood it in a different way and essentially broke from Augustine by appealing to Gregory Nazianzen's fortieth sermon, which springboards into theological speculation based on philosophical principles.

reference: https://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/summa/X1/X1001.html#X1Q1OUTP1

Augustine:

The massa damnata theory:

a) Explicit texts: (1) To Simplicianus 1. 2. 16: "Therefore all men are ... one condemned mass [massa damnata] of sin, that owes a debt of punishment to the divine and supreme justice. Whether it [the debt] be exacted, or whether it be condoned, there is no injustice." (2) Enchiridion 27: "... the whole condemned mass of the human race lay in evils, or even rolled about in them, and was precipitated from evils into evils... ." (3) City of God 21. 12: "Hence there is a condemned mass of the whole human race... so that no one would be freed form this just and due punishment except by mercy and undue grace; and so the human race is divided [into two parts] so that in some it may be shown what merciful grace can do, in others, what just vengeance can do... . In it [punishment] there are many more than in [mercy] so that in this way there may be shown what is due to all." (4) On nature and grace 4: "This grace of Christ, without which neither infants nor older persons can be saved, is not given by merits, but gratuitously. Hence those who are not liberated by it [grace] whether because they have not yet been able to hear, or whether they did not want to obey, or even since because of age they could not hear, [and] did not receive the bath of rebirth by which they would be saved, are justly damned: for they are not without sin, either what they contracted by origin, or what they added by bad morals." Therefore he means that unbaptized babies are damned. (5) Epistle 166. 6. 16: "But when we come to the punishment of little ones, believe me, I am caught in great difficulty, nor can I find at all what I should answer." (6) Enchiridion 93: "The punishment of those will be the mildest who have added nothing beyond the sin which they contracted by origin."

https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=7&ChapNum=3

Baptism of Desire:

It would seem that in Baptism, the faith is supplied by the parents/sponsors who make the answers for the child. So why wouldn't this hold true for infants where the desire is not lacking, but the reality is? If it doesn't hold true, then whatever the Jews had to remit Original Sin was, in fact, better.

Whether a man can be saved without Baptism?



  Objection 1: It seems that no man can be saved without Baptism. For our Lord said (Jn. 3:5): "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." But those alone are saved who enter God's kingdom. Therefore none can be saved without Baptism, by which a man is born again of water and the Holy Ghost.


  Objection 2: Further, in the book De Eccl. Dogm. xli, it is written: "We believe that no catechumen, though he die in his good works, will have eternal life, except he suffer martyrdom, which contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism." But if it were possible for anyone to be saved without Baptism, this would be the case specially with catechumens who are credited with good works, for they seem to have the "faith that worketh by charity" (Gal. 5:6). Therefore it seems that none can be saved without Baptism.


  Objection 3: Further, as stated above (Article [1]; Question [65], Article [4]), the sacrament of Baptism is necessary for salvation. Now that is necessary "without which something cannot be" (Metaph. v). Therefore it seems that none can obtain salvation without Baptism.


  On the contrary, Augustine says (Super Levit. lxxxiv) that "some have received the invisible sanctification without visible sacraments, and to their profit; but though it is possible to have the visible sanctification, consisting in a visible sacrament, without the invisible sanctification, it will be to no profit." Since, therefore, the sacrament of Baptism pertains to the visible sanctification, it seems that a man can obtain salvation without the sacrament of Baptism, by means of the invisible sanctification.


  I answer that, The sacrament or Baptism may be wanting to someone in two ways. First, both in reality and in desire; as is the case with those who neither are baptized, nor wished to be baptized: which clearly indicates contempt of the sacrament, in regard to those who have the use of the free-will. Consequently those to whom Baptism is wanting thus, cannot obtain salvation: since neither sacramentally nor mentally are they incorporated in Christ, through Whom alone can salvation be obtained.


   Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of "faith that worketh by charity," whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: "I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for."


  Reply to Objection 1: As it is written (1 Kgs. 16:7), "man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart." Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Rm. 2:29) that "the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God."


  Reply to Objection 2: No man obtains eternal life unless he be free from all guilt and debt of punishment. Now this plenary absolution is given when a man receives Baptism, or suffers martyrdom: for which reason is it stated that martyrdom "contains all the sacramental virtue of Baptism," i.e. as to the full deliverance from guilt and punishment. Suppose, therefore, a catechumen to have the desire for Baptism (else he could not be said to die in his good works, which cannot be without "faith that worketh by charity"), such a one, were he to die, would not forthwith come to eternal life, but would suffer punishment for his past sins, "but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" as is stated 1 Cor. 3:15.


