In-laws baptized our children without permission

[EasterJoy]

So a seven year old can be baptized behind the parents backs?

Hmmm…I have never had anyone ask this. I know that a parent cannot force a child to be baptized after the child has reached the age of reason, which is around seven (depending on the person). At that point, the child must ask for baptism; the parents may not decide in favor of baptism for the child. No one can. A person that old has to decide, unless they are both in danger of death and too incapacitated to ask.

The thing is, after the age of reason, a person must usually go through the catechumenate and receive instruction, in order that they may be properly disposed to receive the sacrament. This is not a short period of preparation. I cannot imagine that a child that young would be accepted as a catechumen if their parents were opposed to the child’s conversion, because unless she were emancipated a minor would be too young to meet her religious obligations without her parents’ cooperation.

Suffice to say that Grandma absolutely could not jump in and perform the baptism behind the backs of the parents and her pastor. Once someone has reached the age of reason, they must convince the pastor of their parish that they are properly disposed to receive the sacrament, just as their parents would have had to show they were properly disposed to pass on the faith, if the request were for an infant.

So no, this would not be “OK” because your eight-year-old got on a lark and wanted to be baptized. Once you’ve reached the age of reason, it is much more complicated than that.

 

[ringil]

How would posters respond if the Grandparents did some kind of pagan Earth-mother-tree thing with the kid (I don’t know what pagans do.)

Or what if they did a Hindu thing? Or brought the kid to a voodoo ceremony.

For the OP it is the same thing.

I don’t think I’d be reading the same responses here.

 

[josh987654321]

How would posters respond if the Grandparents did some kind of pagan Earth-mother-tree thing with the kid (I don’t know what pagans do.)

Or what if they did a Hindu thing? Or brought the kid to a voodoo ceremony.

For the OP it is the same thing.

I don’t think I’d be reading the same responses here.

Well, If I were the grandparents, I would have done the same thing, although I would have done what other posters had mentioned and done it in secret while the kids were still being bottle fed.

Now, if it were some ‘satanist’ or ‘pagan’ or ‘voodoo’ ritual performed on my child, I would be furious. Secular society would pobably see this as a ‘double standard’ but that is only because they are ignorant when it comes to the spiritual, tolerant in principal because they do not believe.

“The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love.” -Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P

I mean, yea I see where the OP is coming from, how dare they claim his child for the light, for the good. How dare they! I have never heard of anyone so selfish and inconsiderate! lol

If I were the OP I wouldn’t be making a mountain out of a molehill over this as it appears he is doing, if it isn’t true, than who cares? If it is true than his grandparents have given his child one of the greatest gifts. So if you stick with the philosophy “better safe than sorry” his grandparents did him a favour.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[AnnArbor]

Well, If I were the grandparents, I would have done the same thing, although I would have done what other posters had mentioned and done it in secret while the kids were still being bottle fed.

Now, if it were some ‘satanist’ or ‘pagan’ or ‘voodoo’ ritual performed on my child, I would be furious. Secular society would pobably see this as a ‘double standard’ but that is only because they are ignorant when it comes to the spiritual, tolerant in principal because they do not believe.

“The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe; they are intolerant in practice because they do not love.” -Rev. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange O.P

I mean, yea I see where the OP is coming from, how dare they claim his child for the light, for the good. How dare they! I have never heard of anyone so selfish and inconsiderate! lol

If I were the OP I wouldn’t be making a mountain out of a molehill over this as it appears he is doing, if it isn’t true, than who cares? If it is true than his grandparents have given his child one of the greatest gifts. So if you stick with the philosophy “better safe than sorry” his grandparents did him a favour.

Thank you for reading
Josh

But in this case, the Church disagrees with you. Baptism is not a “molehill,” something the OP seems to understand better than the Catholic grandparents.

Forgetting your example of secularist or pagan rituals, how about my situation? My very Christian, very devout, very Protestant in-laws consistently explained to my children how wrong Catholicism was. They honestly believed that Catholicism was un-
Christian. Should I have “not made a mountain out of a molehill” and let them continue to teach my children these things?

