I
irish54
Guest
My dear sister in law is a devout Catholic. Her son married an atheist. They had a beautiful baby in June but of course she will not be baptized. Can anything be done to protect her soul? Thank you.
- Status
S
SpeakInSilence
Guest
Is the son a devout Catholic? My children will get baptized whether or not their mother is a Christian, this is something I will not argue about, it will be done. It seems it’s up to the son to decide where his faith comes in, before the marriage or after. The child needs to be baptized, and the son needs to find a way to bring the faith to the wife.
R
Rence
Guest
Have you thought about talking to DIL and telling her how very important it is to the family? Acknowledge that she is an atheist, and that you don’t mean to undermine her, but that it would be so much to the family if she would let the child be Baptised in the Church and explain why. I mean, if she’s an atheist, and doesn’t believe, and this is merely a superstition to her, then maybe she wouldn’t mind this act of charity. I guess it depends on how she feels about the Church. If she looks unfavorably on the Church and regards it a stupid cult, she may not allow it. If it’s a matter of her just not believing, or not being sure, she may let the Baptism take place. What it boils down to, is that you can’t do it without her consent. So it would be to everyone’s benefit to ask her nicely IMOHO, rather than alienate her and have her refuse outright.
But also explain to her that with being Baptised, the child will have godparents who are responsible for the child’s Catholic education and upbringing…she can’t consent if she doesn’t know what it means to do so.
But also explain to her that with being Baptised, the child will have godparents who are responsible for the child’s Catholic education and upbringing…she can’t consent if she doesn’t know what it means to do so.
1
1ke
Guest
H
Hokomai
Guest
Will the Godparents refrain from telling the baptised children that their mother is (likely) going to hell because of her unbelief? Atheists sometimes have good reason to be concerned about aspects of Church teaching as it is taught to their children. Of course, this point is hard to grasp if you believe in hell. But consider for the moment what it looks like to a non-believer facing the prospect of their child being taught that they will spend eternity in physical and mental agony. It is not for nothing that some non-believers categorise this as child abuse (remembering, of course, that they consider what is being taught untrue).
R
Rence
Guest
Well, first of all, it’s not a Godparent’s place to tell anyone that their someone will go to hell because of their unbelief, because a Godparent (or anyone else) is not privy to that information unless their name is God. And I hate it when people are presumptuous to tell others that so and so is roasting in hell yadda yadda. It’s up to God. Period. We simply don’t know what conversation will be had between a person and God at the time of their death.
So, I agree that people have good reason to be concerned about aspects of Church teaching. And I can understand atheists or non-believer being on guard about Baptism and working with godparents. I see examples of the above all the time on Catholic forums, and it’s just plain mean-spirited and unnecesary. But a good Godparent will catechise their godchild without traumatizing a child by vocalizing their disapproval with the child’s parents. There’s a difference between teaching the Truth according to the catechism and judging and slandering someone’s parents. In the right family environment, it could work. The DIL will have to make sure boundaries are set and kept.
There is no reason in the world to answer: “But what about Mommy, she’s not Baptised, will she go to Hell?” with “Absolutely she will.” Instead of, “Well we don’t know, that’s between Mommy and God. Let’s pray for Mommy”. It’s the truth, isn’t it?
H
Hokomai
Guest
You are an ok Godparent in my book, Rence 
C
cerad2
Guest
Pretty sure Gerbils has an insurance policy that will cover this.
R
Rascalking
Guest
You are an ok Godparent in my book, Rence
Rence rocks at everything. She’s pretty
like that.
L
Little_Mary
Guest
Rence makes some good points so, correct me if I’m wrong here…
If the mother of the child is athiest, what does she care if a little water is sprinkled on the child’s head while the appropriate prayer is said?
Me? The first five seconds alone with that child, I’d wet my fingers, make a cross on the child’s forehead and say “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”
Done.
CERTAINLY continue to “work” with the athiest as far as respecting her “faith” or lack thereof, but the child is baptized and going forward it is no longer an issue.
Again, what am I missing?
If the mother of the child is athiest, what does she care if a little water is sprinkled on the child’s head while the appropriate prayer is said?
Me? The first five seconds alone with that child, I’d wet my fingers, make a cross on the child’s forehead and say “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”
Done.
CERTAINLY continue to “work” with the athiest as far as respecting her “faith” or lack thereof, but the child is baptized and going forward it is no longer an issue.
Again, what am I missing?
A
anp1215
Guest
Doesn’t the Church frown upon secret baptism of children against the will of the parent?
I would never do this if the parent made it known that they did not wish this for their child.
And as for it no longer being an issue…you’re imposing a Catholic life and Catholic “regulations” on a child that doesn’t even know he/she has been baptized. When he/she grows up and marries, they risk contracting an invalid marriage.
R
Rence
Guest
You’re missing consent. Without the parents’ consent (both of them), which is required, you can’t Baptise someone. Though your intentions are honorable, you can’t do wrong, in order to do good. You’d be going against the teachings of the Church by Baptising a child against the consent of the parents. Even a priest won’t Baptise a child without the parents’ consent…both parents, so a layperson would be overstepping their bounds to do so as well.
R
Rence
Guest
Thank you! You’re the sweetest!
Rence rocks at everything. She’s pretty
R
Rence
Guest
Right, I would never do that either.
According to canon, you can baptise an infant, against the will of the parents, and even if the parents are not Catholic — IF the child is in immediate danger of death.