  Reply to Objection 3: The sacrament of Baptism is said to be necessary for salvation in so far as man cannot be saved without, at least, Baptism of desire; "which, with God, counts for the deed" (Augustine, Enarr. in Ps. 57).

https://dhspriory.org/thomas/english/summa/TP/TP068.html#TPQ68A2THEP1

If given a choice, must be Heaven or Hell, not Limbo:

This is difficult, but possible. A person not in his right mind cannot consent to any Sacraments for which his consent is required, correct? yes. But sometimes, right before death, lucidity returns to those with dementia, alzheimers, etc. It could be possible (though we have no proof) that God brings an infant's intellect to a moment of reason and choice immediately prior to their death. If such a thing were to occur, they would be given a choice of serving God or not. If such occurred, and they chose not, then they rightly deserve Hell and whatever punishment comes for that (mortal) sin.

Since Limbo is merely a theological speculation, I actually have far less trouble with the idea of a moment of rational choice and subsequent sanctification (if a yes to God) or damnation (a no) than I do Limbo. Personally, I've never liked the idea of Adam essentially sending the majority of his progeny to hell by kicking them out of the door of his genetics' position in grace, and then himself being saved. I cannot understand Justice in the slightest if Adam is not burning in the lowest parts of hell, personally. That Adam should be saved while others are damned is oligarchical chrony capitalist BS, not justice. Justice is the perpetrator of the greatest crime in history being damned, since we are speculating. But God's thoughts are not ours...

All this being said, I believe that infants do have some sort of chance but I don't understand how, as the whole idea of lacking a Sacrament, which God Himself is not bound to, is a bit myopic. But this does cause a problem of potential for the guilt of rejecting God and does indeed throw Limbo in the trash bin labeled "Well, we tried - love, Theology".

The alternative is simply Heaven or Hell and Limbo is, in fact, not real. Whether hell comes from the crime of existing (a thing for which no person can actually be responsible, not being self-actualizing) and is understood as Augustine believed, or if infants do indeed have a chance and choice somehow, I dunno.

[John Lamb]

Is the punishment of original sin natural death alone, or loss of the beatific vision also? If the punishment due to original sin is only natural death (and loss of the beatific vision belongs only to those guilty of actual sin), then perhaps there's a possibility that by dying, the infant (who is innocent of all actual sin) has entirely paid the debt, and is then treated as if he were the original human creation (Adam prior to the fall) and is therefore sanctified and raised to the supernatural state of grace, which would elevate him (since we are now in the era of grace following the life, death, & resurrection of Christ) to the beatific vision. I would class this as a kind of baptism of blood: the infant is dying for a sin they are entirely guiltless of (Adam's sin), as they've had no chance to imitate Adam through committing any actual sin of their own and meriting death properly speaking for themselves, and so they are a kind of martyr slain by the evil in the world of which they are innocent. It is the fallen Adam & Satan that are guilty of the child's death, and so he is a victim entirely of the wickedness of others.


Also, there's a recent private revelation related to this; although private revelations are hardly dogmas, I think this one is worth reading considering the sanctity of the person:

In the Conversations, Marcel Van affirms that Jesus Christ gave some clues as to the solution of the ancient Catholic debate on the topic of unbaptized children:

"JESUS: Remember this well. When the intelligence of little children is still undeveloped, the same applies to will. Intelligence is used to understand whether a thing is good or bad and the will is used to act in accordance with what the intelligence discerns. These two faculties are essential [700], and it is these essential faculties that little children lack. It is therefore necessary for another will to settle within the hearts of these little children. If this will acts in accordance with good, it is equivalent to the little children acting in this way of their own volition.

However, for this will to manifest itself, it must act in accordance with good, with truth itself. If this will acts in a way opposed to good, to truth, it will not produce any effect.

You must place your will within the hearts of little children. In this way they will also belong to the Holy Church. Should they come to die before attaining the use of reason, they will nonetheless ascend to Heaven with Me, for they will have your will with them. You have the will to believe everything the Holy Church teaches you to believe, and you also possess the will to love Me. Because of this, the children will share your will and their souls will belong to the Holy Church and to Me in their entirety. These children may know nothing, but within them resides the will of another who knows, and though they may not know, they will understand.

