Baptism of 7 year old

  • Thread starter Thread starter maggiec
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is no such thing as RCIC. The Rites of Christian Initiation are adapted for Children, and the time of preparation for these rites is the Children’s Catechumenate. The chuch considers a child over age 7 to have reached the age of reason, and an adult for the purpose of RCIA, that is, he begins preparation at or after age 7, and after the period of preparation, usually two years, receives all 3 sacraments of initiation.
 
Brendan,

You ask a good question, and the answer is that the Church does consider civil law with regard to the administration of sacraments to a certain extent. That is, we will not marry someone who is already married in a civil ceremony except to convalidate a marriage. We do conform to civil law with regard to marriage (especially in the area of age).

And, yes, the issue of baptism has come up and there is a canonical interpretation that deals with issues where a minor child wants to be baptized but the parents are opposed. The Church considers this to be tantamount to an inability to be raised in the Catholic faith (remember that the “parents are the first and best of teachers of the faith”) and, therefore, *defers *baptism until such time as this impediment is removed.

For those who fear the status of the soul of such a child, please remember that we have a Church teaching with regard to “baptism of desire” which would certainly apply in these cases.

BTW, with regard to your question regarding the early Church – different times, different situations, different civil laws (and a lot fewer lawsuits).

Deacon Ed
 
40.png
Brendan:
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.
Click to expand...
The interaction between canon law and civil law is governed by canon 22:
Can. 22 When the law of the Church remits some issue to the civil law, the latter is to be observed with the same effects in canon law, insofar as it is not contrary to divine law, and provided it is not otherwise stipulated in canon law.
Click to expand...
I can find no justification in this canon (or any other canon) for the claim that “fear of lawsuits” is a legitimate excuse to deny access to the sacraments. Surely no one is suggesting that a priest could licitly violate the sanctity of the confessional due to a lawsuit or any other provision of civil or criminal law.
 
Deacon Ed:
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!
Click to expand...
The requirements for baptism of a seven-year old who has the use of reason are given by canon 865 §1, and are listed below. I cannot tell which of them you are referring to in the above phrase which I have highlighted.
  • 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
 
Catholic2003:

Since the sanctity of the confessional is covered under canon law explicitly there is no concern for civil law with that regard. This is a canard. Baptism, however, is not “privileged” in any sense of the word. Fear of lawsuits does, indeed, affect the Church. We cannot, for example, proceed with an annulment until the final divorce is in – or we expose ourselves to a suit for “alienation of affection.”

Until you have actually worked in canonical services it’s hard to imagine the effect that civil law does have on the Church, but it’s far greater than most laypeople know or understand.

BTW, like civil law, attempting to read canon law and interpret it by it’s apparent meaning will lead you into trouble. What one has to do is see how the Church has interpreted it (case law) which is precisely what civil lawyers do. When they go to law school they learn how different courts have interpreted the law so that they know what the law really means (which, frequently, is not what it appears to mean).

This is not to disparage your attempt to understand the law here, but to suggest that there is more to this than meets the eye which is why I have continued to respond and tell you how the Church reacts to these issues. If you think I’m in error, call the canonical services office in your diocese to see if one of the canon lawyers there can give you an answer.

Deacon Ed
 
Br. Rich SFO:
When we begin encouraging children to disobey their parents, we will get into a whole lot of trouble.
Click to expand...
As a general principle, I agree with this statement. However, since the question at hand is not what canon law should have established as the requirements for the baptism of a minor who has the use of reason, I don’t see any justification for trying to second-guess the legislator on the canon law that was enacted. The existence of canon 852 makes it clear that the situation of minors above the age of reason was specifically considered by the legislator.
 
40.png
asquared:
There is no such thing as RCIC. The Rites of Christian Initiation are adapted for Children, and the time of preparation for these rites is the Children’s Catechumenate. The chuch considers a child over age 7 to have reached the age of reason, and an adult for the purpose of RCIA, that is, he begins preparation at or after age 7, and after the period of preparation, usually two years, receives all 3 sacraments of initiation.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what your point is. My parish, along with many others (e.g., here, here, or here), calls the process RCIC. It is exactly RCIA adapted for children.
 
Deacon Ed,

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I appreciate your efforts in taking the time to explain your position in detail.

