Baptism of infant, Cath non practicing parents

[poche]

Good afternoon,
I am new to this site, and I am woefully sorry if this has been answered and re answered. I have tried to find the answer to this question online and on this website, but haven’t been successful. My third grandson, (6mos) old was to be Baptized at a family Reunion in No Carolina in July. My entire family IS RC. My children were raised Cath… their other 2 children were Baptized, Cath.
Well, this 3rd child had health problems in utero and at birth, and they lapsed. They were sent a notice from their parish saying since they hadn’t contributed financially they would not be considered members. I tried to convince them all they had to do was explain the situation. But they were insulted, and then joined a non denominational Church.
I was happy that at least they hadn’t turned away from Religion altogether.
But… Now the priest at the Church in NC found out they haven’t been attending RC Mass, and will not Baptize the child, saying Canon Law mandates that their is a Hope that the Child will be raised in the Catholic faith… and since they don’t practice that faith (by going to Mass), he cannot Baptize the child in the Cath faith.

Is this correct? I just cannot believe that our new Pope would think this is the way things should go? To deny a 6 month old entry in to the Church…
Please help me understand this. My daughter has even said she will go back to the Cath Church…

This is correct. The only way that the child could be baptized is if there were a family member who would be in the position of taking charge of the child’s religious education
There was a similar situation in Argentina involving the child of a couple in a ‘same sex’ marriage.

 

[Rosebud77]

Actually, the baby matters so much! Baptism isn’t magic. It isn’t a sprinkling with magic water.

It’s an initiation into a way of life. In fact, with it comes great responsibilities, especially on the baby’s parents. In other words, if a baby is baptized and his parents don’t make good on their promises, it places their souls in grave danger!

If the pastor has cause for concern that the baby won’t receive the guidance and catechesis that his parents promise in baptism, then he’s acting out of concern for the parents and the baby by not baptizing at that time.

So the sacrament you aver has no virtue or power? So why until recently were unbaptised nbabies not buried in consecrated ground?

No " Inward and spiritual grace" from this sacrament?

 

[Gorgias]

So the sacrament you aver has no virtue or power?

Of course it does! However, if one is baptized but does not live a life of Christian virtue, the baptism has no ‘power’ to save (on its own, per se). It’s not magic – it’s not a matter of “get baptized, receive your ‘get out of jail free’ card.”

So why until recently were unbaptised nbabies not buried in consecrated ground?

As Catholics, we say that we do not know how God saves those who have not been baptized (although, knowing that God wishes all to be saved, we trust in His care for the unbaptized). In an earlier era, not knowing ‘how’ (and therefore, strictly speaking, ‘whether’), we reserved interment in consecrated ground for those who had been baptized. These days, realizing that this was too harsh a stance, we’ve eliminated that custom.

No " Inward and spiritual grace" from this sacrament?

For whom? Parents who don’t attend Mass? No… there’s no ‘osmosis factor’ from holding a newly-baptized baby.

(I’m not saying that the OP’s child & her spouse are in this situation – hopefully, they’ll return to the practice of the faith.) But, in general, the rule is in place because typically, in situations like these, you have parents who aren’t attempting to raise their children in the faith. Often, they only approach baptism because their parents are badgering them to do so. Then, after the baptism, having gotten Mom off their backs, they continue to refuse to practice their faith.

Individual pastors are called to make prudential judgments (“will these parents, of this child, raise the child in the faith – will they attend Mass weekly with their child and ensure they learn their faith and receive the sacraments?”). Individual pastors may (or may not) make good judgments – but that’s what they try to discern in these cases.

 

[Gorgias]

A little compassion for the family, maybe a show of concern for how they might be doing during this difficult time could have encouraged them back to church. They got a stroppy letter about money.

Perhaps.

Yet, do we know that the parish was aware of the issues the parents were facing? Often, we presume that the parish knows who’s in the hospital and who’s not (and, when no outreach happens, we become angry and insulted). In fact, with the HIPAA laws of the mid-90’s, it became illegal for hospitals to disclose the identities of their patients unilaterally. Correspondingly, volunteers are no longer permitted to call their parish and say, “you know, while I was at the hospital, I noticed that Mrs Smith is there! You should go visit her!”

Nowadays, a parish generally needs to be notified (by a family member, for instance) before they learn of a hospital stay.

