In-laws baptized our children without permission

[ahs]

No, please, do not look at it that way. The Church has a reason for her laws, and there is a reason that this was an illicit and disrespectful act that would not have happened if the grandparents were both well-informed and obedient Catholics. Would you be happy if your baptism had been an illicit and disrespectful act that was not backed up by the capacity to provide for the formation that your baptism ought to have guaranteed you? I don’t think so. It is a sad situation, yes, but their disobedience made it worse.

The OP has come to the charitable conclusion that his in-laws did what they did out of a well-meaning but mis-formed conscience. You, however, know better, having read this thread. Re-form your conscience, then, and conform yourself to what the Church tells you: What they did was wrong. It was an offense against the laws of the Church and against the trust of their children, which the justice in the Church’s laws aims to protect. The end, though, valid, was poisoned by the means. It is very possible that these grandparents will not have the opportunity to form these children in the faith, but even if the parents had a total change of heart on account of what the grandparents did, what they did would still be an offense. That is the bigger picture. The birth of Solomon did not make what David did to Uriah the Hittite OK!

The OP and his wife are being very forgiving about this whole thing, which was not only an illicit act against them in the legal sense but a deception perpetrated against them in the interpersonal sense, and by those they should have been able to trust beyond question. It is unfortunate, too, that the grandparents will put their pastor on the spot to record an event when he knows the parents of the children would rather he could pretend it never happened. He has a duty to keep a truthful record of what sacraments were performed in his parish, rightly or wrongly, as long as they were valid. He has the sad knowledge that there were children baptized in his parish whose pastoral care he will be impotent to provide, because unlike his parishioners, he is obedient to the law and respectful of the children’s parents. *That *is the big picture, and it is not a happy one.

Very well stated. The bolded part is heartbreaking in my opinion. I do feel for the grandparents, and I can empathize with their motive (assuming the best of it), but it was wrong.

 

[Kliska]

Interestingly enough I’m sitting here watching an old Mother Angelica live and a grandparent called in and described a very similar situation, and asked what they could do for or to their unbaptized grandchildren, and the answer was to pray for them, and not baptize behind the parents’ backs. The priests in the audience backed that up.

There was talk about a hypothetical immediate danger of death, but normally that is still under the power of the parents if they are there and have a say. It’s not as if the baby suddenly becomes ill and is on the verge of death and the parents aren’t there to ask.

Anywho, I have found this topic incredibly interesting, and I too agree the grandparents overstepped… I’m a Christian, a protestant, and if my parents or anyone else did that to my child without my or my husband’s permission I’d have a total come apart. It is a deep violation of trust. Now, I can sit all day and explain why the grandparents did it, but an explanation isn’t an excuse.

 

[byzancatholic]

I have not posted on this site in many months, but this thread caught my attention.

I was reared until mid-teens in the Roman Church, discovered Eastern Christianity because of a very practical-peaceful-holy Russian Orthodox family. Changed rites at age 25. Was married (crowned) in the Eastern Church at 36 many years after an annullment. Prayer is important to me, as is my relationship with our God. I am disappointed with the Latin rite’s issue on celibacy in the USA and how it oppressed the Eastern rites during the 1920s (Google Fr Alexia Toth for some horror stories).

But Baptism DOES give a person Sanctifying Grace. Why would you want to deny your offspring Sanctifying Grace?

Maybe you and your wife can resume worship in the Eastern Church - it is beautiful and heartfelt. I like Infant Baptism/Chrismation/Communion. My son ALWAYS received Communion with us - we were spiritually nurtured together from Day 1 as Byzantine Catholics and parent/children with the Eucharist.

There are things about the Latin rite Church (in the USA) needing improvement. I almost walked away from Christianity; why? I was physically abused in 1963-1964 by somebody in “Catholic Power” at age 6. I could have judged the Church, itself. I still feel betrayed that it happened to me as an innocent. My mother had her parental radar go off but kept me there. I witnessed a lot of hypocrisy in those early years. But I also had a love for God that was nurtured by my mother and my grandparents.

When I became a parent, I always heeded my parental radar and protected my child first and foremost. There is no excuse for abuse.

