Baby baptised without father consent or knowledge

[Ophelia23]

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

Doesn’t the priest who performs the baptism 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 to wait.
If she didn’t tell the priest this, then she kept important information from the priest and that was not right.
If she did tell him, and the priest went ahead with it anyway…well…wow.

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.

It doesn’t quite work this way in the Catholic Church. One tenant of our profession of Faith (the Creed) is the assertion that we confess one Baptism. Let’s say, as an example, that one was raised and baptized as Baptist and then converts to Catholicism. They do not receive an additional Baptism to enter our Church, because they have already been Baptized in Christ.

 

[twopekinguys]

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.

I have not been belligerent in this thread in the least. Unless of course pointing out that you were being a nosy nellie wanting to know details that were of no concern to you, or anyone else on this board. Sorry bout it. Deal with it.

I am going to type this really slowly so maybe you can comprehend some of it.

If you had READ and UNDERSTOOD the original post, you would have seen that the baptism happened outside of the USA. You do realize there are other parts of the world right?

You realize laws in the country where the baptism was performed would take precedence right?

The article I referenced, again, had you READ and UNDERSTOOD happened outside of the USA. Seeing a possible connection here yet? I’ll help you out. The OP stated she left the country to do this. Try rereading the OP.

I also mentioned how Atheists tend to pursue this kind of thing. They have made one church flinch, they will soon move on to the next, and the next. Or haven’t you noticed how Atheism is gaining ground in every culture?

For you to suggest that I am suggesting he follow a legal course to reverse this, then you are having more problems with reading comprehension than I thought, and quite honestly very offensive.

Sorry, I didn’t see moderator after your name, or on your profile. Maybe you should take your own advice and opt out of the thread.

By the way, I see you still have not admitted your error about saying people were not telling him to “get over it”. See post #3, and get back to me.

Have a nice day!!

 

[twopekinguys]

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?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

First, read the OP, the baptism did not happen in this country. The laws of the country in which the baptism were performed would take precedence.

I have not suggested or implied that he should try to have the record removed or changed, however, that was the OP’s question.

What I have been trying to get across to people, unsuccessfully I might add, is that the ruling in the UK, can ultimately come to other countries, including the US.

Atheist groups are very tenacious, and are not going to stop with one small victory. They think on a much larger scale.

That article was against the Anglican church, but what is going to stop them from going after Catholic records?

No matter what the courts decide, it cannot change the baptism (assuming it was valid), but it can make it “appear” that way.

For Atheists, this would be a victory.

Let’s picture this possible scenario.

I have my baby Johnny baptized.

Johnny grows up, and decides to be an Atheist.

He goes to court, just like the guy in the article, and the court orders the Church to remove the record.

You know he’s been baptized, I know he’s been baptized, but there is no longer a record of it. It would be a victory for the athiests against the church.

So, you see, it does tie together on a much broader scale. The OP was looking to have it annulled, or removed. I provided an article where it had been done. (there is that connection).

I then went on to say in one of those posts, that we have to be careful, that this is how things get changed. Small little things like the case in the UK, can, and often do grow into global problems before we realize it.

I also mentioned that in a case like this, it can mess with peoples genealogy research.

For example:

“Everyone was Anglican except Uncle Bob”, “Aunt Mary said he was baptized but the church says he wasn’t”. See where this could wreak havoc?

Do a search on the mormon church doing post-humous baptisms on Holacaust victims. The Jewish Federation got upset (rightfully so) because it made it look like these victims were mormon, and not Jewish.

We have to think on a global scale. We are a global Church.
Remember this:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a catholic.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.