A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Just as a preliminary to clear up otjm’s idea on the place of baptism:
Can. 857 §2. As a rule an adult is to be baptized in his or her parish church and an infant in the parish church of the parents unless a just cause suggests otherwise.
Now that “rule” is not actually much of a rule (hence why I said it isn’t one at all) because a “just cause” is a very low bar, so for any sort of understandable reason (going to my uncle the priest’s parish, easier to accomodate family at St. Kunegunde, etc.) one can be baptized outside of the proper parish.
Now, more pertinently, here is the canon requiring another priest to get permission to baptize in the OP’s parish:
Can. 862 Except in a case of necessity, no one is permitted to confer baptism in the territory of another without the required permission, not even upon his own subjects.
I contend, though, that the pastor needs some sort of positive reason to deny that permission. So in other words, he can’t just say no, he has to say, “No, and for this reason.” That reason would most reasonably be if he thought one or another party involved were not suitably prepared or qualified - say he considered the priest’s past conduct of baptisms scandalous or the parents uncommitted to raising the child in the faith. If all the canonical requirements (apart from the permission to baptize in the parish) have been met, though, what is his positive reason? It sounds like it is this rule he has imposed about no baptisms during Lent. But the more necessary something is for salvation, the fewer legal obstacles the Church places in its way; that’s why with baptism - which is essential - there are so few invalidating conditions. This means that with a sacrament that is so important, he’s going to need a really good reason to deny permission. It’s not enough that the books state a “preference” for baptism during Sunday Mass, or whatever other preference he might wish to cite; if the requested practice is allowed, he needs a positive reason to step in its way.
The liturgical books certainly still hold out the option of private celebration of baptism, so I would simply approach the pastor saying you already have the priest or deacon to confer the sacrament (and since it is private there is no need to mention OF/EF) and ask to use the space. You can find a nice way of assuring him that your private liturgy will in no way harm the fragile lenten consciences of the rest of his parishioners, and you might even make an explicit offer to “tone things down” in recognition of the season. If he’s still not budging, I would then be prepared with instances in which he uses - or allows others to use - what we might term “less-than-preferred options” and simply ask for the same sort of consideration. In other words, you’re not asking for special treatment, just what you think has been established (if you can do this) as the standard consideration offered everyone. If all else fails and your relationship with the pastor is less important to you than having your child baptized in the historic parish, go over his head and challenge his ruling before the bishop.
Can. 857 §2. As a rule an adult is to be baptized in his or her parish church and an infant in the parish church of the parents unless a just cause suggests otherwise.
Now that “rule” is not actually much of a rule (hence why I said it isn’t one at all) because a “just cause” is a very low bar, so for any sort of understandable reason (going to my uncle the priest’s parish, easier to accomodate family at St. Kunegunde, etc.) one can be baptized outside of the proper parish.
Now, more pertinently, here is the canon requiring another priest to get permission to baptize in the OP’s parish:
Can. 862 Except in a case of necessity, no one is permitted to confer baptism in the territory of another without the required permission, not even upon his own subjects.
I contend, though, that the pastor needs some sort of positive reason to deny that permission. So in other words, he can’t just say no, he has to say, “No, and for this reason.” That reason would most reasonably be if he thought one or another party involved were not suitably prepared or qualified - say he considered the priest’s past conduct of baptisms scandalous or the parents uncommitted to raising the child in the faith. If all the canonical requirements (apart from the permission to baptize in the parish) have been met, though, what is his positive reason? It sounds like it is this rule he has imposed about no baptisms during Lent. But the more necessary something is for salvation, the fewer legal obstacles the Church places in its way; that’s why with baptism - which is essential - there are so few invalidating conditions. This means that with a sacrament that is so important, he’s going to need a really good reason to deny permission. It’s not enough that the books state a “preference” for baptism during Sunday Mass, or whatever other preference he might wish to cite; if the requested practice is allowed, he needs a positive reason to step in its way.
The liturgical books certainly still hold out the option of private celebration of baptism, so I would simply approach the pastor saying you already have the priest or deacon to confer the sacrament (and since it is private there is no need to mention OF/EF) and ask to use the space. You can find a nice way of assuring him that your private liturgy will in no way harm the fragile lenten consciences of the rest of his parishioners, and you might even make an explicit offer to “tone things down” in recognition of the season. If he’s still not budging, I would then be prepared with instances in which he uses - or allows others to use - what we might term “less-than-preferred options” and simply ask for the same sort of consideration. In other words, you’re not asking for special treatment, just what you think has been established (if you can do this) as the standard consideration offered everyone. If all else fails and your relationship with the pastor is less important to you than having your child baptized in the historic parish, go over his head and challenge his ruling before the bishop.