One of my two youngsters is romantically involved with a non-baptized person. This grown youngster is bothered that the significant other/betrothed has not belief in God, treating our Creator as Father as a fiction story. I tell my grown youngster that maybe this is an opportunity for evangelism and introducing “God”. I remind my grown youngster that his good conduct, honesty and respect/empathy for fellow man is because I raised him as an Eastern Catholic (not just Baptism/Chrismation/Eucharist and first Confession at age 7-8). My youngsters watched me give $5 in Washington DC on the DC side of the 14th Street bridge to homeless veterans, and other homeless people. And we attended church to pray with our fellow community (somewhat small as Eastern Eparchy churches are) and shared in the Divine supper.

In point, my adult child’s life evolved as it did because of what happened after the sacraments of initiation, and participation in formal worship being a factor in his spiritual growth. And with his older sibling, too.

You know? If you are so disgusted with the Catholic Church…consider the sister Orthodox church? Orthodox are Apostolic Christians. I came very, very, very close to being Chrismated in the Orthodox church about 20 years ago but changed my mind because my youngsters were initiated as Byzantine Catholics and subject to the Eastern Catholic Canon Law. We attended Divine Liturgy at an Orthodox church but did receive communion there.

Baptism means that a person is Christian and part of the Body of Christ. That means Christandom.

As a parent, my youngsters’ perception of Right and Wrong, Good and Evil stemmed from the Ten Commandments. Our Jewish brothers and Christian churches believe in the Ten Commandments. Our Legal system is based on the Ten Commandments. Think about it…

How will you teach your youngsters about the Ten Commandments? In what context? Our social norms are based on it…

There is something cold and sinister about rejecting Baptism (in any church) that caught several posters on this particular thread. Perhaps you were hurt as I was. Perhaps you saw hypocrisy. Human beings are not God. Only God the Father, Jesus His son and the Paraclete Holy Spirit are divine beings…not humans. Baptism removes Original Sin. I will pray for your success as parent, sir.

I believe in Theosis as the heartbeat of salvation of a human being back to his or her Creator.

ByzanCatholic

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Have Mercy on me, a sinner!

Thank you but I’m certainly not looking into making anything more official. My in-laws baptized them, why do I need to ensure that it is recorded? Right now an apology on their part would be their first step, but that doesn’t even begin the process of regaining our trust. We’re not going to have our kids raised Catholic behind our backs.

If my children do decide to become catholic in the future couldn’t they just go through RCIA, if the baptism doesn’t get recorder and it’s as if it never happened?

 

[heidi_storage]

Interestingly enough I’m sitting here watching an old Mother Angelica live and a grandparent called in and described a very similar situation, and asked what they could do for or to their unbaptized grandchildren, and the answer was to pray for them, and not baptize behind the parents’ backs. The priests in the audience backed that up.

There was talk about a hypothetical immediate danger of death, but normally that is still under the power of the parents if they are there and have a say. It’s not as if the baby suddenly becomes ill and is on the verge of death and the parents aren’t there to ask.

Anywho, I have found this topic incredibly interesting, and I too agree the grandparents overstepped… I’m a Christian, a protestant, and if my parents or anyone else did that to my child without my or my husband’s permission I’d have a total come apart. It is a deep violation of trust. Now, I can sit all day and explain why the grandparents did it, but an explanation isn’t an excuse.

Yes, I’d be very angry if my baby’s grandparents baptized her secretively like this, even if they did so in my denomination. (My baby is baptized, by the way, and I think it’s a wonderful blessing.)

 

[severus68]

Yes of course. And yet there seems to be a lot of " Yeah it was not appropriate… but good thing they did because the parents weren’t going to."

OK guys…lets put this to a test. Who here thinks that while the GP’s over stepped their bounds… Who’s happy the children were baptized even if it was illicit and against the parents express wishes? Any takers

I am not and I would think the Church would agree with me.

 

[Mulligan2]

Hi, I didn’t think I’d be posting here again but something came up.

My wife’s parents are very devout Catholics and unfortunately sometimes they just take their faith overboard. My wife and I were raised in the church but for personal reasons we are no longer practicing which also includes not baptizing our children into the faith.

Since my wife began working again her parents offered to look after our three year old daughter and our two month old son during the times we both are at work. Our daughter is a very talkative three year old and once in one of her little rants she told us that “grandma and grandpa washed our hair”. At first I thought maybe they had just given them baths but after prying more information from her we knew they had baptized our kids. Needless to say, they are no longer looking after them and we will begin to strictly limit their visits to only supervised ones.

