Grandma' baptized the children behind their parents' back, what now?

[CuriousBystandr]

Hi. I was wondering if someone could give me some advice. My brother, a fallen away Catholic got married outside the Church to a woman of no known religion. They had two children a boy and a girl. This was 20 some years ago.

My mother, who is now deceased, was a staunch Catholic. She took it upon herself to Baptize these two children. Her theory was that God, through His Grace in Baptism, would help them find their way to Him before they died.

As far as I know, I’m the only living person that knows they are baptized. This has been bothering me for some time and I was wondering, should I tell their parents, or them this information?

Thanks.

 

[puzzleannie]

the children and parents, if they are minors. absolutely need this information, but I would discuss with your priest how to go about telling them

you don’t say anything about the family relationships to day but this news has the potential to be a bombshell, and cause alot of discord

shows precisely why it is illicit and so wrong to baptize children against the will of the parents.

 

[Crumpy]

I read about an incident, somewhat well-known and notorious, about a Jewish child who was baptized in a secret way, and then kidnapped by a pope to ensure that the boy would be raised in the faith… In fact, the boy grew up to become a priest.

We could trick people, I suppose, by flying in a helicopter over a large football stadium and baptizing everyone there. But, I don’t think things are supposed to work this way.

And, we wouldn’t want people kidnapping OUR children to be raised in satanic worship or to be sacrificed in satanic rituals, for example.

I’m a strong believer in baptism by desire, not talked about much. If people even believe with a desire to be baptized and become a follower of Jesus Christ, then they are effectively baptized. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

I read about an incident, somewhat well-known and notorious, about a Jewish child who was baptized in a secret way, and then kidnapped by a pope to ensure that the boy would be raised in the faith… In fact, the boy grew up to become a priest.

We could trick people, I suppose, by flying in a helicopter over a large football stadium and baptizing everyone there. But, I don’t think things are supposed to work this way.

And, we wouldn’t want people kidnapping OUR children to be raised in satanic worship or to be sacrificed in satanic rituals, for example.

I’m a strong believer in baptism by desire, not talked about much. If people even believe with a desire to be baptized and become a follower of Jesus Christ, then they are effectively baptized. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.

The nurse who baptized the baby had legitimate reason to think that he was going to die soon, she was afraid that he would go to Hell or Limbo. Italian law at the time prevented a Christian from being raised by heathens, it was an unfortunate situation that ultimately worked out in the end.

 

[sherimarie]

I know someone who baptised a person he helped care for who was abandoned by his family and not able to talk at all. I think it’s a shame he won’t be burried in the catholic church. However telling anyone is not possible in this instanst.
I would tell them that your Mom loved them very much and in our religion only baptised persons go to Heaven and she desperatly wanted to meet you there someday. How could anyone be too upset with that?

 

[puzzleannie]

I know someone who baptised a person he helped care for who was abandoned by his family and not able to talk at all. I think it’s a shame he won’t be burried in the catholic church. However telling anyone is not possible in this instanst.
I would tell them that your Mom loved them very much and in our religion only baptised persons go to Heaven and she desperatly wanted to meet you there someday. How could anyone be too upset with that?

this is entirely completely based on wrong information

whoever cared for this person could certainly have arranged a Catholic funeral for him, if they did not it is not the fault of the Church.

our religion does not teach that absolutely only the baptized can enter heaven, but rather that baptism is the ordinary means to access Christ’s salvation and grace.

please go to the CA homepage and research the library and find out the real teaching before giving wrong advice to others.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

The nurse who baptized the baby had legitimate reason to think that he was going to die soon, she was afraid that he would go to Hell or Limbo. Italian law at the time prevented a Christian from being raised by heathens, it was an unfortunate situation that ultimately worked out in the end.

I have seen several people attempt (and I emphasize the word “attempt”) to defend this case. I find that repulsive. Can’t we all just agree that parents (even “heathens”) have a right to raise their own children as they see fit? Can’t we all just agree that kidnapping other people’s children is a sin? Can’t we all just agree that the ends don’t justify the means?

For Pete’s sake, people.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…shows precisely why it is illicit and so wrong to baptize children against the will of the parents.

Is there a CC against it, or some other formal teaching of the Magisterium?

 

[CuriousBystandr]

Ok. Ya’ll went off on a tangent! I get that many of you have strong feeling about the right or wrong aspect. What I was wanting to know was what should I do? I guess the best advice I received was talk to my priest about it and see what he thinks. Yes, I can do that. I just wanted to see what other advice I would get here.

Thanks.

 

[vsedriver]

First: did you witness the baptism or did you get the information through hearsay?

