Baptism of 7 year old

[Deacon_Ed]

Maggiec,

As a Catholic you have a right to the sacraments. This means that the children for which you are caring have a right to the sacraments. Go back and tell her you want the child entered into the RCIA program. If she refuses, go to the pastor. If he refuses to get involved call the bishop’s office. If you want me to get involved, I’ll be happy to call Sister and let her know what canon law says – and she is in violation of canon law.

Deacon Ed

 

[maggiec]

Deacon Ed:

Maggiec,

As a Catholic you have a right to the sacraments. This means that the children for which you are caring have a right to the sacraments. Go back and tell her you want the child entered into the RCIA program. If she refuses, go to the pastor. If he refuses to get involved call the bishop’s office. If you want me to get involved, I’ll be happy to call Sister and let her know what canon law says – and she is in violation of canon law.

Deacon Ed

Thank you, Deacon Ed. I don’t think I want to approch sister again but I will talk to Father this Friday and explain what is happening. If I can’t get any results I will let you know and get some assistance from you. Thank you for your kind offer of help.
maggiec

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Melonie:

This is untrue.

Yes it is true. Baptizing outside of a true danger of death is against Canon Law. The Sacraments are celebrated in the Catholic Church and by her authority alone. Private Baptism would Baptize the children but would not create any record of their Baptism and would cause problems if they were to seek other Sacraments.

 

[Melonie]

We are under a constant, true danger of death in this life. That is what “mortal” means: subject to death.
People don’t get excommunicated for performing private baptisms. That’s what is untrue.

It’s better to “cause problems if they were to seek other Sacraments” than to deny a child baptism (which would cause problems of a more significant and eternal nature.)

I am saying first: if she has guardianship of these children and she has approached the parish requesting they be baptized – and has been discouraged by a sister or the priest, then that is wrong. Other options need to be put forth. What I have pointed out is, while extreme, an option. The Roman Catholic Church has not cornered the market on valid baptisms. It doesn’t even claim so. It is better to have the children baptized outside the Church, if needs be, than not at all.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

maggiec:

My problem, Deacon Ed, is that sister is in charge of rcia and she doesn’t want my granddaughter that is 7 to attend because of all of the above reasons and now I don’t know what to do because everything goes through sister. I am lost and don’t know where to go to next.
maggiec

Now that the details have changed everything. Are we really dealing with triplets? Or are there different ages? Is the oldest seven or the youngest? I would speak directly with the Pastor. He has the ability to Baptize them, possibily with the Bishops permission, as infants if they are right AT the minimum or below the “Age of Reason”.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Melonie:

We are under a constant, true danger of death in this life. That is what “mortal” means: subject to death.
People don’t get excommunicated for performing private baptisms. That’s what is untrue.

I’m sorry, you need to check canon law regarding the illicit celebration of a sacrament. Such actions are punishable under canon law. While I doubt that such a punishment would be given, it is possible.

Melonie:

It’s better to “cause problems if they were to seek other Sacraments” than to deny a child baptism (which would cause problems of a more significant and eternal nature.)

I am saying first: if she has guardianship of these children and she has approached the parish requesting they be baptized – and has been discouraged by a sister or the priest, then that is wrong. Other options need to be put forth. What I have pointed out is, while extreme, an option. The Roman Catholic Church has not cornered the market on valid baptisms. It doesn’t even claim so. It is better to have the children baptized outside the Church, if needs be, than not at all.

But, if she is going to baptize the children as Catholics she needs to follow the rules of the Catholic Church. Or are you suggesting she become a schismatic and define her own rule?

Deacon Ed

 

[Catholic2003]

Br. Rich SFO:

I would like to comment on the last portion. Technically Catholic 2003 is correct. However I do not know of any Pastor that I have ever met that would Baptize a child without a parents permission. (except in case of possible risk of immediate death) I have even seen where a 16 year old presented herself for RCIA and was asked if she lived on her own and supported herself? When she said no she stilll lived at home, the Pastor required her to returm with a parent before he would allow her into RCIA. I have seen others who have simply said since you are a minor you will have to wait until your 18, unless a parent provides written permission. I believe that most Pastors will at least require one parents permission.

I’m not surprised to hear that this kind of thing happens; however, it is a clear violation of canon law:

Can. 843 §1 Sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

In the case of maggiec’s seven-year old granddaughter, she should contact the bishop and cite this violation of canon law. Should the bishop fail to act, the next contact point is the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

 

[maggiec]

Br. Rich SFO:

Now that the details have changed everything. Are we really dealing with triplets? Or are there different ages? Is the oldest seven or the youngest? I would speak directly with the Pastor. He has the ability to Baptize them, possibily with the Bishops permission, as infants if they are right AT the minimum or below the “Age of Reason”.