So, here’s what we know to be true:

• Having had problems during the pregnancy, the couple wasn’t able to go to Mass.
• After an (undisclosed) period of time, the parish writes to the couple. They’ve noticed the lack of attendance and lack of support. They make the presumption that the couple isn’t interested in membership.
• The couple get ticked off and leave the Church.

One would presume that it would take quite an extended absence to get on the list of “lapsed members”, wouldn’t you think? One would think that, during the difficulties encountered during the pregnancy, the family would reach out to their parish, wouldn’t they? One would presume a simple explanation would correct the misunderstanding, no?

And yet, that’s not what was chosen here. Not even a “well, we’ll go to the other parish down the road”. Instead, it was “we’re leaving the Catholic Church.”

And then they’re surprised when the Church recognizes their decision and abides by it?

Their interest in having their child baptised could have been a good opportunity for a gentle reminder of their responsibilities and some catechism.

Yes, it absolutely could have been. And generally, that’s the way it unfolds. But, for one second, look at it from the perspective of the priest in NC:

There’s gonna be a baptism of a child from outside the parish. The family is gathering here, although they live over there.

Then, he discovers that not only are they not attending Mass regularly, but also they’ve left the Church entirely!

What should he do? He’s not their pastor. They’re not even in the same diocese. He’s not in a position to approach the parents at all, and offer pastoral solutions.

So… what should the pastor in NC do?

 

[ConfusedLucy]

Obviously I don’t know the exact contents of the letter but I work in NHS admin where we often have to get in touch with people who stop attending clinics, we always give them the benefit of the doubt (even when we know it’s just laziness) and consider the possibility that they are struggling to cope. I would expect this from a church.

On a practical level maybe they didn’t know who to contact or didn’t feel close enough to anyone there to contact them. A sympathetic letter with contact details could have helped.

 

[Rosebud77]

Of course it does! However, if one is baptized but does not live a life of Christian virtue, the baptism has no ‘power’ to save (on its own, per se). It’s not magic – it’s not a matter of “get baptized, receive your ‘get out of jail free’ card.”

You are misunderstanding totally and sounding like free church folk. And reducing grace to a disgraceful level.

 

[buc_fan33]

Gorgias;14682729:

Of course it does! However, if one is baptized but does not live a life of Christian virtue, the baptism has no ‘power’ to save (on its own, per se). It’s not magic – it’s not a matter of “get baptized, receive your ‘get out of jail free’ card.”

You are misunderstanding totally and sounding like free church folk. And reducing grace to a disgraceful level.

Actually, Gorgias is quite correct in his understanding of Catholic sacramental theology. Grace is operative in the recipient of the sacrament, but the recipient has a role to play, as well…namely, cooperating with that grace. Baptism, like each of the other sacraments, is not a magic pill that you just receive, and poof, you’re done. Rather, it’s just the start of the Christian life.

 

[EqualinHim]

Not sure if someone has said this, but as a Protestant I would encourage you to research the particular church’s baptismal doctrine. A lot of Non-denominational churches will not baptize infants because of their views of baptism as a profession of faith. This might be what spawned the whole issue in the first place: the parents might not have been able to get the baby baptized in the Protestant church. Some churches have separate baby dedication services but this is something that varies, according to the individual church.

As a Protestant looking into the situation, I think that there might be more than meets the eye or maybe some messages that got garbled.

 

[Phemie]

Not sure if someone has said this, but as a Protestant I would encourage you to research the particular church’s baptismal doctrine. A lot of Non-denominational churches will not baptize infants because of their views of baptism as a profession of faith. This might be what spawned the whole issue in the first place: the parents might not have been able to get the baby baptized in the Protestant church. Some churches have separate baby dedication services but this is something that varies, according to the individual church.

As a Protestant looking into the situation, I think that there might be more than meets the eye or maybe some messages that got garbled.

I think if you reread the original post you’ll see that although the parents were attending a non-Catholic church they were trying to have their baby baptized in a Catholic parish during a family reunion. But the priest in good conscience couldn’t baptize the child once he discovered they were not only non-practicing Catholics but practicing another religion.

 

[EqualinHim]

I think if you reread the original post you’ll see that although the parents were attending a non-Catholic church they were trying to have their baby baptized in a Catholic parish during a family reunion. But the priest in good conscience couldn’t baptize the child once he discovered they were not only non-practicing Catholics but practicing another religion.

