Baptism against court orders

  • Thread starter Thread starter maximus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

maximus

Guest
A man just got into quite a bit of legal trouble because once the couple divorced a judge order that a daughter must be raised exclusively in the Jewish faith. From having investigated the process of adoption that if a child had been in a faith tradition that until an adoption was finalized you had to take them to a service of that particular tradition i.e. if the child was Baptist you would have to ensure that the would be taken to the appropriate church and you make it to your faith service separately. Also, I knew of parents that could not bring a child to mass until the adoption process was finalized so the man in this story I believed acted foolishly. It is one of those cases that IMO illustrates why people of different faiths should defer marriage until they can choose unanimously what religion to belong.

The main interest in the story is that we argue in this country about separation of church and state and her is the state intervening in religious manner. While this case is not the best example since it is pretty clear cut how do we feel about our court system getting involved in religious issues and what bad examples of this do you know about.

Also, is this a legal baptism?

Link to the story
abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/divorce-battle-joseph-reyes-faces-jail-baptizing-daughter-church/story?id=9845919

God Bless,
 
It is certainly beyond the rights of the government to dictate what religion a child will be raised (or that they not be raised in a certain religion), and this is part of a troubling trend in this regard.

The baptism was probably licit, but of questionable prudence, depending on the custody situation. If the father is going to be unable to raise her Catholic, then it may have been better to hold off on the baptism.
 
In this case, this isn’t the state preventing the father from raising his daughter in the religion of the father.

In this case, the father converted to judaism to marry his wife. He ageed that the child would be raised Jewish (which was the mother’s religion). After they got divorced, the father reverted back to Catholicism, but wanted (against the mother’s wishes, and against the previous agreements they had before and during their marriage) to raise the child Catholic. The ex-wife has custody of the child, and the judge ruled, that she (as the parent with custody) should be able to raise her daughter by her religion.

Unfortunately, the father was the one who gave up his rights. He agreed to convert to judaism in order to marry the woman, and further, he agreed to raise the child Jewish. He knew full well and agreed with the entire situation. The state didn’t intefere in the father’s parental rights. The Judge supported the mother’s parental rights because she has custody. The father should not have violated the court order, and frankly, he shouldn’t have converted to please a human in the first place.
 
Dad realizes he made a mistake by leaving Christ, he is willing to do anything - even go to jail, to bring his child to Jesus.

It is sad that the courts had to be involved.
 
Separation of Church and State supporters…the silence is deafening.
 
the reporting on this story has been vague in the extreme, but if the father is not the custodial parent, the Catholic parish should not have baptized the child. we would not be allowed to accept a registration for baptism in such a case, or register the child for RE or sacramental prep, either, without permission of the custodial parish. Believe me this is an issue that comes up all the time.
 
Its not an issue of separation between church and state. When parents divorce and have different religious beliefs, they both can’t raise the child in their own religion. A child can’t be a Muslim and Catholic, for example. So the judge must determine who gets to chose the child’s religion. I haven’t looked at the details of this case, but if the Jewish parent was given rights to raise the child Jewish, then it was illegal for the other parent to baptize the child.

Its an uncomfortable business, but its not nearly the most uncomfortable part of family law, believe me.

Taking off my legal hat, the moral question is whether it is more proper to baptize a child or to follow the laws of the government God appointed above us. I suspect the latter.
 
camerong said:
Taking off my legal hat, the moral question is whether it is more proper to baptize a child or to follow the laws of the government God appointed above us. I suspect the latter.
Click to expand...
Divine positive law is greater than human positive law. As such, divine law can bind us to break human law, but not vice versa. Morally, he did nothing wrong.

Prudentially, he may have erred (if he is the non-custodial parent), as did the parish that baptized a child unlikely to be raised in the Faith.

As to “divine right”, the Protestant notion of divine right is largely dead due to the rise of the republic. It is but a variation of the naturalistic fallacy. It is sad to see resurrected here.
 
this is also a canon law issue and that is the way the parish involved should have addressed it. If there is not a well founded hope the child will be raised Catholic, and a non-custodial parent is often unable to assure this, then the baptism must be delayed.
 
Also, I hope that the diocese is not sued. This could be very bad for the parish and the priest involved.

God Bless,
 
camerong said:
Its not an issue of separation between church and state. So the judge must determine who gets to chose the child’s religion.
Click to expand...
Suuuuuuuuuuuure… No contradiction there.

The state has no right in determining who practices which religion.

What part of SEPARATION of Church and State is hard to understand?

I guess since Christianity is involved, the state has the right to stifle it.
 
BobCatholic said:
Suuuuuuuuuuuure… No contradiction there.

The state has no right in determining who practices which religion.

What part of SEPARATION of Church and State is hard to understand?

I guess since Christianity is involved, the state has the right to stifle it.
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with the separation of Church and State which means that the Church does not interfere in government affairs and the government doesn’t interfere with the governing of the Church or by trying to stifle or change her beliefs.

It has everything to do with custody and the rights of the custodial parent and shared parental duty. Unfortunately it appears that the child is the ping-pong ball in this pi–ing match, and will ultimately be the one that suffers, whether she is brought up Jewish or Catholic. The parents (and courts) need to come up with a compromise that allows the child to continue attending services with her mother (the custodial parent), in the Jewish faith, while at the same time allowing the father to teach her about his faith. Then she can make up her own mind at the age of reason.

