Baby baptised without father consent or knowledge

[Petergee]

While I can understand your hurt and frustration that your wife did something behind your back, please take a moment to consider the child rather than yourself. Being present was important to you, I understand that. However, the welfare of your child’s eternal soul has such a greater importance than your feelings. What if, heaven forbid, something were to happen to your sweet child? Would you truly wish their eternal separation from our Creator simply because you couldn’t be present for the baptism? Once you put this into perspective and take a step aside from your personal feelings, you will find yourself to be much less distraught. Possibly even relieved to know that this has been taken care of, as it needed to be.

God bless. Have faith, and rejoice! Your child is one of many in this One Body! How great is that!

Tony, you should be relieved that your son has been baptised at last! Was there some VERY serious reason why you had allowed your son to grow to beyond his second birthday without arranging his baptism? The Church says that babies should be baptised as soon as practicable, i.e. generally within a few weeks of birth, as soon as the mother and baby are well enough to travel to a church. If the mother and baby were well enough to travel to another country, they were certainly well enough to go to church for the baby to be baptised.

Whilst ideally both parents should be present at the baptism and ideally both parents should give their explicit consent to it, this is not necessary.

I take it, I hope, that you do not object to the baptism per se but only object to the fact that you weren’t able to be there. In that case the priest or minister concluded rightly that you had no objection to the baptism so it was right that he went ahead with it.

Yes it is deplorable that your wife is apparently using your son as a pawn in a power-game against you, but don’t sink to her level by retaliating in the ways you describe. Rejoice that your son is now a child of God!

Also your assumption about your wife’s motives may be incorrect. Perhaps she was concerned that the toddler had not been baptised yet, especially as she was now caring for him on her own and was worried that if something happened to her he might never be baptised? Perhaps she wanted him to be baptised in her home country with her relatives present, maybe in the same church where she was baptised or by the same priest? There could be many valid reasons. Don’t assume that everything she does is done out of malice towards you.

You say “I recently separated” from her, impkying that you initiated or at least consented to the separation. Was there a valid reason for this,e.g. was she abusing you in some way so that you had to leave? If not you should have done all in your poower to stay together. Then you would also have been able to have more (name removed by moderator)ut into the upbringing of the children.

 

[twopekinguys]

The article does not say that his baptism was in any way reversed or annulled. It merely says that the church agreed to include his newspaper announcement with his bpatismal record.

I would have to disagree with you here.

Church officials** had refused to delete or amend the entry**, saying it was a historical record.
**
However, this week, they backed down and have agreed to “correct” it** with a copy of a renouncement notice he had put in a local paper. (bolding and underlining mine)

“Had refused”,“backed down”, “agreed to correct it” is in effect saying the church was complying with the order.

He was baptized, it was recorded, and now they have the orders from the court to reverse it.

Again, it could set a precedent.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I would have to disagree with you here.

Church officials** had refused to delete or amend the entry**, saying it was a historical record.
**
However, this week, they backed down and have agreed to “correct” it** with a copy of a renouncement notice he had put in a local paper. (bolding and underlining mine)

“Had refused”,“backed down”, “agreed to correct it” is in effect saying the church was complying with the order.

He was baptized, it was recorded, and now they have the orders from the court to reverse it.

Again, it could set a precedent.

The church officials CANNOT reverse that baptism! It is a SACRAMENT and it was performed on that child! The child’s soul is now marked by baptism. Whatever is or isn’t on the record, he’s been baptised. The end.

 

[twopekinguys]

There is no such thing as “revoking” a valid baptism. It is a sacrament, and God doesn’t revoke a sacrament.

No one is telling the OP to “get over it,” only that once the baptism has been done, there is no re-doing it or undoing it. I suggested that he and his wife could hold a reception for the baby if he wants his family to be able to participate. I hope that he will not use this as a reason to divorce his wife.

And I would really like to hear the wife’s side of this story.

Read post 3 and tell me again that nobody is telling him to get over it.

I’m also guessing you didn’t read the link I posted that involved that very thing in the UK.

Why is it so important to hear from the wife? She did something spiteful, and deceitful. Case closed on that point.

 

[PrayRosary]

Why didn’t the baby get baptized before this? Why do you object to this baptism - and why are you separated?

You could have a reception for the baby and invite all of the family to that, but the baptism has been done and cannot be undone. Rejoice that your baby is now a Catholic!

I think this is objective and charitable advice…

 

[zzz]

Read post 3 and tell me again that nobody is telling him to get over it.

