Baptism of illegitimate children?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Neithan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

Neithan

Guest
I just had an argument with my Protestant Aunt who railed against the ‘heartlessness’ of the Catholic Church for refusing to baptise innocent illegitimate children. When I tried to argue that I had never heard that as an official law she raved about how friends of hers were turned away by Priests. My Grandmother chimed in that this was all true, and that she also personally knew in her time of many single mothers who were refused baptism for their babies. I’ve searched around on the internet briefly, and the Catechism states
“The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth (1250).” It seems to contradict what my Aunt was ranting about, but she sure seemed convinced.

Does the Church refuse baptism for illegitimate children? Is baptism given at the discretion of the Priest, and would illegitimacy be a reason to turn away an unwed mother’s child?
Any enlightenment much appreciated!
 
My nephew’s wife had her first son out of wedlock and he was baptised by the Catholic church and done so without any problems. Your aunt is protestant and they know more about the catholics than catholics do 😉 .
 
as we have repeated endlessly, the only way to address such accusations is to demand an authoritative source for the charge. make the accuser produce the Church document forbidding baptism to illegitimate children or documentary proof that a parent was denied baptism for their child. otherwise there is nothing to debate and no point in the exercise. What these urban legends may be about is the fact that a priest must have assurance that the infant to be baptized will be raised Catholic and have the consent of at least one of the parents. If that reasonable assurance is not forthcoming he is justified in delaying – not denying – baptism until such time as the sacrament may proceed with the proper conditions being met. Parents who are not married, have no intention of marrying, and otherwise persist in denying the truth of Catholic teaching on marriage and family may be presumed to have no interest in raising their child in the Catholic Faith, and therefore will have no reason to request baptism.

On the other hand, having an out of wedlock pregnancy is also not a valid reason for marrying. If the pressure of the pregnancy is used to force the issue it could render full free consent impossible and invalidate the marriage. That is also a topic that generates a lot of emotion. If one or both parents do intend to raise the child Catholic and give such assurance, whether or not they judge it prudent to marry, there is no barrier to baptizing the child. We have several such baptisms (unfortunately for what it says about the state of respect for marriage in our culture) in every class.
 
Sidebar:
In my opinion, the term “illegitimate child” is an offensive one and misconstruction of the facts. If there is any illegitimacy involved, it ought to more accurately be applied to the adults, who had control over their acts, and not the child, who did not …

Some of us had a diificult time as children, because of this “label” …

Return to the topic of this thread … 🙂
 
40.png
Neithan:
Does the Church refuse baptism for illegitimate children? Is baptism given at the discretion of the Priest, and would illegitimacy be a reason to turn away an unwed mother’s child?
Any enlightenment much appreciated!
Click to expand...
The short answer is NO.

The long answer is a bit more complex, as the church no longer baptizes infants unless there is a fairly high degree of certainty that the children will be raised Catholic. Basically, the child’s parents have to be in attendance weekly at mass for a period of time, and not living in a state of sin.

If the unwed mother is no longer engaging in the affair, and in attendance at mass, there should be no problem in baptizing the children. But if she isn’t, then that would be the reason for refusing baptism, not her previous indiscretions.
 
40.png
Kielbasi:
The short answer is NO.

The long answer is a bit more complex, as the church no longer baptizes infants unless there is a fairly high degree of certainty that the children will be raised Catholic. Basically, the child’s parents have to be in attendance weekly at mass for a period of time, and not living in a state of sin.

If the unwed mother is no longer engaging in the affair, and in attendance at mass, there should be no problem in baptizing the children. But if she isn’t, then that would be the reason for refusing baptism, not her previous indiscretions.
Click to expand...
Well, your “no” has to be qualified. There has been at least one exception. I have the baptismal certificate to demonstrate as such … 🙂
 
I just have to say I can name two churches that have refused or placed limits on the baptism of children. If you think it proper for me to name them I willl. The first was a Catholic church in PA. The mother was 17, the father 19, both raised Catholic, mother practicing, father not. Not married, no intentions of getting married. Both still living with their parents. When they went to the pastor, they were told that they would christen the baby, but the parents had to consider marriage. The pastor felt the child would not be raised in a sinful environment if they remained unmarried. The grandfather, (the mother’s dad) made a sizable contribution to the church and the baptism went off without a hitch!

