Baptism During Lent

[Dietrich]

I know this has been covered before, and I’m not asking whether it’s licit or not to do this during Lent. I’m posting this in the “Traditional Catholicism” folder because I feel the people lurking here will be more in concert with my own feelings on the subject and thus give an answer to the question rather than a lengthy rebuttal.

My wife and I are due to have a baby on Feb. 27th. Naturally, we would like to have the baptism shortly after birth, no longer than two weeks at the absolute longest. We are part of that aspect of Catholicism that still holds that Original Sin is real and so is Baptism. We see no good reason to delay welcoming our child into the Church and into a life of grace.

HOWEVER, some in our local archdioscese (San Francisco), despite a nagging tendency to ignore other rational directives from the Magisterium, is likely going to press hard for us to wait to baptize until after Easter. We have read and understand the Canon on this matter and feel that as it is not a hard and fast rule but a recommendation, the pressing urgency to not delay baptism overrules the desire to not usurp the penitential aspect of Lent.

We have an appointment with the pastor of the church in which we would like to have the baptism held. Initially, he didn’t think the Lenten recommendation posed a problem, but in a phone conversation two days ago sounded less free-and-easy on the subject.

Also, we feel that the Moto Proprio recently issued arms us with the authority to request and receive this sacrament (through other clergy who will be performing the rite) in it’s traditional, pre-Vatican II form. We will stand firm on this point.

After that lengthy preamble, I am asking for this advice: How should I approach this situation and bring about the desired outcome? I don’t want to ‘preach to a preacher’ and sound petulant. However, I also don’t want to sound like I will comply with these recommendations either. In between there’s a way to approach this to put the pastor’s mind at ease and also achieve our aims. What that tactic ought to be is my question.

Also, I’m not sure I’m even obligated to bring up the fact that we want a traditional baptism. I don’t feel we need permission for this, but it’s bound to come up because of his mentioning that they prefer to baptize during Mass in those ‘cattle-call’ style baptisms that include other families. We’re not interested in that either. I’m obviously concerned that the pastor may not be up to speed with the rights and privileges granted those who want this, so I need a way to weave that in that doesn’t sound threatening to him and to his sense of priestly duty.

Lucky you! I have to stop typing now and get to work! But any advice anyone may have as to carrying out these hopes would be appreciated.

 

[rwoehmke]

My granddaughter will be Baptized on November 9. The priest was reluctant, but agreed to do it after 4:00 *** on Saturday after my son explained the situation. Her uncles and aunts from California and England were going to be flying in for a visit at that time (This is in La Crosse WI diocese). The preference is to put off Baptisms that might occur in Lent till Saturday Vigil Mass or Easter Sunday Mass, but unless other Bishops have done so there is no absolute ban…

 

[otjm]

I know this has been covered before, and I’m not asking whether it’s licit or not to do this during Lent. I’m posting this in the “Traditional Catholicism” folder because I feel the people lurking here will be more in concert with my own feelings on the subject and thus give an answer to the question rather than a lengthy rebuttal.

My wife and I are due to have a baby on Feb. 27th. Naturally, we would like to have the baptism shortly after birth, no longer than two weeks at the absolute longest. We are part of that aspect of Catholicism that still holds that Original Sin is real and so is Baptism. We see no good reason to delay welcoming our child into the Church and into a life of grace.

HOWEVER, some in our local archdioscese (San Francisco), despite a nagging tendency to ignore other rational directives from the Magisterium, is likely going to press hard for us to wait to baptize until after Easter. We have read and understand the Canon on this matter and feel that as it is not a hard and fast rule but a recommendation, the pressing urgency to not delay baptism overrules the desire to not usurp the penitential aspect of Lent.

We have an appointment with the pastor of the church in which we would like to have the baptism held. Initially, he didn’t think the Lenten recommendation posed a problem, but in a phone conversation two days ago sounded less free-and-easy on the subject.

Also, we feel that the Moto Proprio recently issued arms us with the authority to request and receive this sacrament (through other clergy who will be performing the rite) in it’s traditional, pre-Vatican II form. We will stand firm on this point.

After that lengthy preamble, I am asking for this advice: How should I approach this situation and bring about the desired outcome? I don’t want to ‘preach to a preacher’ and sound petulant. However, I also don’t want to sound like I will comply with these recommendations either. In between there’s a way to approach this to put the pastor’s mind at ease and also achieve our aims. What that tactic ought to be is my question.

Also, I’m not sure I’m even obligated to bring up the fact that we want a traditional baptism. I don’t feel we need permission for this, but it’s bound to come up because of his mentioning that they prefer to baptize during Mass in those ‘cattle-call’ style baptisms that include other families. We’re not interested in that either. I’m obviously concerned that the pastor may not be up to speed with the rights and privileges granted those who want this, so I need a way to weave that in that doesn’t sound threatening to him and to his sense of priestly duty.

