Granddaughter Cannot Be Baptized Catholic

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnBering
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JohnBering

Guest
My daughter (baptized Catholic) and her husband (baptized Catholic) have a five month old daughter and are seeking to get her baptized. They are only married civilly and have not been attending Mass but they now realize the importance of being parents and want to get back on the right track with God. My daughter went to a baptism class at her local parish and finally met with the priest yesterday. The priest told her that her daughter could not be baptized until she (our daughter) went through the process of getting a decree of nullity for her previous (civil) marriage and her and her husband go through process and become married sacramentaly. I agree, as does she, that this is all necessary and will happen. However, should her daughter’s baptism be prevented until that later date?
 
I think if they began actively attending Mass, put the paperwork through for the annulments, the priest may consider doing the Baptism sooner. Actions do speak louder than words.
 
  1. The priest is concerned that the child won’t be raised Catholic (or Christian). If you’re not going to learn the moral law, but you’re eternally going to be held responsible for not fulfilling all the obligations of being Catholic… that’s pretty hard on the kid. Also, in today’s mobile society, many kids grow up without relationships with their godparents or their Catholic family. So priests scrutinize the parents more closely.
  2. OTOH, usually anyone who asks for Baptism for a child is granted it, because it’s all about eternal life. Taking Baptism classes is often a way to evangelize parents who haven’t been living very Catholic lives. Local family and godparents can take up the slack for parents who aren’t very religious.
So basically, it’s a judgment call for priests.
 
Isca said:
Why should the child be denied baptism? I’m surprised at this.
Click to expand...
Because that’s the churches position of the matter. It can be rectified. Its not pretty but its how the church operates.
 
Isca said:
Why should the child be denied baptism? I’m surprised at this.
Click to expand...
Because in order to baptize an infant, the parents promise to raise the child Catholic. But also the priest has feel that there is a strong hope that the child will be raised Catholic.

All priests differ in how they deal with this. Some require new parishioners to attend mass for 6 months before they baptize the child, while other are extremely trusting.

The point is that the priest must be faithful to his conscience in whether he believes the child will be raised Catholic or not by the parents. If not, then he cannot Baptize them.

There is a lot more theology and dogma behind this based on how the Sacrament of Baptism works. When you study the way adults are Baptized, then it starts to make sense. The parents are promising on the child’s behalf and promising that they will fulfill that promise.

If the priest feels that the parent will not fulfill the promise, then the priest cannot baptize the child because the baptismal promises would not made in honestly.

That’s why this priest is asking the parents to start attending Mass and work on regularizing their marriage. It will show the priest that the parents are taking the faith seriously and increase the priests confidence that the child will be raised in the faith.

Again, I’m sure there will be better answers here and there are answers out there with a lot more theological and dogmatic depth.

God Bless.
 
Mintaka said:
  1. The priest is concerned that the child won’t be raised Catholic (or Christian). If you’re not going to learn the moral law, but you’re eternally going to be held responsible for not fulfilling all the obligations of being Catholic… that’s pretty hard on the kid. Also, in today’s mobile society, many kids grow up without relationships with their godparents or their Catholic family. So priests scrutinize the parents more closely.
  2. OTOH, usually anyone who asks for Baptism for a child is granted it, because it’s all about eternal life. Taking Baptism classes is often a way to evangelize parents who haven’t been living very Catholic lives. Local family and godparents can take up the slack for parents who aren’t very religious.
So basically, it’s a judgment call for priests.
Click to expand...
this is good.

To add to this, if the priest knows the parents or the family, sometimes it makes the decision easier for the priest (one way or the other). But when a priest doesn’t know the parents, the priest must follow his conscience and gut and make a judgment call that would best for the child.

The question comes down to this: which is better:
  1. baptizing the child and morally committing them to follow the Catholic Faith (sinning when they disobey the Church)
or
  1. not baptizing them and hoping they will come to the Christianity on their own? Or that the act of saying no to the parents will help them regain their obedience of the Church in order to baptize their child. If the parent says no to the priest’s conditions, then there is a good chance that the child would not have been raised Catholic after the baptism. But if the parents obey the priest, then it proves that the faith is still important to the parents and presents evidence that the chances are good that the parents will raise the child Catholic.
 
JohnBering said:
My daughter (baptized Catholic) and her husband (baptized Catholic) have a five month old daughter and are seeking to get her baptized. They are only married civilly and have not been attending Mass but they now realize the importance of being parents and want to get back on the right track with God. My daughter went to a baptism class at her local parish and finally met with the priest yesterday. The priest told her that her daughter could not be baptized until she (our daughter) went through the process of getting a decree of nullity for her previous (civil) marriage and her and her husband go through process and become married sacramentaly. I agree, as does she, that this is all necessary and will happen. However, should her daughter’s baptism be prevented until that later date?
Click to expand...
It shouldn’t, there is no Theological reason not to. Just tell them to donate a large amount of money and the process will be much quicker
 
From Canon Law

Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; 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.
 