The second was in NJ. The parents, married by a Lutheran minister. The mother born raised and practicing Catholic, the father a born and raised non-practicing Episcopal. Since the mother was the parent with a practicing religion they decided the children would be raised Catholic. They went to the Catholic church closest to their home. The pastor told them that they could not christen the child, because the parents were not married in the eyes of the church. However, the pastor would perform a “ceremonial blessing” for the usual donation of $250 and then they would be married in the eyes of the church and the baby could be baptized. The mother converted and now is an active and practicing Episcopal. The child was baptized Episcopal.

No matter what anyone says. The churches position varies from parish to parish.

By the way, I am a practicing involved Catholic. I am a lector at my church.
 
40.png
Neithan:
I just had an argument with my Protestant Aunt who railed against the ‘heartlessness’ of the Catholic Church for refusing to baptise innocent illegitimate children. When I tried to argue that I had never heard that as an official law she raved about how friends of hers were turned away by Priests. My Grandmother chimed in that this was all true, and that she also personally knew in her time of many single mothers who were refused baptism for their babies. I’ve searched around on the internet briefly, and the Catechism states
“The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth (1250).” It seems to contradict what my Aunt was ranting about, but she sure seemed convinced.

Does the Church refuse baptism for illegitimate children? Is baptism given at the discretion of the Priest, and would illegitimacy be a reason to turn away an unwed mother’s child?
Any enlightenment much appreciated!
Click to expand...
Tell your relatives of a little boy born in the 1930’s to an unwed mother, to make a very long story short, today that little boy is a Monsinger,How do I know about this…he is my Father’s Cousin. What a different life this man would have had if someone refused him Baptism.:hmmm:
 
I have been present at dozens of baptisms of single mothers (I used to sing at the baptismal celebrations at my former parish), and there are four nieces/nephews of my own family who were baptized whose mother was not married. My current parish publishes names of newly baptized babies, and several have been to single mothers.

So, in my personal experience, I know of six different parishes where babies of unwed mothers have been baptized. And these baptisms did not involve “money under the table.”

'thann
 
40.png
Neithan:
I just had an argument with my Protestant Aunt who railed against the ‘heartlessness’ of the Catholic Church for refusing to baptise innocent illegitimate children. When I tried to argue that I had never heard that as an official law she raved about how friends of hers were turned away by Priests. My Grandmother chimed in that this was all true, and that she also personally knew in her time of many single mothers who were refused baptism for their babies. I’ve searched around on the internet briefly, and the Catechism states
“The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth (1250).” It seems to contradict what my Aunt was ranting about, but she sure seemed convinced.

Does the Church refuse baptism for illegitimate children? Is baptism given at the discretion of the Priest, and would illegitimacy be a reason to turn away an unwed mother’s child?
Any enlightenment much appreciated!
Click to expand...
Illegitmacy itself would not be a reason for delaying Baptism. however there of course may be concerns as to the ability of the parent to raise the child in the Catholic Faith. This may have been the case in the 1917 Code of Canon Law it is not so now.
 
Just because certain pastors, priests or parishes follow practices that are contrary to or misinterpret canon law is not the same as saying the universal Church approves or upholds a practice. As spending any time on this forum will demonstrate, there are all kinds of abuses going on with how sacraments are conferred, liturgy celebrated, pastoral care, conduct of pastoral and administrative staff, but these are failings, crimes, sins whatever you call them of individuals. They are misapplications or outright disobedience to Church law, so it is neither fair nor logical to condemn the Church when its laws are violated by individuals who should know better.
 
40.png
savone:
Sidebar:
In my opinion, the term “illegitimate child” is an offensive one and misconstruction of the facts. If there is any illegitimacy involved, it ought to more accurately be applied to the adults, who had control over their acts, and not the child, who did not …

Some of us had a diificult time as children, because of this “label” …

Return to the topic of this thread … 🙂
Click to expand...
I AGREE!!!

There is NO SUCH THING as an illegitimate child.

Only illegitimate parents!

The child is innocent – and shoud be treated as such.
 
David Zampino:
I AGREE!!!