Lucky you! I have to stop typing now and get to work! But any advice anyone may have as to carrying out these hopes would be appreciated.

You may desire to have the traditional form, but you will also have to find a priest who can do that. Most prie3sts ordained since 1969 have not been taught the traditional form, and it may be more than a simple matter of dragging out a ritual book contianing the process and prayers.

In any event, if you get into a pushing match with the pastor, you may find that he is “unable” to perform the Sacrament in the traditional format (form the post, it would appear that the parish you are in is not currently celebrating the EF). One of the two issues with having the EF celebrated is having priests who are able to say the Mass not only in Latin, but also with the differenc set of rubrics. The same could apply to the administration of any of the other sacrmaents. You can stand as firm as you wish, but before taking up a postion, please read the MP in its entirety, along with the letter the Pope wrote accompanying it; it may save you some grief.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Personally, if I knew the pastor might put up some roadblocks I would first identify the priest performing the traditional baptism so that it would merely be a question of requesting permission for the priest and space, rather than arranging the details with the pastor. If you have a priest there’s not really anything to justify his refusing permission.

Still, I wouldn’t use the MP to argue for a “right” to EF baptism. While we don’t need special permission to receive the EF, I also don’t think we have the ability to demand it and it alone.

 

[otjm]

The difficulty with “finding another priest” is the issue of which parish the couple belongs to; baptisms are of record and normally are done in the parish of record of the parents at the time of the baptism. It is not an impossiblity, but giving the prospect of “priest shopping” may not be the best advice.

On the other hand, if they are unhappy with the parish they are in currently, they may want to change parishes to one that would be more accomodating of their spiritual needs.

 

[AlexV]

Baptisms are indeed licit during Lent. The traditional liturgy even keeps the Asperges during Lent at Sunday High Mass, as a reminder that we are indeed a redeemed people and we don’t forget that or pretend that we’re not redeemed during Lent.

As for the older liturgy (now a living part of the Roman Rite)…an argument could be made that a priest of the Roman Rite should know all the liturgical functions of his Rite, in other words, both “old” and “new”. This isn’t brain surgery, folks. It’s really no big deal to learn how to celebrate a “Tridentine” baptism.

Furthermore, let’s remember that John XXIII…and later popes…have EXPECTED that ALL Roman Rite seminarians would learn Latin.

Negligence in learning the language of one’s Rite should be deplored and corrected, not trotted out as a convenient excuse for not doing what a person really doesn’t want to do anyway.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The difficulty with “finding another priest” is the issue of which parish the couple belongs to; baptisms are of record and normally are done in the parish of record of the parents at the time of the baptism. It is not an impossiblity, but giving the prospect of “priest shopping” may not be the best advice.

On the other hand, if they are unhappy with the parish they are in currently, they may want to change parishes to one that would be more accomodating of their spiritual needs.

While it is, indeed, normal to be baptized at the parents’ “parish of record,” there are a few issues that I think make these concerns little relevant:

1. A large number of Catholics worship at a “parish of record” that is not actually the parish to which they belong. This is because the little phenomenon we call parish registration has no legal effects; you are a parishioner where you reside, even if you’ve never set foot in the building. So we very regularly baptize children outside of their proper parishes even though many aren’t aware of it because they think they are parishioners where they have registered. “Changing parishes” won’t change their pastor.
2. There is no canonical requirement that a baptism be recorded at one’s proper parish, merely at the parish in which one is baptized, so you’re not making things hard on the proper pastor of the infant because he is only obliged to create a record if the infant is baptized in his parish.

 

[otjm]

While it is, indeed, normal to be baptized at the parents’ “parish of record,” there are a few issues that I think make these concerns little relevant:

1. A large number of Catholics worship at a “parish of record” that is not actually the parish to which they belong. This is because the little phenomenon we call parish registration has no legal effects; you are a parishioner where you reside, even if you’ve never set foot in the building. So we very regularly baptize children outside of their proper parishes even though many aren’t aware of it because they think they are parishioners where they have registered. “Changing parishes” won’t change their pastor.
2. There is no canonical requirement that a baptism be recorded at one’s proper parish, merely at the parish in which one is baptized, so you’re not making things hard on the proper pastor of the infant because he is only obliged to create a record if the infant is baptized in his parish.

Perhaps my error. It was my understanding that one had to be married in their own parish, or have permission to do otherwise; I was presuming that baptism of a child would go likewise. It was also my understanding that by registering in a parish as a member, that was the defining fact if one was registering in a parish other than the geographical one. Perhaps that is not the case.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Baptisms are indeed licit during Lent. . . .

