Granddaughter Cannot Be Baptized Catholic

[Jean_Anthony]

Please don’t respond to trolls. Report them instead. Thank you all.

 

[Gorgias]

This is one of the more thoughtless position a priest can take. You are going to condemn an infants soul to Hell because you believe the parents are living in sin.

Those who are unbaptized are not “condemned to Hell”.

However, parents who promise – through the baptism of their children – to raise their children in the faith, and who do not fulfill this promise, seriously jeopardize their own salvation. Moreover, those who are baptized but who do not practice the faith (or even lack basis catechesis in the faith) aren’t in a very good situation, either. The priest’s response wasn’t “thoughtless”; it was, rather, quite mindful of the effects of baptism and the implications it bears on the child baptized and on his parents.

 

[InThePew]

As DCNBILL pointed all canon Law requires is that the parents consent and that there is " a founded hope" that the child will be raised in the faith. The state of the parents marriage or indeed their lives generally is irrelevant and there is certainly no basis on which a priest could require the parents to regularise their marital situation first. This isn’t a new thing - the current Code of Canon Law dates from 1983 - although Pope Francis has sought to re-emphasise the point a few times in his none-too-subtle way.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

What about priest shopping? It is a no no, usually but what if the priest down the street gave a different answer?

 

[Tigg]

Where have you been? History didn’t start yesterday. Years ago, there wasn’t much required to get a child baptized. Just show up after the noon Mass on Sunday, fill out the paperwork, and VOILA! your child got baptized. The result of this was what was called a “baptism of custom” whereby the day of baptism was the first time the family darkened the doors of the church. After that, the next time they came around was to get the child his first communion. The last time they ever showed up at church was for his confirmation, if that. You can see how it became just a custom. In an attempt to make these sacraments something meaningful, the Church started requiring a demonstration of commitment to the faith. This included some instruction, among other requirements, for parents and potential God-parents.

Yes, it has been a failure to understand the nature of the sacramental life and ensuing grace. I still find it interesting, nonetheless, that some lapsed Catholics are so adamant about getting their children baptized. Could this mean that they still believe a fundamental element of the faith and wish more for their children than they themselves can commit to, or has their understanding of Baptism devolved into a magical guarantee of salvation?

 

[Elizium23]

Yes, it has been a failure to understand the nature of the sacramental life and ensuing grace. I still find it interesting, nonetheless, that some lapsed Catholics are so adamant about getting their children baptized. Could this mean that they still believe a fundamental element of the faith and wish more for their children than they themselves can commit to, or has their understanding of Baptism devolved into a magical guarantee of salvation?

Or perhaps it’s culturally ingrained, and the mother-in-law pressures them for these sorts of things.

Our priest does not typically delay baptisms for those in irregular marriage situations, but he definitely takes the opportunity - it is a very good opportunity when a couple comes to the office asking for something only the priest can give - to exhort them to convalidate their marriage. A parish can really be instrumental in bringing people back to the Church if convalidations are offered with plenty of support.

We do have a strict rule about participation; families must be registered and active at least four months before beginning sacramental preparation. So lapsed Catholics walking in off the street will need to come to Mass for a while before they are eligible.

 

[DCNBILL]

As DCNBILL pointed all canon Law requires is that the parents consent and that there is " a founded hope" that the child will be raised in the faith. The state of the parents marriage or indeed their lives generally is irrelevant and there is certainly no basis on which a priest could require the parents to regularise their marital situation first. This isn’t a new thing - the current Code of Canon Law dates from 1983 - although Pope Francis has sought to re-emphasise the point a few times in his none-too-subtle way.

However if the parents do not attend Mass themselves what hope is there of the child being raised Catholic. It would seem the priest would like to see them make some effort in demonstrating their own faith.

 

[phil19034]

What about priest shopping? It is a no no, usually but what if the priest down the street gave a different answer?

Yes, it’s true that it’s possible for one pastor to say no and another (at a different parish) to say yes because it’s a judgement call on the pastor’s part regarding whether he feels comfortable enough with the parent’s situation.

