Atheist daughter in law

[NonServiam]

You are absolutely welcome to post here, and thanks for phrasing your remarks in such a respectful manner.

Thanks for the welcome.

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.

Well, you might not believe that, but the OP was talking about “saving” the child’s “soul,” so presumably the OP at least adheres to the Catholic doctrine that one cannot enter Heaven without being baptized.

I assumed that the OP was referring to the Catholic idea that all people are born with “original sin” that needs to be washed away in the sacrament of baptism and that dying with original sin on one’s soul means that one cannot enter Heaven.

If I’m wrong, please, I welcome being corrected, but I feel like I’m drawing reasonable conclusions from what I’ve read.

If I’m right, then, as I said, if I, as a non-believer, were the parent of a child, I would absolutely resent the implication that my child is born with something “wrong” with him that needs to be “washed away” somehow. My child could be born with some kind of physical birth defect, and I would still see him as perfect and whole and complete and not needing any rituals to “correct” him and make him “acceptable” to others, and I would, frankly, find it highly insulting for someone to suggest otherwise.

It’s not hard to see why a non-believer would object so strongly to a ritual that implies these kinds of things.

 

[silicasandra]

Thanks for the welcome.

**Well, you might not believe that, but the OP was talking about “saving” the child’s “soul,” so presumably the OP at least adheres to the Catholic doctrine that one cannot enter Heaven without being baptized.

I assumed that the OP was referring to the Catholic idea that all people are born with “original sin” that needs to be washed away in the sacrament of baptism and that dying with original sin on one’s soul means that one cannot enter Heaven.

If I’m wrong, please, I welcome being corrected, but I feel like I’m drawing reasonable conclusions from what I’ve read**.

If I’m right, then, as I said, if I, as a non-believer, were the parent of a child, I would absolutely resent the implication that my child is born with something “wrong” with him that needs to be “washed away” somehow. My child could be born with some kind of physical birth defect, and I would still see him as perfect and whole and complete and not needing any rituals to “correct” him and make him “acceptable” to others, and I would, frankly, find it highly insulting for someone to suggest otherwise.

It’s not hard to see why a non-believer would object so strongly to a ritual that implies these kinds of things.

Catholic teaching does not require us to believe that an unbaptized baby (or any child that before the age of reason and understanding the difference between right and wrong) will absolutely not go to Heaven, but we do believe that any baptized baby or child before the age of reason will go to Heaven. Children who are not baptized are left to God’s grace - there is no reason to believe that God would ever condemn these children, but this has never been answered definitively. Baptism is a “guarantee” for lack of a better word, so practicing Catholic parents ensure their children are baptized.

I hope this clears up the Catholic perspective regarding baptism and salvation. I can’t answer your ideas about original sin at all eloquently but there are many posters here who should be able to explain it well.

 

[vsedriver]

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.

I’m with Archie, but then I don’t think there’s anything ‘imaginary’ about the efficacy of Baptism.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Did they marry in the Catholic Church? I assume the answer is yes, because you said your son is a devout Catholic. Then she has promised not to stand in the way of her children becoming Catholic. If she is now renegotiating the terms of that agreement, your son should remind her that she cannot do that.

If your son will not stand up for his children, the subject is closed for you. Pray for them. No secret baptisms are allowed.

 

[anp1215]

Thanks for the welcome.

Well, you might not believe that, but the OP was talking about “saving” the child’s “soul,” so presumably the OP at least adheres to the Catholic doctrine that one cannot enter Heaven without being baptized.

I assumed that the OP was referring to the Catholic idea that all people are born with “original sin” that needs to be washed away in the sacrament of baptism and that dying with original sin on one’s soul means that one cannot enter Heaven.

If I’m wrong, please, I welcome being corrected, but I feel like I’m drawing reasonable conclusions from what I’ve read.

If I’m right, then, as I said, if I, as a non-believer, were the parent of a child, I would absolutely resent the implication that my child is born with something “wrong” with him that needs to be “washed away” somehow. My child could be born with some kind of physical birth defect, and I would still see him as perfect and whole and complete and not needing any rituals to “correct” him and make him “acceptable” to others, and I would, frankly, find it highly insulting for someone to suggest otherwise.

It’s not hard to see why a non-believer would object so strongly to a ritual that implies these kinds of things.

Catholic doctrine believes there are some exceptions to this.
For example, catechumens who desire to enter the Church but die before they are able are not condemned to Hell.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament

It is the same for those who die for the faith without receiving baptism.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

As for children who die without baptism,

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

I have no problem entrusting them to the mercy of God, because I see no possible way for a merciful Lord to condemn a child to eternal torment.