The oldest turned 7 June 1 and the twins will be 6 Oct 1.

 

[LilyOfTheFather]

Br. Rich SFO:

I would like to comment on the last portion. Technically Catholic 2003 is correct. However I do not know of any Pastor that I have ever met that would Baptize a child without a parents permission. (except in case of possible risk of immediate death) I have even seen where a 16 year old presented herself for RCIA and was asked if she lived on her own and supported herself? When she said no she stilll lived at home, the Pastor required her to returm with a parent before he would allow her into RCIA. I have seen others who have simply said since you are a minor you will have to wait until your 18, unless a parent provides written permission. I believe that most Pastors will at least require one parents permission.

I was fourteen when I presented myself for RCIA. The woman in charge would NOT let me in, even though I had explicit permission from my mother. I ended up going to a parish in the next town who were very glad to accept me for RCIA, and that’s where I made my first Communion and was initiated into the Church this past September (I had been baptised previously).

 

[Deacon_Ed]

I want to comment on two things…

Catholic2003 writes:

I’m not surprised to hear that this kind of thing happens; however, it is a clear violation of canon law:

Quote:
Can. 843 §1 Sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.

However, the Church explicitly requires the permission of a parent in order to baptize a child. Without the permission the “proper disposition” is not present. Therefore, it is not a violation of canon law – I posted canon 868 earlier in this thread – and it is the operative canon regarding baptism.

Melonie writes:

It is better to have the children baptized outside the Church, if needs be, than not at all.

But what if that baptism is not valid? Why leave the Church? And even if she should choose to baptize the children herself there are theologians who hold that baptism would be invalid since it is not in accord with the mind of the Church.

Deacon Ed

 

[Melonie]

Deacon Ed:

I’m sorry, you need to check canon law regarding the illicit celebration of a sacrament. Such actions are punishable under canon law. While I doubt that such a punishment would be given, it is possible.

But, if she is going to baptize the children as Catholics she needs to follow the rules of the Catholic Church. Or are you suggesting she become a schismatic and define her own rule?

Deacon Ed

True, if she is going to baptize the children as Catholics, she does need to follow the ordinary means. It also sounds like this is what she wants.

But a private baptism is both licit and valid under certain circumstances. Canon Law repeatedly uses the nebulous term “necessity” for describing such circumstances, yet stops short of defining it. See this:

Catechism of the Catholic Church: Who Can Baptize?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Melonie:

True, if she is going to baptize the children as Catholics, she does need to follow the ordinary means. It also sounds like this is what she wants.

But a private baptism is both licit and valid under certain circumstances. Canon Law repeatedly uses the nebulous term “necessity” for describing such circumstances, yet stops short of defining it. See this:

Catechism of the Catholic Church: Who Can Baptize?

Melonie,

Canon law does define necessity and it pertains the the imminent danger of death. Just being mortal doesn’t qualify. I have posted the operative canons earlier in this thread. Since canon law governs how the Church does what She does and the Catechism documents what we believe it’s not unusual that the rules would be omitted from the Catechism.

Deacon Ed

 

[Catholic2003]

Deacon Ed:

However, the Church explicitly requires the permission of a parent in order to baptize a child. Without the permission the “proper disposition” is not present. Therefore, it is not a violation of canon law – I posted canon 868 earlier in this thread – and it is the operative canon regarding baptism.

The Church explicitly requires the permission of a parent in order to baptize an infant. The words from canon 868 that you quoted are, “For the licit baptism of an infant it is necessary that …”.

However, an ordinary seven-year old is not considered an infant for the purpose of baptism. The relevant canons are:

Can. 97 §1 A person who has completed the eighteenth year of age, has attained majority; below this age, a person is a minor.

§2 A minor who has not completed the seventh year of age is called an infant and is considered incapable of personal responsibility; on completion of the seventh year, however, the minor is presumed to have the use of reason.

---

Can. 852 §1 The provisions of the canons on adult baptism apply to all those who, being no longer infants, have reached the use of reason.

§2 One who is incapable of personal responsibility is regarded as an infant even in regard to baptism.

