Do infants have the right to be baptized?

[Glenoy]

The practice of civil marriage and living-in of couples (without marriage) are prevalent here in the Philippines. The result is that the number of children born out of wedlock increases.

To counter the trend, our diocese launched a disciplinary measure last ten years ago. For example, the first born child of a civil married and the live-in couples will be baptized on condition that the couples promised to get married in the church. If the couples do not comply, the second child and the succeeding siblings are denied of baptism.

This troubled me because I believe that infants died without baptism can not enter heaven. The church officials reasoned that it would not be the fault of the church if the children died without baptism but of the parent’s.

I want to know whether this disciplinary measure has a historical basis on the catholic church. I mean, is that in-line with tradition? Are the infants have the right to be baptized despite the spiritual status of the parents?

 

[white_sheep]

Yes, it is very traditional.

I can’t say that exact practice has been maintained but I do know that in the early Church people were very close and would keep tabs on one another. If someone wasn’t in line they would be denied Communion.

What is suggested here is that the Church baptize the babies of non-practicing Catholics, or essentially, non-Catholics. Why would they do that?

 

[gentle_atheist]

This troubled me because I believe that infants died without baptism can not enter heaven.

That’s why the Catholic Church has always taught that anyone – including a Jew, a heretic, a pagan, perhaps even an atheist – can perform a valid baptism if the person performing the baptism intends to make the baptizee a Christian and uses proper form and matter. So a parent should simply pour water over the baby’s head while saying, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” A Catholic priest can later perform a conditional baptism.

 

[laszlo]

Infants can be baptized only with the promise of the parents that they raise the children in Catholic faith. People who deliberately live in sin, outside of the sacrament of marriage, unlikely will fulfill this obligation.

For this reason the Church denied the baptism of the Jewish children, unless the parents died, or give consent to the Catholic education of their children.

As for the infants dying without baptism God and only God is the judge, and he did not share this function with us. We don’t know their fates, only know that God is just. It would be unjust to trow one to hell without his own responsibility.

The baptism w/o Catholic raising for the 98+% survivor to adulthood will be a further obstacle to the salvation. Those who get more are required to produce more.

Think about it, as if you would be chained to your car, but you got no gasoline. Yous re in much worse position than those free from the car. The car is the baptism, the gasoline the Catholic raising.

 

[Big_Ro]

I’m not being critical of your thinking in any way. However, It is my understanding that as a matter of Church doctrine, babies go to heaven automatically regardless of whether or not they have been baptized. I do, also believe that it’s important to receive the sacrament if possible. I agree with the poster that in some situations anyone can baptize and it would be considered valid.

My youngest daughter was born very prematurly. They told me she would probably not survive. I called our priest and asked him to come and baptize my daughter. He told me that it didn’t matter she would got o heaven either way. I told him that I knew this but it was more about wanting her to receive the gift. He sent one of the deacons which didn’t sit well with me. It also started a whole controversy years later when we had trouble getting a baptismal certificate. We finally had to rebaptize her again. I really like the priwest and hold no ill will toward him but he truly dropped the ball on that one. BTW, my daughter is now 6, healthy, chunky and without any defects. God is good.

 

[gentle_atheist]

Original sin prevents entry into heaven. Baptism is the only way to remove it. If the baby is not taught how to be a good Catholic then invincible ignorance will mean that he will not be held accountable.

 

[gentle_atheist]

My youngest daughter was born very prematurly. They told me she would probably not survive. I called our priest and asked him to come and baptize my daughter. He told me that it didn’t matter she would got o heaven either way.

I’m sorry, but that lazy good for nothing priest should be excommunicated!!! This is the Catholic Church after Vatican 2. That’s why I chucked the whole thing and became an atheist.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’m not being critical of your thinking in any way. However, It is my understanding that as a matter of Church doctrine, babies go to heaven automatically regardless of whether or not they have been baptized.