I’m also guessing you didn’t read the link I posted that involved that very thing in the UK.

Why is it so important to hear from the wife? She did something spiteful, and deceitful. Case closed on that point.

 

[guanophore]

Hi all

I recently separated from my wife of ten years. She went on holidays with the kids to our home country and had our last born baptized without my consent.

I strongly opposed the baptism on the ground that I wanted to be present. We have four children and I have been present to all the other children baptisms. After my initial opposition, she did not mention the baptism again and to my great surprise, she went ahead with it anyway, she just informed me that she had our youngest child baptised

I am very distraught by this obviously.

My question are: Can this baptism be valid without the father’s presence, my knowledge or consent?

If still valid, do I have grounds to have that ceremony annuled or not officially recognised by the Catholic church?

We are separated but still legally married and our youngest son is two years old. I would like a baptism where both of us are present

Thanks

Distraught father.

I hear you Distraught father. How painful and disappointing. This is such a wound, and there is no way it can be undone. You will have to forgive her this gross offense against your fatherhood and pray for her. Rejoice that your son is baptized, and focus on what you can do to build upon this to teach him how to be a good Christian man. Consider making some audio or video recordings for your children if you are far away from them.

Beleive that God can write straight with crooked lines, and that He was also wounded by transgressions. For the joy that was set before Him (resurrection) He endured the cross. This is a cross given you to bear, so that you can better unite with Him in being wronged.

 

[twopekinguys]

The church officials CANNOT reverse that baptism! It is a SACRAMENT and it was performed on that child! The child’s soul is now marked by baptism. Whatever is or isn’t on the record, he’s been baptised. The end.

You are missing the point, entirely. The church flinched. The church caved in. The church’s records now show that it was forced by the courts to reverse the baptism.

At no point did I say that the baptism has been reversed, but the records now look that way.

The other point is, this could set a precedent. Courts in other countries, and the US could come to the same conclusion based upon this case. Atheists tend to push those kind of things.

A100 yrs from now, someone doing geneological research will see that the courts ordered the church to revoke the baptism, and the records have been noted. Someone down the line could reasonably believe that it was done.

This is how things change over time. Right or wrong, this is how it happens. One obscure incident creates an avalanche.

The End

 

[1ke]

You are missing the point, entirely. The church flinched. The church caved in. The church’s records now show that it was forced by the courts to reverse the baptism.

The Catholic Church did not “flinch”. This is an Anglican parish.

They did not “reverse” the baptism. They annotated the sacramental record. The newspaper, in its typical way of not actually understanding what it is reporting uses the terms “corrected” when in fact it was an annotation on the baptsmal record.

The Catholic Church annotates baptismal records in accordance with canon law all the time. Nothing new here.

At no point did I say that the baptism has been reversed, but the records now look that way.

No, the records don’t look that way. Have you ever seen sacramental records? If not, ask your priest to show you how they are kept.

The other point is, this could set a precedent.

So what? Baptismal records are already annotated in the Catholic Church Germany for those who defect to avoid paying the Church Tax. And, formal defection is noted in the sacramental record. I suspect the Anglican Communion has no equivalent or analogous process of formal defection hence this guy’s newspaper ad and campaign to have the record ammended.

Courts in other countries, and the US could come to the same conclusion based upon this case. Atheists tend to push those kind of things.

US jurisprudence must be based on US law and the US constitution.

But, since the Catholic Church already has procedures for ammending sacramental records for formal defection, my question is… so what?

A100 yrs from now, someone doing geneological research will see that the courts ordered the church to revoke the baptism, and the records have been noted. Someone down the line could reasonably believe that it was done.

I disagree.

And, as this already occurs in the Catholic Church I am really not sure what the fuss is about.

 

[twopekinguys]

said the entry would be “corrected”.The Catholic Church did not “flinch”. This is an Anglican parish.

I never said it was a Catholic Church, I never implied it, please don’t make it appear that I did.

They did not “reverse” the baptism. They annotated the sacramental record. The newspaper, in its typical way of not actually understanding what it is reporting uses the terms “corrected” when in fact it was an annotation on the baptsmal record.

I never said they reversed it.(Baptism in the eyes of the church cannot be reversed) However, we are talking about the courts. In addition, I said what you are saying. There is a baptismal record showing the baptism, and that there is a court order showing that it is to be undone. The church said "said the entry would be “corrected”. What do you think corrected means?