---

Can. 865 §1 To be admitted to baptism, an adult must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, must be adequately instructed in the truths of the faith and in the duties of a christian, and tested in the christian life over the course of the catechumenate. The person must moreover be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

In summary, maggiec’s seven-year old granddaughter no more needs the permission of her parents than I needed the permission of my parents when I entered the Church as a forty-something year old.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Catholic203,

I’m sorry, you are mistaken. Even though the Church has only adults and infants in canon law, a minor still requires permission. Why? Because the Church could be sued for baptizing a child without the parents’ permission! The second reason is that in order to baptize there must be a founded hope that the person will follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. This is not present in a seven year old who is still subject to his parents!

Deacon Ed

 

[Illini]

It is incredible that this sister is discouraging baptism as for three children as “no use”, when their grandparents have both legal authority and express permission from the children’s parents. She is being awfully presumptuous to conclude that their mother will not raise them Catholic. Moreover, the older child, and even the twins, will certainly receive instruction in the faith from RCIC/RCIA, maggiec, or both.

 It is unclear from the posts whether sister has refused admission to RCIA or if she's just discouraging it. Nevertheless, if I were in that situation, I would avoid doing the baptism myself, let alone go to a non-Catholic church. Instead, I would go to the pastor. Failing that (which has apparently already happened), find another parish. I'm not sure about the bishop; I would not be surprised if he simply deferred to the judgment of the pastor. But there is no reason not to have these children baptized.

-Illini

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Catholic2003:

The Church explicitly requires the permission of a parent in order to baptize an infant. The words from canon 868 that you quoted are, “For the licit baptism of an infant it is necessary that …”.

However, an ordinary seven-year old is not considered an infant for the purpose of baptism. The relevant canons are:

In summary, maggiec’s seven-year old granddaughter no more needs the permission of her parents than I needed the permission of my parents when I entered the Church as a forty-something year old.

Not specific to the original posters question:

If the Church were to encourage a minor (7-18) to disobey a parent. The Church would be opening itself up to civil charges. In addition most (7-16) do not posess the means of transporting themselves to RCIA and Church at will. The Church must cooperate with parents until the minor is over 18. In the event of possible serious injury or near death, Baptism can be performed by anyone with the proper intention, matter and form without any permission except the “Presumed request of the person being Baptized”. In my one case above the parent gave permission and an aunt served as Sponsor. When we begin encouraging children to disobey their parents, we will get into a whole lot of trouble.

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Just to add to the fun: canons 97 and 98 define the status of individuals based upon age. To summarize, an infant is anyone under 7, a minor child is between 7 and 18 and an adult is anyone over 18. Infants are considered incompetent, adults may freely exercise their fullrights, and minor children have limited rights dependent upon the authority of their parents/guardians. The sole exception to that is where divine or canon law permit the minor child to exercise his or her rights. One such area is to “request baptism.”

However as both Br. Rich and I have pointed out, secular law would permit the parents to sue the Church should the child be baptized against the parents’ will. Further, as Br. Rich noted, most minor children are unable to transport themselves to church.

Thus, the provisions of canon law allow the Church to defer the baptism until such time as either the parents grant permission or the minor child is an adult.

Deacon Ed

 

[Melonie]

I just have to say this thread (while having drifted a bit off topic, at least for the purposes of the one who began it) has been very educational for me. I feel I’m pretty sound in the Catechism, but Canon Law is something I’ve never delved into very deeply. Thanks to everyone for great discussion (and direction.)

 

[Brendan]

However as both Br. Rich and I have pointed out, secular law would permit the parents to sue the Church should the child be baptized against the parents’ will. Further, as Br. Rich noted, most minor children are unable to transport themselves to church.

That does pose the question of exactly how much secular law should influence the adminsitration of the Sacrements. Is it proper that the Church’s adminstration of the Sacraments be influenced by the fear of lawyers.

The early Christians didn’t seem to concern themselves with secular law when it was illegal to become a Christian at all.

It really would seem to me that if a person past the age of reason presented themselves for Iinstruction in the Faith and for Baptism, it is the Church’s duty to adminster the knowledge and Grace it has been charged with.

 

[Brendan]

The Church would be opening itself up to civil charges. In addition most (7-16) do not posess the means of transporting themselves to RCIA and Church at will. The Church must cooperate with parents until the minor is over 18.

Is the ability to transport oneself to Mass a requirement? What about an invalid. Would a pastor tell them to come back when they have reliable transportation.

And how many Saints of the Church entered the Church while under their parents control and against their wishes? Barbara? Hilarion? Cyprian? Zenobius? Martin of Tours? Is your point that the Church should never have baptized these people?