Do you understand this, little brother? Offer Me your will and I will put it in the souls of children on earth. Henceforth you can rest assured that all little children already belong to Me.

Little brother, this notion of will I have revealed to you was not known until now. Little children were always saved in this manner without man ever realizing it. Come little brother, banish your sadness and be joyful. You are the apostle of children. It was necessary for you to know this.

Children saved in this manner are baptized in Love itself. They are allowed to confess their faith in love. This act of love is accomplished by will."

About the Redemptorist to whom this was given:

http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2010/08/brother-marcel-van-spirtual-brother-of.html

[Daniel]

Is the punishment of original sin natural death alone, or loss of the beatific vision also?

Loss of grace was part of the universal human punishment for Adam's sin. And since grace is necessary for the beatific vision, loss of the beatific vision follows from that.

[Josephine87]

Re: the discussion of the Holy Innocents, I recently learned, again from Dom Gueranger's Liturgical Year, that the Church considers some to be martyrs who were not actually killed, but who suffered for the Church during their lifetime.  Interesting, no?

[Non Nobis]

Is the punishment of original sin natural death alone, or loss of the beatific vision also?

Loss of grace was part of the universal human punishment for Adam's sin. And since grace is necessary for the beatific vision, loss of the beatific vision follows from that.

This is how I understand things too.

God can give grace however He chooses, but I don't think what can happen in extraordinary circumstances should be considered to always happen.  Is baptism of no necessity at all until someone commits an actual mortal sin?  That is what some seem to be saying. I say we can leave this to God but not claim that it simply must be so.

Baptism Of Infants Should Not Be Delayed

The faithful are earnestly to be exhorted to take care that their children be brought to the church, as soon as it can be done with safety, to receive solemn Baptism. Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how grievously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require, particularly at an age so tender as to be exposed to numberless dangers of death.

It seems some say that this Catechism is simply WRONG when it says that infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism.  I can see there being exceptions (as there is for the Sacrament of Baptism in adults).  But I for one dare not assume that all babies will have a chance to decide for themselves no matter how long we wait to have them baptized.

[Michael Wilson]

Somewhere in my copy of the Summa edited by the Dominican Fathers of the English Province, there is a footnote that explains that Cajetan's opinion that the babies of Catholic parents that died before being Baptized,  could possibly receive the grace of Baptism through the prayers of their parents; was struck from the Roman edition of his Commentaries by Pope St. Pius V.

[Counter Revolutionary]

Perfect natural happiness is (just as it sounds) natural bliss. Those who go to limbo will not have a twinge of envy of others, but will praise God and understand His ways. We should try to do the same (to accept, even if we don't understand) so long as God does not give us knowledge of special exceptions (as He has for the Holy Innocents).

If EVERY single unbaptized baby (even regardless of prayers) is given a chance to accept God himself then I don't understand why we are taught that baptism (the sacrament) is so important to infants, and why we are urged not to wait too long. 

It is right to be sad on earth about a child dying without baptism, but wrong to think "it's just not fair, God".  God's mercy is His to give; and He does give it in an immeasurable way to those in limbo, even if not in an infinite way.  There is only happiness in heaven and in limbo.

It contradicts the long traditional teaching of the Church to say that maybe limbo does not exist at all. If all babies are given a chance to consciously  accept God, they go to heaven or hell, never limbo.

Of course we should still pray for these children, but trustingly.  God will use the prayers, perhaps to bring baptism to others. And of course we don't finally know God's ways... We can hope, I would think, but not with the certainty of faith.

The Limbo of the Infants will be a happier place than most modern peoples' conceptions of Heaven. The souls there will possess perfect natural happiness. The prominent Jesuit theologian Suarez speculated that after the end of the world the souls in Limbo will inhabit the "new earth" with resurrected (unglorified) bodies, and he speculated that the elect will be able to visit them as often as they want by virtue of the quality of agility (one of the qualities of glorified bodies that enables one to travel at the speed of thought). I find Suarez' speculation very plausible. Our Lady after all is in Heaven and yet she made a visit to our earth with her glorified body when she went to Fatima, Portugal in 1917. The tree branch she stood on in Fatima was bent after she left and this proves that she was actually physically present with her glorified body. After the general judgement all of the elect will possess glorified bodies with the quality of agility. The souls in Limbo will lack the beatific vision and that is nothing small, but all of us lack the beatific vision in this life and we are not necessarily always depressed on account of our lack of it either.