The Church teaches that we do not know where the unbaptized infant goes but we trust to the mercy of God.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The practice of civil marriage and living-in of couples (without marriage) are prevalent here in the Philippines. The result is that the number of children born out of wedlock increases.

To counter the trend, our diocese launched a disciplinary measure last ten years ago. For example, the first born child of a civil married and the live-in couples will be baptized on condition that the couples promised to get married in the church. If the couples do not comply, the second child and the succeeding siblings are denied of baptism.

This troubled me because I believe that infants died without baptism can not enter heaven. The church officials reasoned that it would not be the fault of the church if the children died without baptism but of the parent’s.

I want to know whether this disciplinary measure has a historical basis on the catholic church. I mean, is that in-line with tradition? Are the infants have the right to be baptized despite the spiritual status of the parents?

Kabayan,

Such issues are not unique to the Philippines. I’m glad our bishops there are doing something to reinforce Catholic teaching. The babies can be baptized validly and licitly by anyone if there is danger of death. Of course this doesn’t cover scenarios where there may not be a chance to baptize such as car accidents.

I feel sad that people need to be “held hostage” via denial of Sacraments. And this negative feeling is towards people, not the Church. The Church doesn’t have to resort to this, but what can they do when people are not interested what the Church has to say? Don’t blame the Bishops, rather blame the people for choosing to live sinful lives rather than be faithful to the faith they profess.

 

[vsedriver]

I’m sorry, but that lazy good for nothing priest should be excommunicated!!! This is the Catholic Church after Vatican 2. That’s why I chucked the whole thing and became an atheist.

so you walked away from God because a human being was found imperfect? Surely there was more to it than that?

 

[vsedriver]

The practice of civil marriage and living-in of couples (without marriage) are prevalent here in the Philippines. The result is that the number of children born out of wedlock increases.

To counter the trend, our diocese launched a disciplinary measure last ten years ago. For example, the first born child of a civil married and the live-in couples will be baptized on condition that the couples promised to get married in the church. If the couples do not comply, the second child and the succeeding siblings are denied of baptism.

This is the same reason the Church doesn’t allow couples to marry without going through pre cana training and waiting for at least 6 months.

Many people want the traditions of religion without making a commitment to Christ and the Church. The Church is simply reminding people what these ‘traditions’ are for.

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is the same reason the Church doesn’t allow couples to marry without going through pre cana training and waiting for at least 6 months.

Many people want the traditions of religion without making a commitment to Christ and the Church. The Church is simply reminding people what these ‘traditions’ are for.

Whats more complicated in countries like the Philippines where a great majority of the population is Catholic and Catholicism is intertwined with the culture, Sacraments are seen to be cultural more than spiritual. You have to get married in the Church because its the Filipino thing to do. You have to have your children baptized because its what the culture expects of you. Many have actually fallen from the faith but remain Catholics in title because its the cultural expectation. Especially if Grandma or Mommy is a devout Catholic, no way kids will really be anything else. And most of those who become disinterested in the faith isn’t really looking for another faith.

We say these people go to church 3 times in their lives. For their baptism, for their wedding, and for their funeral.

 

[Glenoy]

Yes, it is very traditional.

What is suggested here is that the Church baptize the babies of non-practicing Catholics, or essentially, non-Catholics. Why would they do that?

I can not say that the civil and live-in couples are non-practicing Catholics.

Here in our country, going to church and attending its activities are very much part of the culture. In fact, almost all churches are overflowing on Sundays. Almost all catholic families belong to Basic Ecclesial Community (BEC). When I say family, it also include the families of civil married and live-in couples. So they know very well the importance of baptism to their children. However, there are impediments.

Speaking of impediment, one reason is a bit mix of cultural and economic. Church marriage is a big celebration. When someone is getting married, it would be a great news for the families and relatives. And these family and relatives would surely come to the wedding regardless whether they are invited or not because they are your relatives. This is our culture. So many couples opted temporarily for civil marriage. Civil marriage is almost and always convey the message that not all families, relatives, and friends are invited. And the banquet is not for the whole village to eat.