JohnBering said:
My daughter (baptized Catholic) and her husband (baptized Catholic) have a five month old daughter and are seeking to get her baptized. They are only married civilly and have not been attending Mass but they now realize the importance of being parents and want to get back on the right track with God. My daughter went to a baptism class at her local parish and finally met with the priest yesterday. The priest told her that her daughter could not be baptized until she (our daughter) went through the process of getting a decree of nullity for her previous (civil) marriage and her and her husband go through process and become married sacramentaly. I agree, as does she, that this is all necessary and will happen. However, should her daughter’s baptism be prevented until that later date?
Click to expand...
I think it is important for you to understand that your grandchild has not been *denied *baptism. The priest has determined that baptism needs to be *delayed *for a time.

I recommend that your daughter continue dialog with her pastor, get to know him (attend Mass regularly, of course) and also introduce others in the family who will assist with the formation of the child to the priest (i.e. you). Once the priest has confidence that your grandchild will indeed be actively raised in the faith, it will make the next step of baptism more realistic.
 
santiagoamr said:
It shouldn’t, there is no Theological reason not to. Just tell them to donate a large amount of money and the process will be much quicker
Click to expand...
this is wrong. There is a theological reason why.

The parent is making the baptismal promises for the child. If the parent does not raise the child catholic, but make the promises, then parent is binding the child to Church law without the intention of following it.

When you listen to the baptisms of adults and you realize what they are promising to do, then it starts to become clear.
 
phil19034 said:
this is wrong. There is a theological reason why.

The parent is making the baptismal promises for the child. If the parent does not raise the child catholic, but make the promises, then parent is binding the child to Church law without the intention of following it.

When you listen to the baptisms of adults and you realize what they are promising to do, then it starts to become clear.
Click to expand...
But you are forgetting about something much more important then the parents intentions, and that is the will of God. God acts in many ways that you do not comprehend and what you are talking about is hindering the actions of God because something might be or might not be according to human deductions.
Should a Child pay for the decisions of their parents? According to you and Cannon law: YES absolutely. Siempre Pagan Justos por Pecadores
Like I said just bribe the priest and all of that is magically resolved.
 
But that is how REAL LIFE works, in my experience and many others experiences.
 
Who am I to change the Church and it’s ways? I certainly can not change Cannon Law, much less how Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, etc. operate. Things are the way they are, I either accept them or try to live in a fantasy world that does not exist. If it were up to me this would not happen and there would be no excuse for the child to suffer consequences that are not the babies fault but the parents. I would abolish all papal orders of chivalry, there would be no nobles, after all we are all the same, and definitely there would be no corrupt hierchichal beings inside the Church, but everyday I have to wake to reality and see that the wrong people are Bishops, just because they are better suited for political reasons. and of course the Bishops I know would not have 50K watches. But like I said reality is there every single second of every single day. Why fight it? What does the Church teaches us? That the people in power are there because it is the Will of God, so bribes are part of that will as well.
 
“The authority required by the moral order derives from God: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.””

Catechism of the Catholic Church
 
So what you are saying is that until reform comes let all those children go on without Baptism? Which is better to bribe an already corrupt priest, or to let a child be without Baptism? They are already accepting bribes through “donations” why not “donate” so that child gets baptised?
 
santiagoamr said:
“The authority required by the moral order derives from God: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.””

Catechism of the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
You do realize that your quote was referring to secular authority don’t you?
 
santiagoamr said:
So what you are saying is that until reform comes let all those children go on without Baptism? Which is better to bribe an already corrupt priest, or to let a child be without Baptism? They are already accepting bribes through “donations” why not “donate” so that child gets baptised?
Click to expand...
You’re accusing a priest of corruption based on the case as presented? I could be wrong, and the OP can correct me, but it sounds like the priest asked, well within the norm of Canon Law, that the child’s baptism be delayed until the parents have their marriage solemnized by the Church. How is it corruption to follow the law? And how would a corrupt priest justify bribery in any case? The ends don’t justify the means, my friend.

-ACEGC
 
edward_george said:
You’re accusing a priest of corruption based on the case as presented? I could be wrong, and the OP can correct me, but it sounds like the priest asked, well within the norm of Canon Law, that the child’s baptism be delayed until the parents have their marriage solemnized by the Church. How is it corruption to follow the law? And how would a corrupt priest justify bribery in any case? The ends don’t justify the means, my friend.

-ACEGC
Click to expand...
It has always depended on the point of view hasn’t it? At least historically and within the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top