The necessity of baptism for salvation is a divinely revealed Catholic dogma. Like all Catholic dogmas, the dogma of the necessity of baptism is not only generally, but universally true and admits of no exceptions. To refuse to believe any dogma of the faith is to commit a mortal sin and forfeit one's own salvation.

[Xavier]

One thread where we discussed it earlier: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=19111.msg424324#msg424324

St. Bernard wrote this to a Mother whose child died without being visibly baptized, and who asked, "What will happen to my child?"; the Doctor of the Church responded, "Your faith spoke for this child. Baptism for this child was only delayed by time. Your faith suffices. The waters of your womb - were they not the waters of life for this child? Look at your tears. Are they not like the waters of baptism? Do not fear this! God's ability to love is greater than our fears. Surrender everything to God!"

The conditions for an adult to receive Baptism of Desire are clear: An act of faith and charity, or perfect love of God, or contrition, along with the explicit or implicit desire of the Sacrament of Baptism.

The conditions for an infant to receive Baptism of Desire, and whether such is possible, are shrouded in mystery - yet to say it it is absolutely impossible, or that it should not even be prayed and hoped for (after everything else that was possible was done), is to go beyond what can reasonably be claimed. If this were not so, then St. Bernard should have answered, "The child is lost - but he will live on the earth after the resurrection of the body". Speaking of Fr. Suarez' theory, that infants will live not under but above the earth (it is certain limbo will exist until the end of time, but after the resurrection, when souls are re-united to bodies, infants will have to be taken elsewhere - neither limbo nor purgatory will exist after the Last Judgment, but only up till then) it has a great deal of probability, and I personally like it - all children will enjoy natural happiness, perceive God naturally and visibly in His Incarnate flesh, and so on.

Such children may even be unaware that they lack nothing, but we know the loss of the beatific vision is the loss of something great.

While it is a theory, other theories have also been proposed: e.g. (1) Christian parents can possibly obtain Baptism in voto (or even actual water Baptism, supplied by God in a miraculous manner), by their prayers (such as the one Jesus is reported to have taught in several private revelations) (2) what happens to children of non-Christian parents is less certain still, and probably they will go to limbo until the end of the world. After that, if there is no miraculous intervention by God, they will indeed only have natural happiness. But as in baptism, it may be that if not parents, then godparents, or others, like the whole Church, can supply for the dispositions of a needy or dying child; it may be that, if there are souls willing to pray for, and "spiritually adopt" children in need of sanctifying grace, God may accept the prayers and contrition of such persons on behalf of the children. We see one possible example in Scripture.

Unfortunately, all this is still quite uncertain. Prayerful hope, at the most, I agree. Probably, an Ecumenical Council in future will deal with the question in more detail.

Two more considerations, St. Thomas says children in the womb are not to be baptized by man, but they can be sanctified by God, and that God has indeed miraculously sanctified some infants in the womb, even in Holy Scripture: "Reply to Objection 1. Children while in the mother's womb have not yet come forth into the world to live among other men. Consequently they cannot be subject to the action of man, so as to receive the sacrament, at the hands of man, unto salvation. They can, however, be subject to the action of God, in Whose sight they live, so as, by a kind of privilege, to receive the grace of sanctification; as was the case with those who were sanctified in the womb." (ST, Tertia Pars, Q 68, A 11) http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm

In Scripture, we read the Angel St. Gabriel say of St. John the Baptist, "He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb" (Luk 1:15). And this is confirmed in the exegesis of St. Ambrose and others. So St. John the Baptist was sanctified in the womb. Possibly, the faith and contrition of his mother played a part, or even more likely, Our Lord granted this grace in response to His own Mother's prayers. So, again, it is not impossible, as St. Bernard says, that such children, with hope, should be surrendered to God, or Our Lady.

St. Bernard's statement could even be read as allowing for some kind of intervention (which at present is hidden from us) by God in future, out of Mercy for these children, or even as some kind of quasi-miraculous Water Baptism in the womb. I think it is a right and duty of us Christians to pray in hope for these children, that whatever God wills be done for them, believing and hoping, "Even so it is not the will of your Father, who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." (Mat 18:14)

[Carleendiane]

This, for personal reasons, is a very interesting discussion. Thank you Xavier.