Otherwise, no, there has to be a commitment to raise the child Catholic. If there is not an agreement or intention to raise the child Catholic, then according to canon law, baptism is to be delayed until then. So if one parent agrees, but the other parent won’t agree, then the child is not to be baptised at that time.
So, unless the child in the OP’s post is in immediate danger of losing his/her life, no one can baptise the child without the mom’s consent. She has to agree to abide by the rules of the Church and raise the child Catholic first.
A
anp1215
Guest
Right.
D
DarrenOglesby
Guest
Couldn’t a secret baptism be made at the danger of death. If it were me I would just pray, and keep asking her to allow the baby to baptized.
You will be in my prayers
You will be in my prayers
R
Rence
Guest
N
NonServiam
Guest
There’s a great episode of All in the Family where Archie baptizes his grandson against the wishes of the child’s parents.
His daughter, Gloria, and her husband, Mike, are agnostics and against organized religion. Archie argues with them the whole episode and then, one fine day while he’s watching little Joey, takes the infant to the church to be baptized. Of course, the reverend refuses to perform the ceremony and basically tells Archie what a fool Archie is for going behind the parents’ backs and what a bad idea it is, etc.
So Archie takes the child into the chapel and baptizes him himself. He concludes by looking skyward and saying something along the lines of, “Well, I hope that took – because they’re all going to kill me.”
It’s one of those great moments where you feel for Archie, despite the fact that he’s a bonehead stuck in the stone age. There’s something positively sweet and moving about the idea that he cares for his grandson so much – and believes so strongly in the imaginary efficacy of the baptismal rite – that he’s willing to risk the relationship with his daughter and son-in-law to baptize the child.
Of course, despite the human appeal of Archie, I think the bottom line is that his actions were at least unnecessary and arguably downright selfish, ignoring the wishes of the child’s parents in order to make himself feel better and allay his own concerns about little Joey’s eternal destination.
Speaking as a non-believer – and I hope it’s alright that I’m posting here; I certainly mean no disrespect to anyone – I find the entire baptism belief more than a little baffling. You honestly believe that a little innocent child won’t see eternal heaven unless someone sprinkles water on his forehead? I’m aware of all the doctrinal implications (washing away original sin, being born again in Christ, etc., etc.), but it still doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.
Frankly, if I were one of the child’s parents, I would resent the implication that there’s something “wrong” with my child that can only be “fixed” by sprinkling with water. Again, I’m not trying at all to be disrespectful: I’m trying to tell you how I would react and why I would not be receptive to someone wanting to baptize my child. Even though I think the rite and its effects are purely imaginary, I would be uncomfortable with what the ritual is implicitly saying about my child.
Regardless of your beliefs, we live in a pluralistic, secular society where you don’t have the right to force other people to believe as you do, and I sincerely think that respecting the wishes of the child’s parents is the appropriate course of action.
His daughter, Gloria, and her husband, Mike, are agnostics and against organized religion. Archie argues with them the whole episode and then, one fine day while he’s watching little Joey, takes the infant to the church to be baptized. Of course, the reverend refuses to perform the ceremony and basically tells Archie what a fool Archie is for going behind the parents’ backs and what a bad idea it is, etc.
So Archie takes the child into the chapel and baptizes him himself. He concludes by looking skyward and saying something along the lines of, “Well, I hope that took – because they’re all going to kill me.”
It’s one of those great moments where you feel for Archie, despite the fact that he’s a bonehead stuck in the stone age. There’s something positively sweet and moving about the idea that he cares for his grandson so much – and believes so strongly in the imaginary efficacy of the baptismal rite – that he’s willing to risk the relationship with his daughter and son-in-law to baptize the child.
Of course, despite the human appeal of Archie, I think the bottom line is that his actions were at least unnecessary and arguably downright selfish, ignoring the wishes of the child’s parents in order to make himself feel better and allay his own concerns about little Joey’s eternal destination.
Speaking as a non-believer – and I hope it’s alright that I’m posting here; I certainly mean no disrespect to anyone – I find the entire baptism belief more than a little baffling. You honestly believe that a little innocent child won’t see eternal heaven unless someone sprinkles water on his forehead? I’m aware of all the doctrinal implications (washing away original sin, being born again in Christ, etc., etc.), but it still doesn’t make a lick of sense to me.
Frankly, if I were one of the child’s parents, I would resent the implication that there’s something “wrong” with my child that can only be “fixed” by sprinkling with water. Again, I’m not trying at all to be disrespectful: I’m trying to tell you how I would react and why I would not be receptive to someone wanting to baptize my child. Even though I think the rite and its effects are purely imaginary, I would be uncomfortable with what the ritual is implicitly saying about my child.
Regardless of your beliefs, we live in a pluralistic, secular society where you don’t have the right to force other people to believe as you do, and I sincerely think that respecting the wishes of the child’s parents is the appropriate course of action.
A
anp1215
Guest
You are absolutely welcome to post here, and thanks for phrasing your remarks in such a respectful manner.
No, I don’t believe that. I believe that we serve a merciful and loving God, and don’t see how such a God could condemn any infant to everlasting torment because they weren’t baptized.
And no, we don’t have the right to force others to believe as we do. I agree 100%. I would never baptize an infant unless the parents agreed. I trust in my merciful Lord to receive them into his Kingdom, regardless.
- Status