 

[josh987654321]

But in this case, the Church disagrees with you. Baptism is not a “molehill,” something the OP seems to understand better than the Catholic grandparents.

It is a molehill if he doesn’t believe in it in the first place. Like I said, if he follows the philosophy “better safe than sorry” than his GP’s did him a favour.

Forgetting your example of secularist or pagan rituals, how about my situation? My very Christian, very devout, very Protestant in-laws consistently explained to my children how wrong Catholicism was. They honestly believed that Catholicism was un-Christian. Should I have “not made a mountain out of a molehill” and let them continue to teach my children these things?

I wouldn’t call that “making a mountain out of a molehill” though.

 

[josh987654321]

Its so strange that in generations past, the thought of anyone not being baptized, would have been viewed as odd and with a great deal of disbelief.
Now days…its a real possibility that the differences between religions; once thought to be a problem; will be replaced by the differences between those who believe…and those who don’t. Certain laws are already beginning to reflect this. How long will America continue to hold onto the “In God we trust” slogan? How long before it will be challenged and replaced with something that doesn’t offend the non believers?
Strange times indeed!

So can the decline in Baptism be measured against the problems of the world? I believe they can. A lot of troubled youth out there. Dr Phil seems to have an intervention every other day.

Past generations suffered from the likes of Smallpox, Polio, Measles, Mumps and Whooping Cough until a vaccine was proclaimed to the people. As a result…most of these diseases have almost disappeared. But guess what? Now people are beginning to think that these diseases weren’t as bad or are gone completely. We no longer need the vaccination and through our arrogance, many parents are refusing to have their children vaccinated. The result has been that some of these diseases are on the increase.

For some reason now, Satan just doesn’t exist anymore. Why the need for God? The Baptism vaccination seems no longer necessary. I must be watching the wrong news!

:clapping: brilliant analogy.

 

[ringil]

It is a molehill if he doesn’t believe in it in the first place. Like I said, if he follows the philosophy “better safe than sorry” than his GP’s did him a favour…

The Church does not teach “better safe than sorry”.

That is your cognitive invention and is, in practicality against Church teaching.

Why aren’t you getting that??

 

[AnnArbor]

I wouldn’t call that “making a mountain out of a molehill” though.

What is the difference? Devout grandparents in both cases. Thinking they are doing what is best for their grandchildren’s spiritual welfare. Both defying the legitimate parental authority of their grandchildren’s own parents.

The only difference seems to be that in one case we agree with the grandparents’ motivations and the other, we do not.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

If you would violate your own church’s laws just to insert yourself into my patenting, don’t ever ask me to show respect for your faith.

To ask an unbeliever to show reverence where you yourself refuse to do so is pure hypocrisy, and it certainly won’t do anything to convert your family.

 

[AnnArbor]

If you would violate your own church’s laws just to insert yourself into my patenting, don’t ever ask me to show respect for your faith.

To ask an unbeliever to show reverence where you yourself refuse to do so is pure hypocrisy, and it certainly won’t do anything to convert your family.

This.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, If I were the grandparents, I would have done the same thing,

And you posted this here because …

 

[David011]

If you would violate your own church’s laws just to insert yourself into my patenting, don’t ever ask me to show respect for your faith.

To ask an unbeliever to show reverence where you yourself refuse to do so is pure hypocrisy, and it certainly won’t do anything to convert your family.

Not to mention said people, are usually the first ones to play the ‘religious freedom’ card.

 

[EasterJoy]

…I mean, yea I see where the OP is coming from, how dare they claim his child for the light, for the good. How dare they! I have never heard of anyone so selfish and inconsiderate! lol…

You talk of baptism as if it were a vaccine. The baptized are given abundant graces, but duties and obligations, too. The person who is baptized does not just get a passport, but is given entry into a single life, a life that an infant baptized in secret is denied from the beginning. This is why the Church does not go around baptizing persons who have no way to join in that life, no way to appreciate or come to appreciate the happy obligations of baptism, who have no real hope of receiving pastoral care.

