Free will of the infant in infant baptism

[Pattylt]

It’s weird that you made this claim, since you later quoted the CCC where it discusses this as a historical development!

Since this question is placed under my quote, I think you have me confused with another poster. I didn’t quote the CCC.

 

[Gorgias]

Since this question is placed under my quote, I think you have me confused with another poster. I didn’t quote the CCC.

D’oh! My mistake – it was TK who posted the CCC discussion on confirmation!

 

[John_Martin]

Umm… no. The baptized is not merely “passive”. In the case of an adult, the active desire to be baptized must be present.

Afraid not - a priest, or any ‘baptizer’ cannot see the heart, and so cannot know if there is “active desire”. A priest can only know the “request” which happens prior to the consent and action of the ‘baptizer’. Thus the one baptized is passive.
Also, a pastor does not ‘have to baptize’, as you said. It is a decision by the pastor, always, not a directive where the pastor is not free to decide. “Sorry pastor, you cannot refuse.”

 

[Gorgias]

Afraid not - a priest, or any ‘baptizer’ cannot see the heart, and so cannot know if there is “active desire”. A priest can only know the “request” which happens prior to the consent and action of the ‘baptizer’.

And the request itself isn’t evidence of the desire? C’mon, man…

Also, a pastor does not ‘have to baptize’, as you said. It is a decision by the pastor, always, not a directive where the pastor is not free to decide.

Pope Francis disagrees with you:

In words that may be interpreted to rebut Catholic priests who refuse to baptize children of same-sex couples, Pope Francis has said that priests should not refuse baptism to anyone who asks for the sacrament.

 

[JMMJ]

Do parents “usurp the free will of their child” when they do what’s best for them in other arenas of life – clothing, shelter, food, education

Of course not. But we need to be honest here. By baptising a child, an adult is obligating that child to comply with church teaching as an adult. Not exactly the same as deciding what food, shelter or education the child will be given.

 

[po18guy]

“Seeing their faith” is understood as the faith of the friends. That is how I have learned it from Fr. Mitch Pacwa ad others.

 

[John_Martin]

Pope Francis disagrees with you:

In words that may be interpreted to rebut Catholic priests who refuse to baptize children of same-sex couples, Pope Francis has said that priests should not refuse baptism to anyone who asks for the sacrament.

You need to review your grammar - “should” is subjunctive, not imperative - if it were a requirement, Francis would have said, “priests SHALL not refuse baptism to anyone who asks for the sacrament.”

Francis is leaving it open to decision of the priest, not to necessity of doing whatever a requester might request when he uses the word “should”.

 

[Gorgias]

By baptising a child, an adult is obligating that child to comply with church teaching as an adult. Not exactly the same as deciding what food, shelter or education the child will be given.

Of course it’s of similar consequence! Let’s nuance it a little, so that we can make a direct comparison:

• A parent makes many decisions that impact their child’s life:
  • do they feed him nutritionally rich foods, or junk food?
  • do they feed him sufficiently, or insufficiently?
  • do they provide him access to good educational programs?
  • do they have him baptized or not?

Do all of these have significant impact on the child in his later life? Do these decisions have consequences which are felt as obligatory

Of course! A child who is not given sufficient nourishment is “obligated” to deal with the health impacts of his parents’ decisions. A child who is not given access to education is “obligated” to suffer the consequences in his later life.

And BTW… if a child is baptized but never raised in the faith, the Church tends to look at them a bit differently than one who is well catechized but later decides to leave the faith.

“Seeing their faith” is understood as the faith of the friends.

The footnotes in the NAB and RSV-CE translations disagree on this question – one says “the friends” and the other “the paralytic and his friends.” Seems like an issue open to interpretation…

You need to review your grammar

I’ll get right on telling Pope Francis that his grammar is deficient.

Francis is leaving it open to decision of the priest

Wow. If that’s what you get out of that discussion, then our approaches to reading comprehension are vastly divergent. When the pope tells me that I should do something, I don’t conclude “meh… he’s leaving the decision open to me.”

But, just because it’s lunchtime and I have a few minutes to waste… let’s see what the pope actually said:

Non bisogna rifiutare mai il Battesimo a chi lo chiede!