There is NO SUCH THING as an illegitimate child.

Only illegitimate parents!

The child is innocent – and shoud be treated as such.
Click to expand...
That is so true. :yup:
 
Many eccelisiatical organizations (vat II term for non-Catholic/Orthodox Churches) start the campaign of hatred against Catholics when the kids are young. I can cite example after example. But I will not.
The Catholic Church…will baptize children. There are no illegitmate children…I repeat there are no illegitmate children. There are illegitmante acts that conceive children.
 
40.png
mgy100:
Many eccelisiatical organizations (vat II term for non-Catholic/Orthodox Churches) start the campaign of hatred against Catholics when the kids are young. I can cite example after example. But I will not.
The Catholic Church…will baptize children. There are no illegitmate children…I repeat there are no illegitmate children. There are illegitmante acts that conceive children.
Click to expand...
I may be young. I have been a Catholic for 35 years. And not once have I ever met anyone who was anti-Catholic or who tried to turn children against Catholics.

The original post mention a “protestant aunt.” Is it because she is protestant that we consider her against the Catholic church? I feel that is a bit judgemental on our part.

There are posts above, mine included, that talk about individual instances that the church, or the person acting for the church–the priest–has refused or offered deals before baptizing a child.

I think we need to be a bit more opened minded and realize that there are a lot of individual freedoms from pastors going on out there. And that if someone tells a story or states an instance that the church did this or that, we need to consider it may or may not be true. Not that a person is anti or pro-Catholic.
 
40.png
Kielbasi:
as the church no longer baptizes infants unless there is a fairly high degree of certainty that the children will be raised Catholic.
Click to expand...
The actual canonical standard (from c. 868 §1 2°) is that there is a well-founded hope that the child will be raised Catholic. However, it is certainly possible that there are some priests who have taken it upon themselves to “improve” upon canon law in the manner you have suggested.
 
I was doing family history research in a baptismal register on microfilm from County Sligo, Ireland from 1842-1858. There were several entries of children baptized with only a mother. the Latin term “illegitima” was in the margin next to the child. Apparently well before 1917, child born to unwed mothers were baptized by the Church.

I agree the child is not illegitimate by why call the Mom single? She is unwed and we can’t use mean terms anymore. I would be mortified if I were a widow or even a divorcee who was called a single mother! These three women are each very different from each other.
 
Any priest who offers “deals” to baptize a child is most emphatically NOT presenting the TEACHING of the church on Baptism.

It is possible that the OP’s aunt may have dealt with a priest who did NOT present authentic Church teaching. Heaven knows they exist.

But to make the step that “The Catholic Church” was responsible for the lack of baptism. . .there’s the wrong. But it certainly would be difficult for someone to see that if their experience with someone who supposedly represented the church was so painful. OTOH, if the OP’s aunt were approached in love and compassion, with “I am sorry that you had that experience, that priest was wrong, he made a mistake, and the Church regrets your suffering as it certainly teaches that illegitimacy is not in itself a bar to baptism”. . .mightn’t that acknowledgment of her hurt, and the individual wrong, yet the authentic teaching affirmation and above all the love and compassion, set seeds of true Christian unity in her and the family? Could one try?
 
The actual canonical standard (from c. 868 §1 2°) is that there is a well-founded hope that the child will be raised Catholic. However, it is certainly possible that there are some priests who have taken it upon themselves to “improve” upon canon law in the manner you have suggested.
Click to expand...
The term well-founded is certainly subject to interpretation, and it has been my own personal observation that its generally interpreted a lot more strictly in the current day than it was 25 years ago when my oldest son was born.
That’s strictly antedoctal of course, I’d like to see what the stats actually look like on this (if any are kept, for refused baptisms).
 
40.png
savone:
Sidebar:
In my opinion, the term “illegitimate child” is an offensive one and misconstruction of the facts. If there is any illegitimacy involved, it ought to more accurately be applied to the adults, who had control over their acts, and not the child, who did not …
Click to expand...
I understand your emotion, but I disagree with it. All humans have the stain of original sin when they are born or conceived and yet we do not have any control over that or the actions of Adam and Eve. How “illegitimate child” can be offensive while “stained with original sin child” is not is puzzling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top