Doyou have a source for that? Note

Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

Six to eight weeks seems to stretch the meaning of few.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Perhaps my error. It was my understanding that one had to be married in their own parish, or have permission to do otherwise; I was presuming that baptism of a child would go likewise. It was also my understanding that by registering in a parish as a member, that was the defining fact if one was registering in a parish other than the geographical one. Perhaps that is not the case.

You were actually correct about marriage - it is basically the only case remaining in which one must approach one’s proper pastor for a sacrament.

 

[otjm]

You were actually correct about marriage - it is basically the only case remaining in which one must approach one’s proper pastor for a sacrament.

Thanks.

Is it also correct that one can register in a parish other than within one’s geographical boundaries, and be a member of that parish as opposed to the geographical one?

 

[marci]

Is it also correct that one can register in a parish other than within one’s geographical boundaries, and be a member of that parish as opposed to the geographical one?

Yes. One can belong to a parish outside of the residential area.
I think that the idea of being “registered in a parish” in this country goes a little overboard. I live in an area that is predominately hispanic. The parishes which are filled with mostly spanish speaking parishoners, like my old parish, do not do “parish registrations”. There are no papers to fill out or collection envelopes.

Catholics should not consider ourselves belonging to a certain parish. We should not attach ourselves to a certain priest. We belong to the universal church. Whether we are in Rome, Columbia, or New York, when we are in mass we are home.

I know it is the proper form that one should approach one’s parish priest about marrital prep and baptismal classes, CAT classes, etc., but I know many people, including myself, who were not married in our “home” parish for various reasons.

As for the OP, my advice is to baptize the baby as soon as possible. You may have to participate in the “community” baptism at mass, but if that is the only way to do it, so be it. I definately would not wait until after Easter. I can’t believe that anyone would suggest holding off for several weeks unless there was a real lack of faith on the part of the parents. In your case this doesn’t seem to be an issue.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Thanks.

Is it also correct that one can register in a parish other than within one’s geographical boundaries, and be a member of that parish as opposed to the geographical one?

Parish membership by “registration” is a practice that is beyond the law. Apart from cases of personal parishes, one belongs to a parish by virtue of residence, and the pastor of that parish becomes the proper pastor who is required to provide pastoral service.

In practice, pastors will provide pastoral service to “registered” parishioners and will seldom think about the law in this regard. But they are obliged to provide such service to all members of the Christian faithful who have domicile or quasi domicile in the parish.

*Canon 102 §1. Domicile is acquired by residence within the territory of a certain parish or at least of a diocese, which either is joined with the intention of remaining there permanently unless called away, or has been protracted for five complete years. §2. Quasi-domicile is acquired by residence within the territory of a certain parish or at least of a diocese which either is joined with the intention of remaining there at least three months, unless called away, or has in fact been protracted for three months. §3. A domicile or quasi-domicile within the territory of a parish is called parochial; in the territory of a diocese, even though not in a particular parish, it is called diocesan.

Canon 107 §1. Each person acquires a proper pastor and ordinary through both domicile and quasidomicile. §2. The proper pastor or ordinary of a transient is the pastor or ordinary of the place in which the transient is actually staying. §3. The proper pastor of one who has only a diocesan domicile or quasi-domicile is the pastor of the place in which such a person is actually staying.

(*1983 translation)

 

[otjm]

Parish membership by “registration” is a practice that is beyond the law. Apart from cases of personal parishes, one belongs to a parish by virtue of residence, and the pastor of that parish becomes the proper pastor who is required to provide pastoral service.

In practice, pastors will provide pastoral service to “registered” parishioners and will seldom think about the law in this regard. But they are obliged to provide such service to all members of the Christian faithful who have domicile or quasi domicile in the parish.

So do I understand this as mandatory and the use of registration as illicit, or is it simply extra-judicial and not contrary to the intent of the law?

It would seem that there would be at least two purposes: 1) the pastoral care of an individual and determination of who is responsible for it, and 2) issues related to record keeping.

I would presume that in almost all instances, the parish “registered in” would be within a few miles generally of the geographical parish; there are probably a few hardy souls who might travel 50 miles one way to attend Mass regularly, but would be the extremem exception.

 

[cameron_lansing]

So do I understand this as mandatory and the use of registration as illicit, or is it simply extra-judicial and not contrary to the intent of the law?.

It’s automatic rather than mandatory. Membership is effected by an operation of the law itself — ipso iure. The purpose of the law is to guarantee that pastoral care will be provided for the salvation of souls and that there is clarity of jurisdiction as well for good order. No one should fall through the cracks.

