Baptizing baby of lapsed-Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter fencersmother
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fencersmother

Guest
My pastor said he recently baptized the child of lapsed-Catholics, now non-denominationals, whose current church doesn’t have infant baptism. They have no intention to ever return to the Church.

While I am all for baptizing babies, I am upset by this practice. What burden is placed on godparents of such a child?

This practice seems to mock those of us converts who gave up so much to have access to the Sacraments.

Is this permitted in the Church? Perhaps I am out of line here, not being a theologian.
 
fencersmother said:
My pastor said he recently baptized the child of lapsed-Catholics, now non-denominationals, whose current church doesn’t have infant baptism. They have no intention to ever return to the Church.

While I am all for baptizing babies, I am upset by this practice. What burden is placed on godparents of such a child?

This practice seems to mock those of us converts who gave up so much to have access to the Sacraments.

Is this permitted in the Church? Perhaps I am out of line here, not being a theologian.
Click to expand...
Hi!

…I fully empathize with you… it seems counterproductive and on the verge of mockery…

…yet, we must consider that the child must be Baptized and that the Holy Spirit can invoke His Calling as the child develops and he/she can answer the Call to Come Home!

While it is true that the God-parents have their work cutout for them… their efforts and their Faith can supply more than enough guidance for the child.

Maran atha!

Angel
 
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.
 
fencersmother said:
My pastor said he recently baptized the child of lapsed-Catholics, now non-denominationals, whose current church doesn’t have infant baptism. They have no intention to ever return to the Church.

While I am all for baptizing babies, I am upset by this practice. What burden is placed on godparents of such a child?

This practice seems to mock those of us converts who gave up so much to have access to the Sacraments.

Is this permitted in the Church? Perhaps I am out of line here, not being a theologian.
Click to expand...
Did they lead him to believe that they were returning to the faith?
What is the back story? Most priests wouldn’t do that unless they truly believed that they had come back for good. How did this come up in conversation?
 
I get annoyed at the same thing. also with catholics who do not attend Mass or anything else, but expect to have a catholic wedding, and you never see them again.
 
MissBorgia said:
I get annoyed at the same thing. also with catholics who do not attend Mass or anything else, but expect to have a catholic wedding, and you never see them again.
Click to expand...
pianistclare said:
Or First Communion.
Click to expand...
Well everyone knows Confirmation is the end. :rolleyes: That’s like graduation to some people and **then **you never see them.

Until they want to get married in church. 😉 (Because it’s pretty. But complain that there may be a fee…)
 
fencersmother said:
My pastor said he recently baptized the child of lapsed-Catholics, now non-denominationals, whose current church doesn’t have infant baptism. They have no intention to ever return to the Church.

While I am all for baptizing babies, I am upset by this practice. What burden is placed on godparents of such a child?

This practice seems to mock those of us converts who gave up so much to have access to the Sacraments.

Is this permitted in the Church? Perhaps I am out of line here, not being a theologian.
Click to expand...
Who offered the child for baptism? The non-denominational parents or the Godparents? Did the parents deceive the priest at all and make him think they were going to come back to the faith?
 
I think this is probably one of those situations that you might just have faith that the priest, who is trained to adminsiter the sacraments, and in what circumstances he may AND MUST do so, examined all of the relevant circumstances and decided that it was the best course of action to baptise the child.

Then pray for the child and its family that the same grace that led these parents to seek out a Catholic priest to baptise their child will continue to lead them hoem.
 
casslean said:
I think this is probably one of those situations that you might just have faith that the priest, who is trained to administer the sacraments, and in what circumstances he may AND MUST do so, examined all of the relevant circumstances and decided that it was the best course of action to baptize the child.

Then pray for the child and its family that the same grace that led these parents to seek out a Catholic priest to baptize their child will continue to lead them home.
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. That’s why all the questions. But the OP appears to have gone. 🤷
 
MissBorgia said:
I get annoyed at the same thing. also with catholics who do not attend Mass or anything else, but expect to have a catholic wedding, and you never see them again.
Click to expand...
I call those locust Catholics. Baptized, then seven years later they show up for First Holy Communion, then seven years later they appear for Confirmation, then seven years later for marriage… There are several in my family. 😦
 
Irishmom2 said:
Well everyone knows Confirmation is the end. :rolleyes: That’s like graduation to some people and **then **you never see them.

Until they want to get married in church. 😉 (Because it’s pretty. But complain that there may be a fee…)
Click to expand...
Marriages in our diocese are down 78% in fifty years. The population of the area grew by 68%. Very few people here are getting married in the church…
 
Blessedwithfive said:
Marriages in our diocese are down 78% in fifty years. The population of the area grew by 68%. Very few people here are getting married in the church…
Click to expand...
(Maybe it’s a regional thing. Going strong here and where we used to live. ) I don’t want to have this thread get off topic. 🙂
 
The priest was NOT deceived. He did it as part of his “Welcome Home!” program to the Faith. He also allowed fallen-away Catholics to return to the Eucharist without benefit of Confession, though he described such as “highly recommended.”

The parents told him they had no intention of returning to the Faith, but since their church did not allow infant baptism, and they wanted it, he baptized the child. There was no word of godparents, though I assume somehow they exist. (though, maybe not?)

I’m not “telling tales out of school.” Father told us this (and more) during his homily on Saturday night.
 
fencersmother said:
The priest was NOT deceived. He did it as part of his “Welcome Home!” program to the Faith. He also allowed fallen-away Catholics to return to the Eucharist without benefit of Confession, though he described such as “highly recommended.”

The parents told him they had no intention of returning to the Faith, but since their church did not allow infant baptism, and they wanted it, he baptized the child. There was no word of godparents, though I assume somehow they exist. (though, maybe not?)

I’m not “telling tales out of school.” Father told us this (and more) during his homily on Saturday night.
Click to expand...
Sometimes, some of the older priests do it as a favor to the Grandparents.

Or, PERHAPS, Father believes that the couple might still return in the future (regardless of what they say). The fact that they attend a non-denominational yet still believe in infant baptism sounds like they might be closer to true Catholicism than they think.
 
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.
 
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.
 
FrDavid96 said:
In May 2016, Pope Francis changed canon law on this topic. …
Click to expand...
Thanks for bringing that up. I wasn’t even thinking about it.

So, according to the OP, we have parents who are “lapsed” Catholics…but, according to canon law, Catholics nonetheless. If that’s the case, then I don’t think we can apply c. 868.3 to their circumstances.

Dan
 
dans0622 said:
Thanks for bringing that up. I wasn’t even thinking about it.

So, according to the OP, we have parents who are “lapsed” Catholics…but, according to canon law, Catholics nonetheless. If that’s the case, then I don’t think we can apply c. 868.3 to their circumstances.

Dan
Click to expand...
Sort of…

While lapsed Catholics are still bound to observe canonical form for marriage, it’s still possible for Catholics to become non-Catholics. It is still possible to leave the Church by a formal act. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think that after the original Code there were revisions which specifically eliminated this possibility. Of course, this takes us down a canonical rabbit hole that’s beyond the scope of a CAF message board. Your point is taken, though. I see that as one of the ambiguities in the revised canon.

It brings up the question: do we have a situation where infants of never-Catholic parents can be baptised without any regard for requiring that the child be raised in the Catholic faith, while children of lapsed Catholics require a higher standard for baptism?

In my personal assessment, based solely on what the OP posted, I think this type of situation at least could come under the new 868.3. I say “could” because, as we all know, we never have every possible detail posted, and we cannot attempt canonical judgements in a forum like this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top