First of all, is this baptism valid according to the Catholic Church? I thought they needed to be performed by priests (and I’d like to burst their bubble and tell them it’s not). Also, did they do wrong according to the Catholic church? They feel as though they have done nothing wrong and instead they are"helping" get their grand kids to heaven. We had no problem letting them take our daughter to mass every so often but we both feel they haved crossed a line.

I am shocked at the actions and behavior of the grandparents. They have grossly overstepped their authority. You have every right to feel the way you do.

 

[Rau]

But Baptism DOES give a person Sanctifying Grace. Why would you want to deny your offspring Sanctifying Grace?

Well, first of all, you’d need to know whether the OP believes in Sanctifying Grace. All we know is that he does not believe that the Catholic Church represents the “true” faith. I think it is likely that the Eastern churches, being very closely related in matters of faith, would likely be viewed similarly.

At this point, the overwhelming factor in the OP’s mind is the disrespect and breach of trust shown by the GPs.

Any thoughts of evangelisation you may have are set back by the GP’s actions.

 

[Mulligan2]

Circumcision is exactly what I compared this to in my head.

Sorry, but decisions regarding religious upbringing are matters for the parents and for the parents only.

I wholly agree with your second sentence.

However, I don’t agree with the analogy to circumcision. I don’t see any similarity between ‘pouring water on an infant’s head’ to ‘surgically removing a portion of his penis’. To the OP’s situation, I believe he is right to restrict the grandparents to supervised visits only. However, if the grandparents had circumcised their child against their clearly known wishes, I believe that would have been the end of any relationship with them whatsoever.

 

[EasterJoy]

I wholly agree with your second sentence.

However, I don’t agree with the analogy to circumcision. I don’t see any similarity between ‘pouring water on an infant’s head’ to ‘surgically removing a portion of his penis’. To the OP’s situation, I believe he is right to restrict the grandparents to supervised visits only. However, if the grandparents had circumcised their child against their clearly known wishes, I believe that would have been the end of any relationship with them whatsoever.

Baptism is not just “pouring water on an infant’s head”. To baptize is to initiate the child into the Catholic Church, which is to say into the new covenant of Jesus Christ, into his death and resurrection. It does not leave an exterior mark, as circumcision does, but it leaves and indelible mark and creates an everlasting relationship. It gives identity, and identity is more than skin deep.

I think if the grandparents, the OP, and her husband had been Jewish, the situation would be very similar. It wouldn’t primarily be about the medical aspect. It would be about hearing your parents say: “I am a Jew/Catholic, you are a Jew/Catholic, and your child has the right to be a Jew/Catholic. I will not accept that you can decide this for my grandchild, even though you are his parents, and so I am going to take it upon myself to do behind your back what I believe you ought to have had done in the first place.” It would be about the relationship of the parents with the religion that their parents identify with and that they have chosen to neither practice nor hand on to their children.

 

[Mulligan2]

Baptism is not just “pouring water on an infant’s head”.

Perhaps I should have clarified my earlier remarks. I was referring to the actual physical act, not the underlying spiritual act. That’s why the analogy to circumcision was flawed, IMHO.

 

[coptsoldier]

As an eastern catholic, I find this disccusion a little strange primarily:

How can the baptism be valid when it was in violation of canon law, and with the spirit of deciet and abuse?

 

[Rau]

As an eastern catholic, I find this disccusion a little strange primarily:

How can the baptism be valid when it was in violation of canon law, and with the spirit of deciet and abuse?

The idea that it is valid despite being illicit strikes me as odd too. But that is the canon law. Note: Canon Law can change and evolve, though does not seem likely on this point.

 

[coptsoldier]

Canons State that a baptism can only be done against the parents wishes in cases of death. This brings situation into a massive grey area. They need to consult with the priest to even know if it is valid. We as catholics arent protestant, we dont believe that jumping in a pool nessessarily means valid baptism. If the children convert later in life they may be required to undertake a conditional baptism.

Also to those that are celebrating over this. It is not a thing to celebrate. The worst spiritual state someone can be in is ex-catholic. Apostacy is serious, and the grandparents in their lack of understanding the faith have now brought about a dilema. Do the parents of the child now have to raise the child catholic? Good heavens no. Howevee that means the child wont be confirmed, nor communed. That means the child will leave the church. This is so messy.

May the Lord have mercy on those victims of this situation, the children.

