Do that many people still baptize their children within the first few weeks of birth?

[tafan]

To be fair, that’s not a Precept of the Church and most people know nothing about Canon Law so there is little sin involved here.

You also have priests who will only baptize once a month and who put a limit on how many children they will baptize at any given time. Not to mention those who will categorically not baptize during Lent although there is no reason not to do so. So parents aren’t always the only ones to blame. Our last Pastor only baptized during a Sunday Mass but he only wanted to celebrate one Sunday Baptism every 3 months. Every other Baptism had to be at the Saturday evening Sunday Mass.

I have stated that it is likely that no sin occurs due to ignorance. But it has nothing to do with canon laws; hardly any Catholics know any details of canon law and are not expected to. What is expected is that pastors will tell people what their moral obligatiosn are at the appropriate times. There has been much talk about Baptismal classes on this thread, so people should understand the importance of infant baptism.

And just to play devil’s advocate: how much ignorance is there really? We have the following quotes on this thread by people who have delayed it (note: I am not naming names on purpose, because this is just to make my point, not to comment on particular cases): " will admit, though that every day that passed without getting my kids baptized left me feeling gross" or “I try to have my children Baptized by 6 weeks, and to me that seems like a long time”. or " I was very uncomfortable with that.". Or this one “Too long I know”.

And from a person who leads a baptismal class:

Phemie:

It’s true what YoungTradCath says, the **Church requirement used to be very well known **but today few, if any, young parents are aware of that particular rule. Even when you tell them they still want the baptism when they want the baptism. I can tell you I did preparation with parents 2 years ago who STILL haven’t presented their child to be baptized.

At least one parish tells the parents their responsibilty.

Or this

Corki:

I have lived in about a dozen parishes since I married. In ALL of them, there was a strong suggestion that parents complete the prep classes before the baby was born and to schedule the Baptism for as soon as possible after the due date.

So I think the second post hit the nail on the head, I will quote it and bold the really pertinent parts that have seem to be true after reading this thread:

YoungTradCath:

There are so many things that just used to be part of Catholic culture, and nearly every Catholic knew these things. This is one of them, a part of simple Catholic common sense. This is what I see as the biggest argument for the “Catholic fortress culture,” or whatever you want to call it: everybody knows “Catholic stuff” and does it almost unquestioningly. Sort of, “It’s good for you, so do it.” Catholicity used to be taken for granted. Now it is not.

This is a catechetical problem, but I think more than that, it is a cultural problem. Catholic culture is hanging by a tiny, thin thread. We still have parts of the structure but we have none of the zeal–in fact we have antagonism and whiny people–and so the structure is emaciated

.

People are not doing it, many times not because of ignorance, but because it is NOT important enough to them.

 

[Phemie]

People are not doing it, many times not because of ignorance, but because it is NOT important enough to them.

I will give you that one. I’ve prepared more than one couple who were anxious to have the baby baptized, not because Baptism was important, but because they were concerned that the family baptismal gown would not fit.

 

[AthenaC]

tafan,

Intersting - I would consider myself very well catechized (if you met my mother, you would, too ), and I have never heard about any of the rules regarding timing of baptizing children. Other than the common sense “as soon as possible / practical.”

Of course, think about when we are receiving our catechism - when we are children and teenagers, and our parents / teachers are SO busy beating it into our heads that sex is to be avoided at all costs (yes I am exaggerating and yes this is not an issue we will be discussing in this thread) that no one mentions a Catholic parent’s obligations (aside from a cursory explanation that spouses must be open to life). Because the expectation is that at the time we are receiving our catechism, we will not be even thinking about being parents ourselves, so such considerations are irrelevant.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My sponsor’s husband taught RCIA and BOW in our parish. He received a bachelors in theology from a Catholic University a few days before their baby was born (he now has a masters and is pursuing a doctorate). He is the most orthodox Catholic I know. His beliefs are 100% in line with the Church, which is unfortunately more than I can say about many of the clergy at our parish. They still made them take the baptism class. It was pretty silly.

Well, also our parish doesn’t have those formal classes. It was always a 1-on-1 with the priest. The priest knows the extent of my knowledge. So what he asked is mostly which of the Ukrainian traditions I want to do. I said I want “by the book”. Then we had a lengthy discussion about what “by the book” was, heheheheheheh. This included the First Day and Eighth Day traditions which aren’t really practiced anymore. But I think its neat to do those things and would have done them if I knew before hand. I only knew about the 40th day “churching” of women which we today do on the same day as the baptism.

