Hypothetical Situation about baptism: What do you think?

[The_Stag]

I teach junior theology in a Catholic high school, and a student from the sophomore theology class asked me a question today as part of a small project. I guess the students had to poll people to see what they thought, and so I was curious what people in the CAF had to say about it. Here is the scenario:

Suppose you are a priest and a married couple asks you to baptize their baby. The mother was baptized Catholic but is not practicing, and the husband is not Catholic and has never been baptized *. It would be fair to say that this child will not be raised in a particularly religious household (though this is still just an assumption). Would you still baptize their child?

My answer was to baptize the child anyway. My reasoning was firstly that it seems strange to withhold the grace of the sacrament from the baby because of the faith disposition of the parents. Now, were I a priest, I would have more qualms giving the other sacraments to someone I did not think was prepared, but I feel like baptism would be a special case. Also, even if the child is not raised in a religious household, he may find out one day that he was baptized, and this might spark an interest in the faith that otherwise would not exist.

What do you think?*

 

[Phemie]

I think I’d follow canon law and unless there is a reasonable chance that the child will be raised Catholic I would refuse.

 

[The_Stag]

Can you point me to the reference in canon law? I don’t know much about canon law so I didn’t know this kind of thing was addressed in there. I’d be interested to show it to the student who asked me.

 

[1ke]

Suppose you are a priest and a married couple asks you to baptize their baby. The mother was baptized Catholic but is not practicing, and the husband is not Catholic and has never been baptized *. It would be fair to say that this child will not be raised in a particularly religious household (though this is still just an assumption). Would you still baptize their child? *

No, baptism in this case should be delayed:

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.
The Stag;6307893:

My answer was to baptize the child anyway. My reasoning was firstly that it seems strange to withhold the grace of the sacrament from the baby because of the faith disposition of the parents. Now, were I a priest, I would have more qualms giving the other sacraments to someone I did not think was prepared, but I feel like baptism would be a special case. Also, even if the child is not raised in a religious household, he may find out one day that he was baptized, and this might spark an interest in the faith that otherwise would not exist.

What do you think?

Baptizing them in the Catholic Church also binds them to Canon Law and all of the responsibilities that go with that, for example the obligation to marry in the Catholic form to marry validlly, etc. The Church does not want to bind someone to the laws of the Church if they will not be raised in the faith.

 

[The_Stag]

Ah, excellent answer. This changes my response now. I will have to find the student tomorrow and change what I said. I never really thought about the concept of baptism binding the person to canon law, etc. Very good.

 

[the_hazel_nut]

Wow, thats the story of my life!!! My mom is a non practicing Catholic and my dad is non-catholic. And I got baptized.

I got 1st communion/reconciliation. My family is non practicing and we never went to mass. So basically we were just nominal Catholics. By the time I was of the age to get confirmation I no longer believed, so I didn’t do it.

Not being raised in the faith properly made it really easy to just stop believing and ‘quit’ and become an atheist. But if I hadn’t been nominally Catholic already, I don’t know if I ever would have become a practicing Catholic.

 

[The_Stag]

Wow, hearing it from someone who’s made the situation not-so-hypothetical puts it in a different light once again. My original thoughts go along with what seems to have happened to you, Hazel Nut, that at least those original experiences led you back to the Church eventually. It seems to me that even if a family is not practicing, their desire for their child to be baptized or receive first communion is at least a tiny wisp of faith still clinging to their hearts, which we can only hope would someday turn to more. But then of course there’s the whole canon law issue. Boy, it must be very difficult to be a priest and to have to deal with all sorts of things like this. As a priest, in a situation like this, I would really try hard to capitalize on that tiny wisp of faith and try to bring the parents back, as it were.

By the way, it looks like you’re new here Hazel Nut. I hope you’re enjoying yourself so far in the forums.

 

[Rachel_1]

Wow, hearing it from someone who’s made the situation not-so-hypothetical puts it in a different light once again.