 

[StarFireKK]

If I’m right, then, as I said, if I, as a non-believer, were the parent of a child, I would absolutely resent the implication that my child is born with something “wrong” with him that needs to be “washed away” somehow. My child could be born with some kind of physical birth defect, and I would still see him as perfect and whole and complete and not needing any rituals to “correct” him and make him “acceptable” to others, and I would, frankly, find it highly insulting for someone to suggest otherwise.

It’s not hard to see why a non-believer would object so strongly to a ritual that implies these kinds of things.

Welcome to CAF! As the other poster states all are welcomed here.

I can see how you believe we are saying something is “wrong” with the child and needs to be washed away. But that’s not how Catholics view the rite.

It isn’t that the child has something wrong with him but that he lacks the grace of God. That’s what we lost with the original sin- our ability to be born into grace. Catholics believe that Grace we receive through the baptism rite helps us to live a less sinful life. It is a gift. (Like in Sleeping Beauty when the Good Fairy gave her the gift of music- it wasn’t that she was a “bad” singer before…but now she’s even better.)

Think of it as giving your child a tool to help him in life rather than something about him that needs to be “fixed.” For example, I am deaf and wear a hearing aid. If you were to indicate to me that I was “broken” I would laugh at you. But to refuse to wear my hearings aid (the tool) would be prideful, stupid and severely limit my ability to be the best person I could in this world. (Or at least it would make it a lot harder.)

That’s how we view baptism. It isn’t the child is “broken” it is we are giving him something to help him live a bigger, fuller, and in some ways easier life.

To the other posters that don’t understand why a nonbeliever would care- I have heard (I never took the time to look this up) that some religions will not allow you to be a full member if you have been baptized. So the nonbeliever wants to give their children “full” freedom to decide for themselves and baptism would limit those options.

(To all the Catholic posters- I try to look up and make sure I have the teachings of the Church right. But I mainly learned my faith through osmosis- so if I have said anything incorrect PLEASE correct me! I’ll be embarrassed, but I’ll get over it. )

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Did they marry in the Catholic Church? I assume the answer is yes, because you said your son is a devout Catholic. Then she has promised not to stand in the way of her children becoming Catholic. If she is now renegotiating the terms of that agreement, your son should remind her that she cannot do that.

If your son will not stand up for his children, the subject is closed for you. Pray for them. No secret baptisms are allowed.

Sorry for the mis-stating of the relationship - I see it is the son of your SIL that has this problem, not your own son. Doesn’t change the basic facts, however.

 

[Rence]

Did they marry in the Catholic Church? I assume the answer is yes, because you said your son is a devout Catholic. Then she has promised not to stand in the way of her children becoming Catholic. If she is now renegotiating the terms of that agreement, your son should remind her that she cannot do that.

If your son will not stand up for his children, the subject is closed for you. Pray for them. No secret baptisms are allowed.

I’m assuming the answer is no, simply because of what the OP wrote. Unless I’m intepreting canon law incorrectly, only one parent has to consent to the Baptism – But that one parent has to commit to raise the child Catholic. From what the OP wrote, I infer that both parents have decided not to raise the child Catholic. If the father is a devout Catholic, then he would know that he is required to raise his kids Catholic, and if the father wanted to raise the child Catholic, he would. If they were married in the Church, there would have had to be a premarital agreement to raise all children Catholic, or the priest wouldn’t have married him. So I’m betting both parents don’t have any intention of raising this child Catholic. We can’t blame it all on the mother without knowing more. In fact, the father could Baptise the child himself, and begin catechising his child himself. There is no impediement if his intentions are committed to raising the child Catholic - because he’s one of the parents. No one would be more appropriate than the father when there is this type of conflict, because an agreement was already made before the marriage. So…I don’t think they’re married in the Church, and even if they were, both parents have decided not to baptise the child. That’s why other family members are trying to step in…

 

[dconklin]

The “bed was made” when the son married the atheist.

 

[Kaninchen]

I expect that if a somebody got your child reciting “la ilaha illa allah muhammad rasool allah” you’d regard it as of no religious consequence but be more than a little miffed.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

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.

Well, even Saint Padre Pio did secret baptisms for babies when the other parent was against it. I realize the Church frowns upon it, but if the other parent is completely against baptism and won’t hear it, secret baptism done by a Priest, Deacon or Bishop will count. It cannot be done by the parent unless the baby is in mortal danger.

Note: I at least think Deacons can perform baptisms. I looked into it once, and I’m pretty sure they can, but I could be mistaken.