 

[babochka]

Well, also our parish doesn’t have those formal classes. It was always a 1-on-1 with the priest. The priest knows the extent of my knowledge. So what he asked is mostly which of the Ukrainian traditions I want to do. I said I want “by the book”. Then we had a lengthy discussion about what “by the book” was, heheheheheheh. This included the First Day and Eighth Day traditions which aren’t really practiced anymore. But I think its neat to do those things and would have done them if I knew before hand. I only knew about the 40th day “churching” of women which we today do on the same day as the baptism.

Our priest would like to revive the 1st Day and 8th Day traditions, but has not come across the prayers in English. We also do the churching of women, even though we have been at church for several weeks by that time.

 

[TEPO]

Our potential Church told us we need to be parishioners for at least six months before they Baptize my daughter. When I talk to the Priest I’m going to tell him that we’ll be moving again before then- if he refuses, I’m going to Baptize my daughter by myself… I’ll use Holy water, and I’ll need to get a copy of what prayers I’ll need to say.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Our priest would like to revive the 1st Day and 8th Day traditions, but has not come across the prayers in English. We also do the churching of women, even though we have been at church for several weeks by that time.

Same with us, the prayers are in Ukrainian. I’m sure English translations can be found online and you can have the Bishop approve it.

 

[tafan]

tafan,

Intersting - I would consider myself very well catechized (if you met my mother, you would, too ), and I have never heard about any of the rules regarding timing of baptizing children. Other than the common sense “as soon as possible / practical.”

Of course, think about when we are receiving our catechism - when we are children and teenagers, and our parents / teachers are SO busy beating it into our heads that sex is to be avoided at all costs (yes I am exaggerating and yes this is not an issue we will be discussing in this thread) that no one mentions a Catholic parent’s obligations (aside from a cursory explanation that spouses must be open to life). Because the expectation is that at the time we are receiving our catechism, we will not be even thinking about being parents ourselves, so such considerations are irrelevant.

“as soon as possible” would be inline with “a few weeks” ;would it not? So the church uses slightly different language, you still know. Its hard to understand how it should not be possible within a few weeks in the vast majority of cases. So as a well catechized catholic, it seems as if you have been taught fairly accurately to me.

 

[Gena]

Because the expectation is that at the time we are receiving our catechism, we will not be even thinking about being parents ourselves, so such considerations are irrelevant.

I went to a Catholic high school and our religion instruction included a one-semester course on marriage (which included the basics of NFP) and a one-semester course on parenting, which included parents’ obligations regarding baptism. That was back in the late 1980s. I was shocked when I got older and discovered that not everyone had been taught these things.

 

[tafan]

Our potential Church told us we need to be parishioners for at least six months before they Baptize my daughter. When I talk to the Priest I’m going to tell him that we’ll be moving again before then- if he refuses, I’m going to Baptize my daughter by myself… I’ll use Holy water, and I’ll need to get a copy of what prayers I’ll need to say.

The insanity never ends. I suppose the parish is using the 6 month requirement to fulfill the church law that “there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion”. However, a 6 month waiting period is morally reprehensible IMO. It does not provide this founded hope, no matter how one looks at it. If a family has not been going to church, making them register and wait 6 months proves nothing. If a family has been going to church but has not registered, then it is simply wrong (by canon law you are automatically a member of your geographical parish). And in your case, where you have just moved there: the church has no right to withhold sacraments on such flimsy grounds.

Having said that, and I am obviously outspoken on this topic, I do not think it is licit for you to baptize the baby yourself in this situation. The church says that it must be a true emergency for a minister of baptism to not be a Bishop, priest, or deacon.

I would call the diocese first and complain. Be ready to be told by a diocesan staff member that the parish is right and the Church no longer requires a quick baptism. So quote to them explicitly Canon 867 “Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks” (include telling them the canon number, so they know you know what you are talking about). I would actually do this with the pastor first and then the diocese. Do not take no for an answer, work your way all the way up to chain to the Bishop if necessary.

It is unfortunate, but occasionally you have to prove the parish staff and diocesan staff wrong before you make progress. And that is normally successful when the case is “cut and dried”; which infant baptism is. But do it nicely. Do not scream, just be firm. But be polite. Parish and expecially diocesan staff people will dig their heels in hard when confronted by someone who is too aggressive (they hate to admit they are wrong).