Second: If you didn’t witness the baptism then you can’t say for sure the children were baptized or validly baptized.

Third: of what benefit would it be to this family to know what Grandma said she did? Would it do good or do harm to the family and/or extended family.

Fourth: if the kids ever wanted to join the church they would probably be rebaptized anyways since there is only your word that ‘something’ happened.

my advice would be to keep quiet unless someone asks you about it.

 

[noprem]

Ok. Ya’ll went off on a tangent! …

An old story in our family, which we consider humorous:
My Mother’s mother married a French-Canadian Catholic. (Quite courageous on his part, esp. so long ago.) He was excommunicated and his family thus stopped communicating with him.
After my mother was born an aunt came down from Montreal, virtually kidnapped her in Detroit, took her to the nearest RC Church, had her baptized, brought her back home, and marched back to Montreal, never to be seen again.

Later my parents joined the Episcopal Church, in which I was raised, more or less.Perhaps my Mom is even now with her head in Anglican heaven and her feet in RC Hell. So, to paraphrase the statistician under similar circumstances, ‘on average, she feels fine.’

OR perhaps Yahweh is able to figure it all out and make his own decision without recourse to Rome or Canterbury. He’s a reasonably capable person, you know. (Gen 1:1) Your family members are thus free to think whatever they like. Isa 55:9

 

[sherimarie]

puzzledleini, my friend was not refused a catholic funeral, he’s still alive, he will not have one though because only a few people know he was baptised.
Also, You MUST be baptised in order to enter Heaven, there are extraordinary means of doing that(baptism of desire, baptised in blood etc) but you must be baptised.

 

[ConstantinePX]

My priest gave a sermon on this once. Baptism, as he said, was the only sacrament that ANY person could administer in extreme circumstances and time to have a priest present was not plausible.

It is also the CC’s teaching that Baptism is not Catholic exclusive, and is universal in all Trinitarian Christian communities and communes. A Catholic Baptism is just as good as a Protestant Baptism, so long as it is proclaimed in the Trinity, not in a heretical way, i.e., baptism through Jesus alone, excluding the role of the Father and the Holy spirit in the Baptism.

She did her duty as a Christian. It is our duty and call to save souls. Every Christian is a priest, prophet, and evangelist. To ostracize this woman for doing her Christian duty would be completely against all Christian values, Catholic or not.

 

[ConstantinePX]

I dont care if someone thinks it is ‘wrong’ to go behind their parents back and do it. While I agree they must be HONEST and TELL them what happened, they should not, by any means, apologize for doing the baptism.

"If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”

 

[CuriousBystandr]

First: did you witness the baptism or did you get the information through hearsay?

**No, I did not witness the baptism, but knowing my Mother as I did…she did it.

**Second: If you didn’t witness the baptism then you can’t say for sure the children were baptized or validly baptized.

Again, I know that if she said she baptised these two children, she did. And did it correctly.

Third: of what benefit would it be to this family to know what Grandma said she did? Would it do good or do harm to the family and/or extended family.

Well, my brother the fallen away Catholic, would probably not have a problem with it at all. His wife, on the other hand, would most likley be furious!

Fourth: if the kids ever wanted to join the church they would probably be rebaptized anyways since there is only your word that ‘something’ happened.

my advice would be to keep quiet unless someone asks you about it.

I kind of agree here. My mind is telling me to just let it go. But deep inside something is telling me that if a person is baptised without their knowledge, the should know that. I don’t know why it bothers me so much, it just does.

 

[thomas_jd]

Hi. I was wondering if someone could give me some advice. My brother, a fallen away Catholic got married outside the Church to a woman of no known religion. They had two children a boy and a girl. This was 20 some years ago.

My mother, who is now deceased, was a staunch Catholic. She took it upon herself to Baptize these two children. Her theory was that God, through His Grace in Baptism, would help them find their way to Him before they died.

As far as I know, I’m the only living person that knows they are baptized. This has been bothering me for some time and I was wondering, should I tell their parents, or them this information?

Thanks.

Your mother may have followed the correct form with the proper intent or not. We will never know whether or not the baptism is valid.
I would tell the children what transpired, now if they are of the age of reason or later when they attain the proper age. If they are minors, I would inform my brother.

 

[Love_Divine]

We could trick people, I suppose, by flying in a helicopter over a large football stadium and baptizing everyone there. But, I don’t think things are supposed to work this way.

Been there, done that. When the Jesuit missionaries first came to Canada in the 1600s, they tricked the Huron aboriginals into being baptized through various means.

 

[Irishgal49]

My priest gave a sermon on this once. Baptism, as he said, was the only sacrament that ANY person could administer in extreme circumstances and time to have a priest present was not plausible.

