Baptizing baby of lapsed-Catholics

[jcrichton]

I’m guessing some churches are a lot stricter than others. My cousin managed to get her baby baptized despite being non practising with a non practising godmother and yet other people seem to have to go to classes, attend church regularly and provide proof that the godparents are Catholics in good standing.

Hi, Lucy!

…you’re not the only one who is confused… as soon as the Pope entered his Office he began issuing changes… he basically called the Church a conglomeration of tenets light on kindness and understanding…

He began a generous annunciation of embracing (well, basically everything and everyone) for the sake of a better “union” of the Body…

…it’s Vatican II all over again: people taking liberties under the guise of mercy, love, and understanding.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

In May 2016, Pope Francis changed canon law on this topic.

The old canon 868, which is still listed on the Vatican’s website, has been completely revised.

Canon 868 now reads (unofficial translation, which is always the case for canons)

§2 there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion, see §3; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

§3. Infants of non-Catholic Christians are licitly baptized if their parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place request it and if it is physically or morally impossible for them to approach their own minister.

source

Now, if the so-called non-denominational (really a denomination unto itself) place will not baptize an infant, that comes under the heading of “physically or morally impossible” under canon 868.3–by virtue of the fact that the minister refuses to do it.

My point here is that before anyone says that the pastor was acting illicitly, read what the law itself says first. I haven’t read that yet in this thread, but experience tells me it’s only a matter of time.

Theologians and canonists are scratching their heads at just what HH Francis intends by the new canons. The question remains “is such a child Catholic or not?” For those interested, see Dr Ed P---- article on this topic here.

Hi, David!

…are you a religious Brother or Fr stands for something else?

…I think that we are creating a new level of confused creatures… this is the effect that marriages involving different yolks brings forth… now we have practices from the pulpit to further the confusion since such children will not receive direct indoctrination from their parents, God-parents, grandparents or anyone else, including the Catholic Church.

…it is as the “we are all God’s children” philosophy which rejects Scriptural Teaching that not all choose to become children of God (St. John 1).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

If the parents had no intention of raising the child Catholic, then the pastor should not have baptized the child. There must be a “founded hope” that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith. Imo, they did a disservice to that child by entering him into the Church and shouldering him with all the responsibilities that accompany such without also planning to assist him in meeting them.

If the Catholic Church accepts the baptisms of other denominations, shouldn’t they be able to baptize a child of parents from another denomination? Let’s not be naïve in the belief that every child baptized in the Catholic Church ends up Catholic. Or be naïve that parents always bring up their children in the Catholic Church according to the very letter of canon law.