To clarify:

I did read the original post and apologize if my previous post was convoluted. I was just wondering if the parents had gone to the Protestant church for the baptism, were denied, and then tried to get their baby baptized at the Catholic church. But I digress.

 

[ktmeyer]

If the baby is baptized in another church, yes, he can later attend CCD (now called Faith Formation) and if that is completed as it should be can have first communion, etc. Absolutely. The Church recognizes “one baptism”.

 

[Kielbasi]

If the baby is baptized in another church, yes, he can later attend CCD (now called Faith Formation) and if that is completed as it should be can have first communion, etc. Absolutely. The Church recognizes “one baptism”.

That is certainly a true statement, but it is equally true if the child isn’t baptized or the baptism was conducted by an invalid rite.

In that case, the child would receive baptism and first holy communion after completing the faith formation classes or other appropriate instructions.

 

[PatrickKen]

Ok.

Well a couple of things. You are right, the “new Pope” doesn’t think that way and has hinted at a more liberal use of baptism.

However, priests and bishops are bound by Church law. And it is well within a priests right to dicern who is disposed to recieve a sacrament. You can do lots of things here. You can write the Bishop, find another priest, or best case scenario, become practicing members of the parish and baptize the baby. Or even baptize the baby in a trinitarian formula in whatever Christian Church they are currently members of.

One reason why there has to be a reasonable expectation action they will be Catholic is that baptism binds one to the Church. Meaning one must “be” Catholic. By leaving they may have shown to the priest a weak faith and so he may have concerns about baptizing. And again, not only is that ok, it’s prescribed.

Now I’m going to address just you for a second

I’m always amazed at grandparents ( and there are a ton of them) who pressure and freak out about baptism for thier grandchildren. When the parents are the ones charged with this and faith formation of their own children. You should be more concerned with your own children (child) that has left the faith.

You CANNOT take this upon yourself and baptize.

Why have you put the words New Pope in inverted commas?

 

[PatrickKen]

The only requirement I have ever heard of to be a parishioner is to fe resident in the parish. I have never heard about letters being sent out telling Catholics that they are no longer members. If that happened I’d love to know more

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Why have you put the words New Pope in inverted commas?

Inverted commas? I haven’t heard that one. We say quotation marks.
The original poster said new pope. I was quoting the original poster. In reality I felt that the pope is not “new” really and I also felt there might have been some indication that by saying the " new pope" wouldn’t do something the original poster deemed unfair or cruel that the “old popes” would have. That’s not fair.

I do find it odd that ina post touching on theological principles, your contribution was one of punctuation…

 

[Gorgias]

The only requirement I have ever heard of to be a parishioner is to fe resident in the parish.

Absolutely. However, the requirements for baptism are somewhat more intense than “have a local address.” Instead, for a child to be baptized, the priest celebrating the baptism must have reason to believe that his parents will raise him in the faith. If he does not believe this to be the case, he may delay the baptism in order to ensure that there’s not simply a ritual in church, a nice party, and no subsequent action.

If that happened I’d love to know more

Occasionally, parishes might send letters to the people on their rolls whom they haven’t seen in a while, asking them if their intent is still to be active members of the parish (and therefore, asking whether they wish to be taken off the parish rolls, and not continue to receive donation envelopes and other communication from the parish).

 

[PrayPsalm51]

Occasionally, parishes might send letters to the people on their rolls whom they haven’t seen in a while, asking them if their intent is still to be active members of the parish (and therefore, asking whether they wish to be taken off the parish rolls, and not continue to receive donation envelopes and other communication from the parish).

Parishes do need to do this at times to find out who really still lives there and is “active”
In some dioceses parishes get assessed based on the number of families etc. If folks have moved or stopped attending then they need to be removed from the registry. For better or worse, one way to know someone is active is if they use the envelopes. It’s not necessarily about how much money; but people like to accuse the church of only caring about money… It’s ideal if they are known to the priest through their contribution of time and talent.

 

[ConfusedLucy]

I wonder if an emailing list with a simple unsubscribe option is the way to go. No one is ever going to be thrilled when their church makes it clear they just see them as a number despite several years attendance and baptism of two children. A lot of non-Catholic churches are very big on outreach so them leaving for another church doesn’t surprise me.