 

[Rau]

Canons State that a baptism can only be done against the parents wishes in cases of death. This brings situation into a massive grey area. They need to consult with the priest to even know if it is valid.

The question of validity was addressed and answered earlier in the thread, with the conclusion that the baptism is valid, but the means illicit. Perhaps you should challenge those posts if you think they are in error so the debate is specific.

 

[EasterJoy]

Perhaps I should have clarified my earlier remarks. I was referring to the actual physical act, not the underlying spiritual act. That’s why the analogy to circumcision was flawed, IMHO.

The grandparents had permission to get the children wet. They were not forbidden to speak the name of God around the grandchildren; it was not speaking the words of baptism that violated the parents’ wishes. It is the spiritual event that upset the parents, and that is all.

Canons State that a baptism can only be done against the parents wishes in cases of death. This brings situation into a massive grey area. They need to consult with the priest to even know if it is valid. We as catholics arent protestant, we dont believe that jumping in a pool nessessarily means valid baptism. If the children convert later in life they may be required to undertake a conditional baptism.

Also to those that are celebrating over this. It is not a thing to celebrate. The worst spiritual state someone can be in is ex-catholic. Apostacy is serious, and the grandparents in their lack of understanding the faith have now brought about a dilema. Do the parents of the child now have to raise the child catholic? Good heavens no. Howevee that means the child wont be confirmed, nor communed. That means the child will leave the church. This is so messy.

May the Lord have mercy on those victims of this situation, the children.

1ke is competent to give an answer on this one.

As 1ke noted very early in the thread, if the grandparents used the correct form, the baptism was valid. Those who undergo that ritual truly receive the sacrament, truly receive the indelible mark of baptism, and have all the rights of the baptized. Those riches of baptism cannot be taken away.

Since baptism is necessary for salvation, even non-Catholics may validly confer it (although there are strict boundaries concerning when that is licit for anyone other than an ordinary minister to confer it.)

 

[manualman]

I guess you’ll just have to dismiss my conclusion…I’m ok with your dismissal.

Have a good evening friend.

Sorry Pub, but you’re way off on this one. The significant majority of folks here have expressed sympathy to the OP for the misguided and ignorant act of his inlaws.

Perhaps when you try to paint the majority with the flaws of the minority, you only reveal your own bias?

I’m pretty sure that if I assembled a room full of Quakers I could find some characters too. Just sayin’.

 

[coptsoldier]

I believe in this situation the bishop should be consulted. Serious breeches in canon law, deciet, and going against parents wishes. Until the bishop states for or against, we must be careful.

 

[EasterJoy]

I believe in this situation the bishop should be consulted. Serious breeches in canon law, deciet, and going against parents wishes. Until the bishop states for or against, we must be careful.

1ke is well-versed in canon law, and canon law dictates this particular situation. Trust what she has to say. A bishop may not give anyone permission to either baptize infants over their parents’ wishes or to fail to record a valid baptism that comes to the attention of those with a duty to record it. Their hands are pretty much tied, unless the event was not sufficiently witnessed to satisfy the requirements for recording it.

I wish I could say this situation was unheard of, but it is not. Not a lot of people do it, but a lot of people are tempted to do it. This is because if Catholics who no longer practice the faith were their own separate denomination, they would be the second-largest denomination in the US, second behind only the Roman Catholic Church itself. (The Catholic Church has 78.2 million self-identified members in the US, while Americans who describe themselves as former Catholics is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 million.) Not surprisingly, the vast majority of people who consider themselves former Catholics have Catholic parents, some of whom were taught the conjecture that unbaptized babies go to Limbo instead of Heaven. That is why this is not an unusual situation.

 

[HoneyBea]

I agree my response is very flippant. I guess I didn’t care to get into. Maybe I should have thought of that before I commented in the first place, but having said that I am still glad this baby was baptized : ) I don’t think I ever suggestedd that everything else is of no consequence. I am merely expressing that I am happy this child was baptized even under unfortunate circumstances. Peace out : )

 

[severus68]

I agree my response is very flippant. I guess I didn’t care to get into. Maybe I should have thought of that before I commented in the first place, but having said that I am still glad this baby was baptized : ) I don’t think I ever suggestedd that everything else is of no consequence. I am merely expressing that I am happy this child was baptized even under unfortunate circumstances. Peace out : )

Why would you be happy when the Church would not?