IOW, the grandparents are not being inconsiderate of the child or her parents on purpose, but they are being thoughtless in fact. That is why the Church’s way is appropriate and the way of the disobedient is not. This is not some civil authority telling the grandparents not to do this, after all! This is the Church herself, the guardian and font of the sacraments! Why that doesn’t mean more to people than it seems to is beyond me.

 

[Kliska]

If you would violate your own church’s laws just to insert yourself into my patenting, don’t ever ask me to show respect for your faith.

Yeah… from the outside of the RCC, for practicing Catholics to basically be saying that you should break the Churches rule and law here kinda boggles my mind. In short, I was always taught you cannot do evil even if you think the net benefit is goodness. You don’t do wrong to try to do right, it will backfire every time.

 

[alexandratm]

Yeah… from the outside of the RCC, for practicing Catholics to basically be saying that you should break the Churches rule and law here kinda boggles my mind. In short, I was always taught you cannot do evil even if you think the net benefit is goodness. You don’t do wrong to try to do right, it will backfire every time.

Yes, this. We were just taught this in RCIA. I am baffled by the amount of posters trying to justify the grandparents’ actions.

 

[Rau]

I am baffled by the amount of posters trying to justify the grandparents’ actions.

There have been very few actually, and perhaps 5x that many pointing out the error.

A secretive childhood baptism, absent a Catholic upbringing, does not benefit the child. To believe it does (which is the only explanation for the GPs act) suggests a warped understanding of the justice that will be shown on the Last Day.

 

[HandyAndy]

If Baptism really has no bearing on the child, if the parents of said child had no intention of any form of religious education…why would the church be concerned about Baptizing a child, whose life was in jeopardy? There would be many children born into many different cultures who would have died, having not been Baptized or even known of such a practice. So why put an exception to the law?
As we all know…death can call at anytime! If knowing the child were to die in a car accident on the way home…would that then constitute a life in jeopardy? And if we can never be sure of the hour…what then of one’s responsibility?

My next thought would be that matters pertaining to the Gospels are infallible, however matters of law instituted by man can well be fallible. Cannon law…as I understand has been determined by the learned and could be/has been, subject to change in need. Perhaps someone familiar with the process, could expand a little more on matters pertaining to the instituting of such laws?

The above paragraphs are thoughts only and not meant as statements. Feel free to expand on these if you so wish. I would be interested in YOUR thoughts.

My further thought would be that I can understand the KNOWN betrayal of the OP, however I would ask that the grand parents be judged on their intent. If it was done out of malice to your stand against religion…they are wrong in what they have done. If they have acted out of love for your children and their grand children then you have a degree of ownership in the betrayal. You had the responsibility…knowing the grand parents feelings on this matter…to work with them on your feelings and theirs with mutual respect, for the sake of the children. You have all placed your children in the middle of something not of their making. I’m sorry for the position you now find yourself in…but either way you will have to put your own spin on the situation in order to make it right. That decision WILL be yours. You can drive this out of the ditch if you so choose…or you can wait for someone else to do so…who may never arrive. The beauty of all this is you get to be the hero, and Lord knows there are so few of these in the world today.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by josh987654321
Well, If I were the grandparents, I would have done the same thing,

Not to rush you; but while you’re considering how to answer that, you might think about the first word of the forum title: “Catholic Answers Forum”. The Catholic Church isn’t some Fundamentalist sect that goes after other people’s children and baptizes them without the parents’ consent.

 

[josh987654321]

And you posted this here because …

Because I knew it would push all your buttons Peter J lol, jk.

But seriously, yea I undersatand what you are all saying and you make legitimate points. I am still contemplating hence why I had not posted yet.

 

[josh987654321]

The Church does not teach “better safe than sorry”.

That is your cognitive invention and is, in practicality against Church teaching.

Why aren’t you getting that??

I get it.

The philosophy “better safe than sorry” is for the OP.