It means they are going to note in the baptismal registry that they are required to show that the baptism has been protested and reversed.

The Catholic Church annotates baptismal records in accordance with canon law all the time. Nothing new here.

Have you seen one annotated because of a court order? If so, please provide an example.

No, the records don’t look that way. Have you ever seen sacramental records? If not, ask your priest to show you how they are kept.

Being the Lay Director of RCIA, of our parish for almost 20 years, I can tell you I have seen many sacramental records. More than I can count, so your snarky comment kind of fails here. But good try.

So what? Baptismal records are already annotated in the Catholic Church Germany for those who defect to avoid paying the Church Tax. And, formal defection is noted in the sacramental record. I suspect the Anglican Communion has no equivalent or analogous process of formal defection hence this guy’s newspaper ad and campaign to have the record ammended.

But this isn’t by COURT ORDER . You’re trying for apples and oranges here.

US jurisprudence must be based on US law and the US constitution.

Obviously you haven’t been keeping up with current affairs with regard to religion and the constitution. Where do you think Presidents and congressmen come up with some of their “bright” ideas? Small cases like this for one.

But, since the Catholic Church already has procedures for ammending sacramental records for formal defection, my question is… so what?

Stick with me here. This was Court ordered. There is a difference.

And, as this already occurs in the Catholic Church I am really not sure what the fuss is about.

Show me a sacramental record that has been annotated due to a court order like the case I quoted. Otherwise, you are still comparing apples and oranges.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

You are missing the point, entirely. The church flinched. The church caved in. The church’s records now show that it was forced by the courts to reverse the baptism.

At no point did I say that the baptism has been reversed, but the records now look that way.

The other point is, this could set a precedent. Courts in other countries, and the US could come to the same conclusion based upon this case. Atheists tend to push those kind of things.

A100 yrs from now, someone doing geneological research will see that the courts ordered the church to revoke the baptism, and the records have been noted. Someone down the line could reasonably believe that it was done.

This is how things change over time. Right or wrong, this is how it happens. One obscure incident creates an avalanche.

The End

No, you are inserting a point of your own into this entire discussion, taking the thread completely off-topic, for some unknown reason. What does any of this have to do with the OP? Do you think he is going to press the church his son was baptised in to amend their records? Are you recommending that he do so? What is the connection to some atheist and an Anglican church? This is a CATHOLIC family, and the OP and his wife are having problems because they have separated.

At least we who have been addressing the OP directly about HIS situation aren’t muddying the water by bringing in some bizarre and totally irrelevant case.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

That was so unfair of her to do this without telling you, on the sly like that.

Doesn’t the priest who performs need/want to know where the parents are? Wouldn’t he have asked her where the father is?
If she told him she is doing this without your knowledge, I wonder if the priest would have urged her otherwise.

I’ve known many people who were baptized as babies who got baptized again as an adult.

Maybe you can check with a priest to see if this is possible and do it a second time…so that this time all your family and friends can be present and it can be done properly with both parents knowing about it.

No, this isn’t done in the Catholic Church. Once the baby is baptised, he can’t be re-baptised. They can have a reception to celebrate the occasion but the sacrament can’t be administered twice.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Two wrongs don’t make a right. This couple needs marital counseling, not dualing baptisms.

 

[Petergee]

Read post 3 and tell me again that nobody is telling him to get over it.

I’m also guessing you didn’t read the link I posted that involved that very thing in the UK.

Why is it so important to hear from the wife? She did something spiteful, and deceitful. Case closed on that point.

What? Who appointed you judge and jury? There is not even any evidence at all that the wife was being spiteful.

Perhaps it was deceitful, but if my son had reached the age of two years and still had not been baptised, I would get it done ASAP regardless of whether my wife was present for it. It seems more likely that the wife actually understands baptism and the need for it better than the OP does. He seems to think his son’s baptism is all about getting videos of himself with the child. He doesn’t seem to object to his son being baptised per se, so what is the major probblem with what the wife did?

 

[1ke]

If he went to a different church and had the baby baptized again…would harm might come to the baby?

He would have to LIE to the priest about the baby’s baptismal status and commit sacrilige in order to accomlpish this.

 

[twopekinguys]

What? Who appointed you judge and jury? There is not even any evidence at all that the wife was being spiteful.

Perhaps it was deceitful, but if my son had reached the age of two years and still had not been baptised, I would get it done ASAP regardless of whether my wife was present for it. It seems more likely that the wife actually understands baptism and the need for it better than the OP does. He seems to think his son’s baptism is all about getting videos of himself with the child. He doesn’t seem to object to his son being baptised per se, so what is the major probblem with what the wife did?