It is also the CC’s teaching that Baptism is not Catholic exclusive, and is universal in all Trinitarian Christian communities and communes. A Catholic Baptism is just as good as a Protestant Baptism, so long as it is proclaimed in the Trinity, not in a heretical way, i.e., baptism through Jesus alone, excluding the role of the Father and the Holy spirit in the Baptism.

She did her duty as a Christian. It is our duty and call to save souls. Every Christian is a priest, prophet, and evangelist. To ostracize this woman for doing her Christian duty would be completely against all Christian values, Catholic or not.

What she did was ilicit and illegal. Without a witness the children will most likely have to have a provisional baptism. I doubt they are actually baptized as this is not considered “dire circumstances” or an emergency that would necessitate baptizing against the parents will: Canon Law is very clear on this:

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.

§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

These children were not in danger of death so…you can’t take it on yourself to be a “priest” and “secretly” baptize children against their parent’s wishes with no way to ensure they will even be brought up in the church.

I don’t think this baptism is valid and without a witness the BEST scenario would be that the children would probably be given a provisional baptism if they sought it out later.

*Can. 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.

§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

§3. If in the cases mentioned in §§1 and 2 the conferral or validity of the baptism remains doubtful, baptism is not to be conferred until after the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptized, if an adult, and the reasons of the doubtful validity of the baptism are explained to the person or, in the case of an infant, to the parents.*

I can’t believe everyone thinks this is OK. I have three granddaughters who are NOT baptized and my son is not Catholic. I continue to gently impress on him the importance of raising children in Church and we are in open dialogue about this. I am concerned of course but I would NEVER do something that he did not consent to. Just Imagine how you would feel if someone took your children and “dedicated” or “initiated” them into a faith you did not agree to? I wish the fallen away father would come back to the Church and his children be raised Catholic but…like it or not, this is ILLEGAL and ILLICIT and she committed a grave error. Baptism is initiation into a community/family/church and not a “secret” fire insurance to be handed out by every Christian. It should be coferred by a priest or designee UNLESS THEY ARE GOING TO DIE…or in danger of death. And then it has to be reported to the priest to be entered into the record books.

Sorry folks, I don’t think is valid at all. I will pray that these children seek out the Church someday and/or for the father’s reconciliation.

 

[salusanimarum17]

Been there, done that. When the Jesuit missionaries first came to Canada in the 1600s, they tricked the Huron aboriginals into being baptized through various means.

Source? Certainly since the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, if not before, it was understood that an adult cannot be validly baptized without having an intention to be baptized.

 

[RyanBlack]

What she did was ilicit and illegal. Without a witness the children will most likely have to have a provisional baptism. I doubt they are actually baptized as this is not considered “dire circumstances” or an emergency that would necessitate baptizing against the parents will: Canon Law is very clear on this:

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.

§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

These children were not in danger of death so…you can’t take it on yourself to be a “priest” and “secretly” baptize children against their parent’s wishes with no way to ensure they will even be brought up in the church.

I don’t think this baptism is valid and without a witness the BEST scenario would be that the children would probably be given a provisional baptism if they sought it out later.

*Can. 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.

§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

§3. If in the cases mentioned in §§1 and 2 the conferral or validity of the baptism remains doubtful, baptism is not to be conferred until after the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptized, if an adult, and the reasons of the doubtful validity of the baptism are explained to the person or, in the case of an infant, to the parents.*

I can’t believe everyone thinks this is OK. I have three granddaughters who are NOT baptized and my son is not Catholic. I continue to gently impress on him the importance of raising children in Church and we are in open dialogue about this. I am concerned of course but I would NEVER do something that he did not consent to. Just Imagine how you would feel if someone took your children and “dedicated” or “initiated” them into a faith you did not agree to? I wish the fallen away father would come back to the Church and his children be raised Catholic but…like it or not, this is ILLEGAL and ILLICIT and she committed a grave error. Baptism is initiation into a community/family/church and not a “secret” fire insurance to be handed out by every Christian. It should be coferred by a priest or designee UNLESS THEY ARE GOING TO DIE…or in danger of death. And then it has to be reported to the priest to be entered into the record books.

Sorry folks, I don’t think is valid at all. I will pray that these children seek out the Church someday and/or for the father’s reconciliation.

It seems that you are conflating licity and validity. From what has been described in this case, it seems clear that the baptisms were not licit. However, if they were done with water, using the Trinitarian formula, and with the intent of actually baptizing, then they are indeed valid, in spite of the fact that they are clearly illicit. The fact that there was no danger of death does not affect the issue of validity, merely that of licity.