So “parish shopping” might work in some dioceses or places, but may not in others.

In some diocese, such as the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, you must receive the Sacraments of Initiation in your canonical parish (unless you qualify for a personal parish). But you cannot parish shop for the Sacraments in Philadelphia.

Parish shopping for the Sacraments of Initiation only really happens in diocese which do not enforce parish boundaries (for local reasons)

“Priest shopping” is very difficult unless you know a religious order priest, who is not tied to a parish. Non-pastors (priests and deacons) typically do not baptize anyone without their pastor’s knowledge.

So in closing, while this option might be possible, it’s not really something that should be recommended over the Internet.

It’s best to speak with your Bishop if you disagree with your pastor.

 

[pianistclare]

However if the parents do not attend Mass themselves what hope is there of the child being raised Catholic. It would seem the priest would like to see them make some effort in demonstrating their own faith.

Exactly. People should be engaged in their faith, not punch a membership card.
While I would never discount the power of the Holy Spirit to touch a heart and bring a person to faith eventually, it’s the desire of priests to have the child formed first in the home, and secondarily in proper religious ed instruction at the appropriate age.
Simply dunking a child or Baptizing at the sink might make a granny feel better, but ultimately one should pray for the faith of the parents and Godparents, as that Christian witness will serve the child well, with the added blessing of Christian Baptism.

 

[InThePew]

However if the parents do not attend Mass themselves what hope is there of the child being raised Catholic. It would seem the priest would like to see them make some effort in demonstrating their own faith.

It’s not so much that the priest is seeking some effort on their part in demonstrating their faith (such as going to mass) but rather he’s imposing conditions which go well beyond those required by canon law. Saying to a parent “well, I think I’d be more confident if you were to start attending mass on a regular basis / more often” is one thing, saying "you need to regularise your marriage situation first) is another altogether. The difference being that the parents’ marriage situation is, by itself, doesn’t automatically warrant deferral of baptism.

As far as a founded hope is concerned, the fact that (according to the OP at least) the parents have sought this out themselves is a good indication that they’re interested in fulfilling their obligations. In any event, a well founded hope can also come from another significant person (such as a grandparent) who is involved in the child’s life and, with the parents’ consent, agrees to undertake the responsibility of educating the child in the faith.

 

[BartholomewB]

I must say it’s quite unfortunate that the Priest would take that hard a line. The other option is to simply go to a different Parish or contact the Diocese.

I agree that he seems to be taking too hard a line, but I expect he is probably acting in accordance with the guidelines prevailing in his diocese.

In one such case where I knew the mother personally – possibly a more serious case than this one, since she was unmarried – the priest agreed to baptize her child if she could provide a pair of godparents who were Catholics in good standing and who were prepared to give a meaningful undertaking that they would do their best to ensure that the child would be brought up as a Catholic.

 

[phil19034]

It’s not so much that the priest is seeking some effort on their part in demonstrating their faith (such as going to mass) but rather he’s imposing conditions which go well beyond those required by canon law. Saying to a parent “well, I think I’d be more confident if you were to start attending mass on a regular basis / more often” is one thing, saying "**you need to regularise your marriage situation first ** is another altogether. The difference being that the parents’ marriage situation is, by itself, doesn’t automatically warrant deferral of baptism.

As far as a founded hope is concerned, the fact that (according to the OP at least) the parents have sought this out themselves is a good indication that they’re interested in fulfilling their obligations. In any event, a well founded hope can also come from another significant person (such as a grandparent) who is involved in the child’s life and, with the parents’ consent, agrees to undertake the responsibility of educating the child in the faith.

I would agree if the bold if the OP’s daughter needed a full blown annulment. But based on the OP’s post, it sounds like she should be able to have the marriage nullified pretty quickly did to “lack of form.” This usually is just paperwork and not hard to accomplish, nor should it take long. Then, the couple can convalidate their marriage.

So in a way, the priest is actually doing the couple a favor