Sure looks like a definite command to me!

 

[John_Martin]

I’ll get right on telling Pope Francis that his grammar is deficient.

No, the Pope’s grammar is correct - it is you who are saying that subjunctive equals imperative.
As for the English, unless you personally rendered the translation, the translator saw fit to capture the Pope’s intent as subjunctive, and not as a command.

 

[Gorgias]

As for the English, unless you personally rendered the translation, the translator saw fit to capture the Pope’s intent as subjunctive, and not as a command.

That’s the whole point: it’s not subjunctive in the Italian, but rather, states that we “must not refuse baptism.”

 

[OddBird]

Jumping right in

Italian isn’t my strong point, but the quote given by @Gorgias is a clear imperative (“never refuse Baptism…”)

 

[goout]

Gorgias:

Do parents “usurp the free will of their child” when they do what’s best for them in other arenas of life – clothing, shelter, food, education

Of course not. But we need to be honest here. By baptising a child, an adult is obligating that child to comply with church teaching as an adult.
…

And as an adult with a fully formed conscience the person can freely choose to open the gift of baptism.
Baptising a child does not lock them in a cage (“comply”), rather it begins a life of freedom.

 

[JMMJ]

Do all of these have significant impact on the child in his later life? Do these decisions have consequences which are felt as obligatory

“Significant conseqence” is not the same as “obligation”. I find it interesting that you seem to consider that they are.

Diet: A child may be raised on one type of diet and grow into an adult who eats a different diet. He or she may modify their diet to their nutritional needs, or to their preference. There is not penalty for doing so.

Education: A parent will decide how best to educate a child. An adult can determine for themselves if the education they received was adequate. They may take a do-over if it wasn’t. They may continue their education in a way in which their parents may not approve. There is no penalty for doing so.

Again, the penalty for not living out the religion a parent chooses for their child, at least according to that very religion, is severe and final. Being threatened with eternal damnation for a choice someone else made for you doesn’t sound like free will to me. I find it interesting that the Church has infant baptism when so much of the rest of its teachings revolve around the concept of free will.

 

[Gorgias]

“Significant conseqence” is not the same as “obligation”

In this context? Sure it is: the child is obligated to deal with the consequences of his parents’ decisions, and often, in ways that address the shortcomings of those decisions. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

Being threatened with eternal damnation for a choice someone else made for you doesn’t sound like free will to me.

Like I said: that’s not what the Church teaches, in the case of a child whose religious formation is deficient. For those who accept the faith (get it? free will choice to accept, ever since they reach the age of reason!), there are consequences and responsibilities borne.

 

[Jesuslover]

the penalty for not living out the religion a parent chooses for their child, at least according to that very religion, is severe and final.

The penalty for not being baptized is just as bad. At least baptism gives the child a chance to escape that punishment.

 

[goout]

Again, the penalty for not living out the religion a parent chooses for their child, at least according to that very religion, is severe and final. Being threatened with eternal damnation for a choice someone else made for you doesn’t sound like free will to me. I find it interesting that the Church has infant baptism when so much of the rest of its teachings revolve around the concept of free will.

Where did you learn this? It is not Catholic thought.
Baptism opens a life of grace, it is:

the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua) ,4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5

Freed.

 

[John_Martin]

Italian isn’t my strong point, but the quote given by @Gorgias is a clear imperative (“never refuse Baptism…”)

“Should” is not imperative
And as said above, :“the translator saw fit to capture the Pope’s intent as subjunctive, and not as a command.”

 

[Gorgias]

“Should” is not imperative

“Should” is not in the original Italian.

 

[JMMJ]

Like I said: that’s not what the Church teaches, in the case of a child whose religious formation is deficient. For those who accept the faith (get it? free will choice to accept, ever since they reach the age of reason!), there are consequences and responsibilities borne.

What about someone like me who rejects many church teachings even though they were taught to me? (rhetorical question. I know what the Church teaches).

 

[John_Martin]

“Should” is not in the original Italian.

As was said above: “the translator saw fit to capture the Pope’s intent as subjunctive, and not as a command.”
Are you sufficiently fluent in Italian to contend with that translator?