 

[dingodile]

As an agnostic who married a Catholic in the Church, I had no problem giving consent to my children being raised Catholic–which they have been. Moreover, I attended Mass with them every week for 20 years or so and was active in various ministries of the Church. I’ve also taken time to do a lot of reading, to learn Catholic theology to the best of my ability, so that I wouldn’t find myself misrepresenting things in conversation.

I think a believer should prefer to trust the child to the grace of God than to risk causing even greater alienation of the whole family from the Church by performing secret rites. Put it this way: What do you trust more, the grace of God or the tolerance of atheists and lapsed Catholics?

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

There were cases when the mother deeply wanted to get their child baptized but the Father wouldn’t hear it. One time Saint Padre Pio accidentally choked the baby with the baptismal salt when he was under pressure because if the father knew he would barge into the church and probably kill him. By a miracle, however, the baby suddenly started breathing again.

 

[ATeutonicKnight]

My source? Any biography and movie you come across. The Church has not stated that secret baptisms are a sin. It states they are to be avoided unless there is sufficient reason. The child’s life is at risk if you don’t baptize it. I’d rather baptize my baby and make my wife angry than let my child die without being baptized and have God judge me for my ignorance. I think this whole “Well, I don’t want to anger my wife/husband, since they don’t exactly agree with it.” ideal to be pathetic. Don’t you realize the child’s life is at risk and it’s your fault if you let it die without being baptized because you didn’t want to anger your misinformed and closed-minded wife? What’s more important, family peace, or the soul of an innocent child?

 

[dingodile]

The child’s life is at risk if you don’t baptize it. I’d rather baptize my baby and make my wife angry than let my child die without being baptized and have God judge me for my ignorance.

I think you’ve mentioned two risks here. One is the life of the child. To say that that is a risk is to say that you don’t trust God to do right by the child. The other risk is God’s judgment against you. But since God doesn’t require you to do secret baptisms, what is the judgment that you fear?

 

[anp1215]

My source? Any biography and movie you come across. The Church has not stated that secret baptisms are a sin. It states they are to be avoided unless there is sufficient reason. The child’s life is at risk if you don’t baptize it. I’d rather baptize my baby and make my wife angry than let my child die without being baptized and have God judge me for my ignorance. I think this whole “Well, I don’t want to anger my wife/husband, since they don’t exactly agree with it.” ideal to be pathetic. Don’t you realize the child’s life is at risk and it’s your fault if you let it die without being baptized because you didn’t want to anger your misinformed and closed-minded wife? What’s more important, family peace, or the soul of an innocent child?

We were talking about baptizing a child when both parents are against it. If one parent baptizes their ownchild against the wishes of the other parent, I would say the baptizing parent is justified in doing this, since it is their child too.

 

[StarFireKK]

I think a believer should prefer to trust the child to the grace of God than to risk causing even greater alienation of the whole family from the Church by performing secret rites. Put it this way: What do you trust more, the grace of God or the tolerance of atheists and lapsed Catholics?

That’s the wrong question. It is not who do we trust more- of course the answer is God. The question is “Which one do we want to give an explanation of our actions?” No offense but I much rather explain why I think a baptism is important to atheists and lapsed Catholics, than to explain to my Lord and God why I neglected my duty as a Catholic parent.

 

[StarFireKK]

I think you’ve mentioned two risks here. One is the life of the child. To say that that is a risk is to say that you don’t trust God to do right by the child. The other risk is God’s judgment against you. But since God doesn’t require you to do secret baptisms, what is the judgment that you fear?

First, Catholics don’t believe being sinless is enough to get to heaven. That’s why we say “we entrust them to God’s mercy.” We hope babies go to heaven…but we don’t know for sure.

Second, you have a duty to your child as a Catholic parent. To refuse or to neglect baptizing your child is a failure of that duty. So yes, if you die God’s going to want to know why it was you didn’t do everything for your child you could have done. I’m not sure he’s going to accept the “I didn’t want to make my family mad” excuse.

 

[PennyinCanada]

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.

Thank you for this respectful post. I appreciate that you took the time to give us your thoughts on this baptism situation.

I hope that Catholic single adults, who get very emotionally involved with a future spouse, can see by your post that there is trouble down the road if they should marry someone who is not Catholic and who doesn’t support infant baptism. There are a lot of Catholic “rules and regulations” that require both parents to be on board, or there will be a lot of tension between spouses and likely other family members who share, or don’t share, the Catholic faith.

Your post answers the question of a Catholic who says, “Why would they mind ‘getting the baby wet’, if that’s all they believe is happening?”. Thanks for that reply.