Better to gently plant and water the seed… and also consider what comes first: the well-being of the child. It isn’t clear to me that the child will be better off being forced to practice a religion that her custodial parent doesn’t. We need to trust in Christ’s mercy for children in these unfortunate circumstances, that being the innocent pawn in the battle, He will carry her in His infinite mercy regardless of what religion the parents force her into.
 
kage_ar said:
Dad realizes he made a mistake by leaving Christ, he is willing to do anything - even go to jail, to bring his child to Jesus.

It is sad that the courts had to be involved.
Click to expand...
lol, I would be more inclined to say the guy did it to spite his wife.
 
hellopeople said:
lol, I would be more inclined to say the guy did it to spite his wife.
Click to expand...
If that was his intention; man did he let his emotions get the better of him. He probably has a lot of legal issues pending with is ex and to add this to the list will not win any points in court.

Peace
 
Baptism should not be used as a weapon, and the priest should not have baptised the child, as there was no guarantee that the child would be raised Catholic.

However, I must take issue with one argument, which is that the father had “converted” to Judaism and agreed to raise the child(ren) Jewish.

If two people marry and say they are going to be X (non-Catholic religion), and one converts, then that has to be worked out. We cannot remain in the wrong religion simply because that’s where we were: we each have a higher obligation to God than we do to humans. It is a tricky situation, but God must still be obeyed.

This is one of the reasons that *divorce *is so bad, not the courts who are trying to deal with it (and acknowledging that they are the agents of the same institution which encouraged an increase in divorce). The problem is that divorce and the divorce mentality are very inimical to society and to the family.
 
OraLabora said:
This has nothing to do with the separation of Church and State which means that the Church does not interfere in government affairs and the government doesn’t interfere with the governing of the Church or by trying to stifle or change her beliefs.
Click to expand...
The government has no right to dictate what religion an individual will practice, or how they will practice it. Period.

I guess that’s a hard thing to understand.

THAT is the backbone of SOCAS.

When the government CAN dictate what religion one will practice or how they practice it, that’s tantamount to the state imposing a state religion.
 
BobCatholic said:
The government has no right to dictate what religion an individual will practice, or how they will practice it. Period.

I guess that’s a hard thing to understand.

THAT is the backbone of SOCAS.

When the government CAN dictate what religion one will practice or how they practice it, that’s tantamount to the state imposing a state religion.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the “government” is dictating anything in this case. We have a civil divorce, and there is a conflict between the parents over the religious upbringing of the child. Since the parents appear unable to resolve the conflict themselves, someone has to take a decision to avoid further eroding the well-being of the child.

If you think this is wrong, then how would YOU decide? The child can’t be Catholic and Jewish at the same time.

I think what happened here is that there is a concept called “custody”, and the judge came down in favor of the custodial parent, it’s as simple as that. Had custody been shared, the problem would probably have been even more vexing.

I agree with the comment that this is further proof of the evil of divorce.
 
OraLabora said:
I don’t think the “government” is dictating anything in this case. We have a civil divorce, and there is a conflict between the parents over the religious upbringing of the child. Since the parents appear unable to resolve the conflict themselves, someone has to take a decision to avoid further eroding the well-being of the child.

If you think this is wrong, then how would YOU decide? The child can’t be Catholic and Jewish at the same time.

I think what happened here is that there is a concept called “custody”, and the judge came down in favor of the custodial parent, it’s as simple as that. Had custody been shared, the problem would probably have been even more vexing.

I agree with the comment that this is further proof of the evil of divorce.
Click to expand...
Exactly. As I mentioned previously, this is an uncomfortable business.

But, the court really only looks to which parents have the right to have custody, and gives that parent the right to dictate the child’s religion. Even if the custodial parent wants to raise the child in some crazy cult, the court will generally not interfere as long as there is no risk to the child’s health or wellbeing (which does not include spiritual well-being as we see it). No court, whether in family law or elsewhere, can ever decide the relative merits of one religion over another, and you will never see one do that even in family law.
 
QUOTE=BobCatholic;6332832]The government has no right to dictate what religion an individual will practice, or how they will practice it. Period. I guess that’s a hard thing to understand. THAT is the backbone of SOCAS. When the government CAN dictate what religion one will practice or how they practice it, that’s tantamount to the state imposing a state religion.

I have gone through foster/adoption training from the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) in the State of New Jersey. Here is what I understand on this matter in terms of adoption. Let’s say a young child of Baptist parents comes under State custody by DYFS and the child was assigned to my household. I would not be allowed to take this child to mass with me and have the child baptized until the child would be legally adopted by my wife and I; assuming that the family of origin has not made a request of no change of religion.

In this example case the Mother seems to be the legal guardian, so she calls the shots. It seems their state maintains the religious status requested by the current or last legal guardian of the child; which seems to be the way my state operates.

God Bless
 
OraLabora said:
I don’t think the “government” is dictating anything in this case.
Click to expand...
The government is dictating that the child cannot be Christian.
If you think this is wrong, then how would YOU decide? The child can’t be Catholic and Jewish at the same time.
Click to expand...
I would order the couple to sit down and work out an arrangement acceptable to both. They have 60 days to do so or both get thrown in the jail and the child given to DCFS until they figure it out. When they work it out, a consent decree is issued and enforced by the court.

The court erred by imposing the State Religion of Anti-Christianity on the man.

And one can be both Catholic and Jewish at the same time. Catholicism is the fulfillment of Judaism. Paraphrasing (Sister) Rosalind Moss “One can be a fulfilled Jew by being Catholic” The mother erred in her hatred and bigotry, which the court upheld.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top