 

[JGMendes4049]

Do not take no for an answer, work your way all the way up to chain to the Bishop if necessary.

And, be it necessary, to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

 

[anp1215]

The insanity never ends. I suppose the parish is using the 6 month requirement to fulfill the church law that “there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion”. However, a 6 month waiting period is morally reprehensible IMO. It does not provide this founded hope, no matter how one looks at it. If a family has not been going to church, making them register and wait 6 months proves nothing. If a family has been going to church but has not registered, then it is simply wrong (by canon law you are automatically a member of your geographical parish). And in your case, where you have just moved there: the church has no right to withhold sacraments on such flimsy grounds.

Having said that, and I am obviously outspoken on this topic, I do not think it is licit for you to baptize the baby yourself in this situation. The church says that it must be a true emergency for a minister of baptism to not be a Bishop, priest, or deacon.

I would call the diocese first and complain. Be ready to be told by a diocesan staff member that the parish is right and the Church no longer requires a quick baptism. So quote to them explicitly Canon 867 “Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks” (include telling them the canon number, so they know you know what you are talking about). I would actually do this with the pastor first and then the diocese. Do not take no for an answer, work your way all the way up to chain to the Bishop if necessary.

It is unfortunate, but occasionally you have to prove the parish staff and diocesan staff wrong before you make progress. And that is normally successful when the case is “cut and dried”; which infant baptism is. But do it nicely. Do not scream, just be firm. But be polite. Parish and expecially diocesan staff people will dig their heels in hard when confronted by someone who is too aggressive (they hate to admit they are wrong).

I agree. Even if the parish has this policy, they should make exceptions. What if a family just moved there? What if they just didn’t register but attend Mass? There’s no rule that says you have to register.

 

[tafan]

I agree. Even if the parish has this policy, they should make exceptions. What if a family just moved there? What if they just didn’t register but attend Mass? There’s no rule that says you have to register.

Forget exceptions, I see no way this policy can ever be justified.

 

[FromTheAshes777]

Just a question for future reference.

If say, me and my future wife are involved and registered at a particular parish, regular mass goers, involved also in the parish in some other way ect, make ourselves known to the Priest, and…

Then, we take the required baptismal prep class during pregnancy, have God parents lined up, ect,…and get everything scheduled with the Priest…can a Baptism generally happen for a child within a week or so after birth?

I honestly can’t imagine waiting months to get my future child Baptized…that honestly would keep me awake at night considering how important the Sacrament of Baptism is.

 

[jilly4ski]

Just a question for future reference.

If say, me and my future wife are involved and registered at a particular parish, regular mass goers, involved also in the parish in some other way ect, make ourselves known to the Priest, and…

Then, we take the required baptismal prep class during pregnancy, have God parents lined up, ect,…and get everything scheduled with the Priest…can a Baptism generally happen for a child within a week or so after birth?

I honestly can’t imagine waiting months to get my future child Baptized…that honestly would keep me awake at night considering how important the Sacrament of Baptism.

I probably depends. Size of parish, flexibility of the priest, how much the secretary runs the parish, how wedded to schedules they are, etc. But otherwise I see no reason why not.

 

[babochka]

Just a question for future reference.

If say, me and my future wife are involved and registered at a particular parish, regular mass goers, involved also in the parish in some other way ect, make ourselves known to the Priest, and…

Then, we take the required baptismal prep class during pregnancy, have God parents lined up, ect,…and get everything scheduled with the Priest…can a Baptism generally happen for a child within a week or so after birth?

I honestly can’t imagine waiting months to get my future child Baptized…that honestly would keep me awake at night considering how important the Sacrament of Baptism is.

Unless you are in a parish that only does Baptisms during Mass and only schedules them quarterly or monthly, you should be fine. Definitely get the classes done before the baby is born.

 

[sainthumbert]

We have had all of our children baptized at the first or second Sunday after birth. I would like to do earlier but have no other option. I think of it this way: the Church has proposed limbo as a possible resting place of deceased babies. The Church, at this point, does not know with certainty what happens to an unbaptized baby upon death. If the child dies before baptism, which is more probable the longer you wait, the parents are ultimately responsible for the tragedy that the baby does not go to heaven when the parents could have, without a doubt, guaranteed that the baby would have gone to heaven. Is that something any parent wants to have hanging over his/her head right after the death of their child?