I feel that baptism, and indeed all the sacraments, are quite “privileged”, as canon 840 says:
Can. 840 The sacraments of the New Testament were instituted by Christ the Lord and entrusted to the Church. As actions of Christ and of the Church, they are signs and means by which faith is expressed and strengthened, worship is offered to God and our sanctification is brought about. Thus they contribute in the most effective manner to establishing, strengthening and manifesting ecclesiastical communion. Accordingly, in the celebration of the sacraments both the sacred ministers and all the other members of Christ’s faithful must show great reverence and due care.
Click to expand...
The laity have a “right” to receive the sacraments, as canon 213 says:
Can. 213 Christ’s faithful have the right to be assisted by their Pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments.
Click to expand...
Finally, to quote canon lawyer John Huels, O.S.M.:
Canon law requires a strict intrepretation of a law whenever some legal right is at stake (canon 18). In reference to the denial of a sacrament, this means that ministers are not free to impose their own standards for sacramental reception. A sacrament may only be denied for a reason stated in the law.
Click to expand...
 
This may be a bit off-topic, can someone give a citation citing the necessity for Baptism. Thank you.
 
40.png
maggiec:
My daughter will be gone for over a year in the air force and my husband and I are caring for our 3 granddaughters. They have not been baptised and I want to have them receive this sacrament as soon as possible. Father told me that the 7 year old will have to go to rcia because she is at the age of reason. When I spoke with sister today (who heads the rcia) she said that it wouldn’t do any good to have them baptised because they will go back to their mother after the year is up and so won’t be instructed in the faith.
I thought everyone needed baptisim to get rid of original sin and I was also hoping that afte a year of attending church with us that my granddaughters will want to continue to go, thus bringing my daughter back to church. And, God forbid, what if my daughter doesn’t come back? Some thoughts please on the correctness of this. Do I have any other options?
Help, please,
maggiec
Click to expand...
Yes, as you said, Baptism is necessary to remove Original Sin. Without Baptism Original Sin CANNOT be removed, and “the souls of those who die in mortal sin or in Original Sin ONLY, descend immediately into Hell, to be punished with different punishments” (II Council of Lyons, emphasis added). Without the Sacrament of Baptism, they will perish in the flood, as the Fathers of the Church spoke. One need only to read the Council of Trent to see this truth: Canons on Baptism, Canon V: “If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.” What exactly does this mean by “Baptism”–we need only to look above, where it has already been defined in Canon II: “If any one saith, that true and natural water is not of necessity for baptism, and, on that account, wrests, to some sort of metaphor, those words of our Lord Jesus Christ; Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost; let him be anathema.”
 
Catholic2003,

You have apparently missed a key word that I have specifically been using. The sacrament is not denied it is deferred.

Since part of my function as a deacon is to baptize, I am reasonably conversant with how the Church interprets canon law in this regard.

Deacon Ed
 
40.png
RBushlow:
This may be a bit off-topic, can someone give a citation citing the necessity for Baptism. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I did so in my last post.
 
40.png
Trad_Catholic:
Originally Posted by RBushlow
This may be a bit off-topic, can someone give a citation citing the necessity for Baptism. Thank you.

I did so in my last post.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I mean the specific citation so I can refer others to it (like CCC #12345, or Canon #123).
 
40.png
Brendan:
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.
Click to expand...
Ordinary and Reasonable are two words that come to mind. Canon Law is distinctly different from the Catechism in that it is Law and needs to be interpreted for each and every case where it is applied. It may not apply in exactly the same manner in two different situations. Every Canon has exceptions, specifically allowing for the Church to respond to the Spiritual needs of a person. An example would be in this case an infant near death, NO permission from anyone is needed, in the case of a child, only the minimal permission of the child.
 
We were finally able to talk to sister and father today and were told that if we got a statement from their mother that she would raise the children catholic we could baptise them. Sister was against it because of the possiblilty of the children not being raised in the faith, however she told father that it was up to him and so our daughter and we are meeting with father this week to make arrangements. Thank you all for your help and encouragement.

PS our son-in-law in leaving for Iraq on Sept 4th. Please keep him in your prayers, his name is Ozzie.
maggiec
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top