So the law creates a stability of some kind (obviously not an absolute one) between pastor and parishioners which is somewhat implicit in the very notion of what a parish is. (Canon 515 §1 might be considered: A parish is a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted in a particular church, whose pastoral care is entrusted to a pastor (parochus) as its proper pastor (pastor) under the authority of the diocesan bishop.)

Registration is just beyond the law rather than expressly illicit or against the law, and has the purposes you mention among others that might come to mind.

It’s more or less considered benignly, but can have implications which chiefly pertain to marriage and marriage cases. Parishes situated close to the border of two dioceses can present interesting challenges sometimes.

 

[Dietrich]

Folks,

First of all, thanks for responding, and for doing so in a way that let’s me know I didn’t explain myself fully.

1. This is not our parish, however we have obtained written permission from our pastor, a requirement along with marriage (which I also obtained).
2. My uncle is a priest, my good friend a deacon in the Norbertines in SoCal. Both will ideally be present, but for sure my friend the deacon will be, and he is trained in the traditional rite (for clarification, does EF=‘Elongated Form’?). My uncle is not, but this version has a good deal of the prayers translated (licitly) into English, so that would not pose a problem for my uncle.

So really the details are all in place EXCEPT for the authorization from the pastor to use his parish simply as the venue. It’s important to us to have it there as my grandfather was baptized there in 1904. His family moved to the Seattle area after the '06 earthquake, so me coming to live here and having the baptism at that Church (only recently discovered as the baptismal location) means a great deal symbolically as a source of continuity within our family, sort of a Welcome Home gesture and acknowledgement of my grandfather’s roots. So if I could veer the conversation back to the original question, I’d be happy to hear some advice from people based on this and my first post.

Thanks and God Bless.

P.S. Commenting on one of the tangents this conversation has taken, I’ve never been aware that one was a de facto parishioner from geographic location alone. I’m a parishioner of a parish I have never technically lived in, but really liked the pastor.

 

[otjm]

Thanks!

 

[otjm]

Folks,

First of all, thanks for responding, and for doing so in a way that let’s me know I didn’t explain myself fully.

1. This is not our parish, however we have obtained written permission from our pastor, a requirement along with marriage (which I also obtained).
2. My uncle is a priest, my good friend a deacon in the Norbertines in SoCal. Both will ideally be present, but for sure my friend the deacon will be, and he is trained in the traditional rite (for clarification, does EF=‘Elongated Form’?). My uncle is not, but this version has a good deal of the prayers translated (licitly) into English, so that would not pose a problem for my uncle.

So really the details are all in place EXCEPT for the authorization from the pastor to use his parish simply as the venue. It’s important to us to have it there as my grandfather was baptized there in 1904. His family moved to the Seattle area after the '06 earthquake, so me coming to live here and having the baptism at that Church (only recently discovered as the baptismal location) means a great deal symbolically as a source of continuity within our family, sort of a Welcome Home gesture and acknowledgement of my grandfather’s roots. So if I could veer the conversation back to the original question, I’d be happy to hear some advice from people based on this and my first post.

Thanks and God Bless.

P.S. Commenting on one of the tangents this conversation has taken, I’ve never been aware that one was a de facto parishioner from geographic location alone. I’m a parishioner of a parish I have never technically lived in, but really liked the pastor.

It would seem that the best approach would be from a historical point of view (family, place your grandfather was baptized, uncle The deacon) rather than a request to use the EF and not be involved in the regular ceremony of baptism the parish celebrates.

Perhaps it might be better if your uncle did the requesting? Just a thought, since he (from what you say) seems to be the most likely candidate for doing the baptism. I suppose the pastor of the parish could get his back up and say no, but it is possible that if the request is coming from the one who would be officating, it might not get into so much of an issue of Ef vs. OF (Extrordinary Form vs. Ordinary Form) as it woulod turn into an accomodation for family relations and history.

 

[Phemie]

Thanks.

Is it also correct that one can register in a parish other than within one’s geographical boundaries, and be a member of that parish as opposed to the geographical one?

Yes, I’ve done it myself. As a military dependent living on Base my geographical parish was the military chapel parish. As a Francophone, I preferred to worship in my own language so I joined the Francophone Community. I was recognized by the Archdiocese as being a member of that community and any sacraments that required registering were registered at the parish closest to the Francophone Community Centre, which was in fact only a few community members’ geographical parish. People in that ‘community’ came from as many as 30 different geographical parishes in about 8 or 9 different towns & villages.

 

[Phemie]

Doyou have a source for that? Note Six to eight weeks seems to stretch the meaning of few.

AFAIK, there are only 2 days in the liturgical year when baptisms, other than emergency baptisms, cannot be celebrated: Good Friday & Holy Saturday. I know that different dioceses set different rules but the Church has never said that Baptism should be discontinued during Lent.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDWEASTF.HTM