Make that two… I’m another one
My dad was Catholic (non practicing), my mom non Catholic (I think she tried RCIA or something after I was Baptized.) Even my God-parents weren’t Catholic, so all the way around, according to Canon Law, I shouldn’t have been Baptized. But I was.
Now, spiritually, I think me being Baptized as a baby sealed me, and I am convinced that this started my journey to God this last year.
On the other hand, I think it was wrong for me to be Baptized (although I’m glad I was) because it was either done because someone lied, or because someone didn’t follow/know the law regarding this.
It comes down to obedience to the Church and the laws, they are there for a reason.

 

[Moscati]

Wow, hearing it from someone who’s made the situation not-so-hypothetical puts it in a different light once again. My original thoughts go along with what seems to have happened to you, Hazel Nut, that at least those original experiences led you back to the Church eventually. It seems to me that even if a family is not practicing, their desire for their child to be baptized or receive first communion is at least a tiny wisp of faith still clinging to their hearts, which we can only hope would someday turn to more. But then of course there’s the whole canon law issue. Boy, it must be very difficult to be a priest and to have to deal with all sorts of things like this. As a priest, in a situation like this, I would really try hard to capitalize on that tiny wisp of faith and try to bring the parents back, as it were.

By the way, it looks like you’re new here Hazel Nut. I hope you’re enjoying yourself so far in the forums.

It is definitely a wonderful opportunity to try to bring the parents back to or into the Faith! I think maybe that’s part of the reason for the Canon Law being the way it is. If the priest was to simply baptize the child, no questions asked, he would miss out on that opportunity, and everyone would continue without catechesis or the graces of the Eucharist.

 

[eucharisteo]

All of us, my brothers and I, were baptized Catholic. However, we were not raised Catholic. My mother was anti-Catholic and took at least one of us to be reclaimed by a baptism in a Protestant church. My younger brother, if not me too, was baptized against my mother’s wishes as a Catholic. My father was Catholic but whether he was really practicing or not is unclear. He left to Vietnam when I was 3 and came back when I was 5. Mom never took us to a Catholic Church. I have vivid memories of Protestant churches unless visiting my father’s parents.

My dad did not try to teach us Catholicism that I know of until I was 14 and my older brother 16. My older brother, not having been raised in the faith at all only remembered mom’s Protestant upbringing. They were divorced when I was 5 or 6. My younger brother doesn’t know much about anything and lives rather lost in the world wondering why he so lonely, etc. You have to remember that if you are baptised Catholic you can never marry licitly outside the confines of the Church. I did that and really didn’t get it. It was very difficult for me and now my wife. Her feelings were wounded over it. So the first 17 years of our marriage was not valid according to the Church. It still breaks my heart from time to time because all I ever wanted to do was please God.

Maybe there’s something to this that none of us realize. But then, do the nuns not baptize the children in poor countries?

 

[puzzleannie]

I Suppose you are a priest and a married couple asks you to baptize their baby. The mother was baptized Catholic but is not practicing, and the husband is not Catholic and has never been baptized *. It would be fair to say that this child will not be raised in a particularly religious household (though this is still just an assumption). Would you still baptize their child?

.

What do you think?*
who cares what I think
canon law thinks the baptism of the child must be delayed until the parents can give reasonable assurance the child will be raised Catholic, and it is up to the pastor to exercise his prudent pastoral judgment according to the facts of the case before him, not hypothetical cases.

Maybe there’s something to this that none of us realize. But then, do the nuns not baptize the children in poor countries?

 

[Phemie]

I think that on a practical level it’s not common for priests to delay baptism. I know that 54 babies were baptized in one parish I keep the registers for and more than 85% of them to non-married moms. In many, if not most, cases the grandmothers are the ones who call wanting to have the child baptized. The parents might be in church for Christmas, Easter (maybe) & funerals which is the only time the Church is full. In many cases the grandmothers who so want baptism for their grandchildren haven’t even bothered to teach their own kids their prayers.

Even in my own parish where we had only 11 baptisms, most were to co-habiting parents whom we’ll see at Christmas and Easter and who will show up again when the child is 6 looking for him/her to make her first Communion. And maybe not even then since in the class for First Communion that we’ve got now at least 20% of the kids were registered by their grandparents since parents weren’t in church to know that the classes were starting.