Now who’s being judge and jury? You don’t their reasons for waiting.

They BOTH decided to wait the 2 years, so let’s not come down that it is only HIS fault. She could have done it long before now.

What’s the problem with what the wife did? You answered it yourself earlier in your post now you’re asking again?

Yes it was spiteful because she knew he wanted to be there, but did it anyway. That is spiteful.

 

[twopekinguys]

No, you are inserting a point of your own into this entire discussion, taking the thread completely off-topic, for some unknown reason. What does any of this have to do with the OP? Do you think he is going to press the church his son was baptised in to amend their records? Are you recommending that he do so? What is the connection to some atheist and an Anglican church? This is a CATHOLIC family, and the OP and his wife are having problems because they have separated.

At least we who have been addressing the OP directly about HIS situation aren’t muddying the water by bringing in some bizarre and totally irrelevant case.

You do realize that many Anglicans are coming back to the Catholic Church right?

You do realize that court rulings like this can affect Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. right?

You realize atheists have an agenda that will affect ALL religions right, and won’t stop with just one small victory right?

So, you see, I’m not taking it off topic? I’m not inserting my own point?

How you can jump to such a bizarre point to suggest that he follow the same course, has got to be one of the strangest notions I have ever read, but then again it doesn’t surprise me.

You were the one that wanted to get all nosy about the private issues of their life regarding the separation, which has absolutely NO bearing on the discussion. So, you might want to rethink that statement.

By the way, still waiting for you apology regarding the point that people were telling him to “get over it.” See post #3.

Wanna try again?

 

[Phemie]

You are missing the point, entirely. The church flinched. The church caved in. The church’s records now show that it was forced by the courts to reverse the baptism.

At no point did I say that the baptism has been reversed, but the records now look that way,

The other point is, this could set a precedent. Courts in other countries, and the US could come to the same conclusion based upon this case. Atheists tend to push those kind of things.

A100 yrs from now, someone doing geneological research will see that the courts ordered the church to revoke the baptism, and the records have been noted. Someone down the line could reasonably believe that it was done.

This is how things change over time. Right or wrong, this is how it happens. One obscure incident creates an avalanche.

The End

The Church did exactly what it normally does when someone publicly renounces their Catholic faith. A notation is put in the baptismal records. That’s what happens, for example, when those who don’t want to pay the ‘church tax’ in Germany publicly say they are not part of the Catholic Church. At that point they are excommunicated.

In no way does it ‘reverse’ or ‘annul’ their Baptism. Repentance and Confession could bring them back to the Church with no need to be ‘rebaptized’.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

You do realize that many Anglicans are coming back to the Catholic Church right?

You do realize that court rulings like this can affect Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. right?

You realize atheists have an agenda that will affect ALL religions right, and won’t stop with just one small victory right?

So, you see, I’m not taking it off topic? I’m not inserting my own point?

How you can jump to such a bizarre point to suggest that he follow the same course, has got to be one of the strangest notions I have ever read, but then again it doesn’t surprise me.

You were the one that wanted to get all nosy about the private issues of their life regarding the separation, which has absolutely NO bearing on the discussion. So, you might want to rethink that statement.

By the way, still waiting for you apology regarding the point that people were telling him to “get over it.” See post #3.

Wanna try again?

No, I don’t. How does ANY of what you have been so belligerent about, help the OP in the slightest?

I ask you again, are you recommending that this Catholic father and husband pursue action through the courts to get his baby’s baptism reversed? Why bring this up on this thread when it has NOTHING to do with his situation at the moment?

They need counseling and reconciliation, not further separation. The action has been taken, it’s done. Time for him to get his family back together.

You really should unsubscribe to this thread, you’ve taken it into your own argument.

 

[Orogeny]

You do realize that court rulings like this can affect Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc. right?

In what way? That the record will be amended or that the baptism is nullified? How can the OP take consolation in a court ruling in Europe? Should he sue the Church to have the baptismal record removed so that he can force the Church into re-baptizing his son while he is there?

You realize atheists have an agenda that will affect ALL religions right, and won’t stop with just one small victory right?

I have read this thread and I don’t understand what point you are making. You say you understand that baptism can’t be undone. What is the relevance, then, to the atheist vs Anglican church ruling in Europe? How does that apply to this specific incident?

Peace

Tim