In-laws baptized our children without permission

[1ke]

This baptism should not be considered valid.

Valid form and matter= valid baptism.

The guidelines for laity baptising are very strict, and even more strict for again the parents wishes. These guidelines were not met.

Which is a fuction of licety only, not validity.

Either the children shouldnt be recognised, or should and the grandparents excommunicated

Don’t be silly.

Your religion lists you as in communion with Rome. Therefore, you must accept the Church’s teaching on this matter-- which is that such a baptism is a valid baptism.

 

[EasterJoy]

This baptism should not be considered valid. The guidelines for laity baptising are very strict, and even more strict for again the parents wishes. These guidelines were not met. Either the children shouldnt be recognised, or should and the grandparents excommunicated

As 1ke pointed out, the putative baptisms weren’t licit, but if the OP guessed correctly about what the grandparents did, the conditions for validity were probably met. I think it most likely that the OP is right, but I suppose it is possible that they “played” at baptism in order to make the children desire to have it, because they knew they could not licitly baptize the children themselves. (I know grandparents in that position, who teach their grandchildren about the faith and would love to just secretly baptize them, but who know that they may not do so.) If they showed the child how a baptism is done, but did not intend to confer baptism, then it was not a valid baptism. It is not possible to baptize unintentionally.

As for excommunication, people are not excommunicated unless they willfully choose to do something that they know is gravely contrary to Church teaching, and will not do what is deemed necessary to express repentance for the wrong they have done. Unless the grandparents know they have done something that removes them from a state of grace and refuse to seek absolution, they would be able to receive the sacraments.

You raise a question, though: Under what circumstances is it a grave sin to baptize illicitly, if any? I would think a priest would better understand the gravity of dispensing the sacraments illicitly than a typical layperson. Still, I am only guessing about how it works for this particular case.

Speaking of, are these baptisms putative, or have the grandparents actually confessed to secretly baptizing the children? If they won’t say, it might be necessary to enlist the help of their pastor to find out one way or the other. Information pried from a 3-year-old probably is not sufficient to know for sure. If they have not done it yet, perhaps their pastor would clearly explain the law of the Church concerning their situation, in order to convince them to stick to licit evangelization methods.

 

[coptsoldier]

I accept any teaching which had been dogmatically defined. I reject liberal interpretation of the canons.

As I said, the canons specifically forbid baptism against the parents wishes except in grave circumstances.

 

[SerraSemper]

This baptism should not be considered valid. The guidelines for laity baptising are very strict, and even more strict for again the parents wishes. These guidelines were not met. Either the children shouldnt be recognised, or should and the grandparents excommunicated

That is not your call to make. Only the Church can make a determination on validity. If the grandparents baptized with water and the Trinitarian formula, then it is a valid baptism. In Eastern Catholic Churches, most baptisms (chrismations) are done by the priest, because all the sacraments of initiation are given together. Hence a layperson can’t validly do a chrismation (but can do a valid baptism). The grandparents did an illicit action, which means that objectively speaking, what they did was wrong, in baptizing their grandkids in a non-emergency situation. It was sinful to do what they did, but we don’t know if such a sin was imputable for them because they might not have been aware that this was sinful and chose to do it anyway. Excommunication is a very serious penalty and only given in specific circumstances. This is not one of those situations.

 

[SerraSemper]

I accept any teaching which had been dogmatically defined. I reject liberal interpretation of the canons.

As I said, the canons specifically forbid baptism against the parents wishes except in grave circumstances.

The canons also specify when an action is invalidating. Do you know the difference between invalid and illicit? Such a baptism is not invalid it is illicit.

 

[coptsoldier]

After consideration of what has been said in this post It can be claimed that the baptism was valid, although illicit. However, directly disobeying the Synod and proclamations of the Vatican puts one in a state of Mortal Sin, and by default the parents are barred from communion. if they refuse to repent, this could lead to excommunication (although as you said I doubt it will because the west has become soft)

 

[SerraSemper]

After consideration of what has been said in this post It can be claimed that the baptism was valid, although illicit. However, directly disobeying the Synod and proclamations of the Vatican puts one in a state of Mortal Sin, and by default the parents are barred from communion. if they refuse to repent, this could lead to excommunication (although as you said I doubt it will because the west has become soft)

You have no right to impute sin where none may exist. It IS a sinful offense but we are not permitted to judge outside of the confessional whether a given individual HAS formally sinned or only materially sinned. Your judgements on excommunication are uncalled for. You are certainly free to return to public confession as in the good old days when things weren’t so “soft” and all of that, but until you do, leave us in peace.

 

[David011]

Thank you very much to those who responded! If it helps clarify anything, my in laws have always been upset that we are no longer practicing so it has been a long struggle (to put it lightly) to put up with their meddling. It pretty much started when we refused to name our children after saints when we were expecting our daughter. Then when they found out the babies weren’t going to be baptized, they had a fit. So we knew something more was going on when our toddler told us about her day.

We confronted them and they did admit to it but felt no remorse whatsoever. They felt they overstepped no boundary and said they would go back and do it again. They claim to feel “calmer” now that they are at least baptized.

What bothers isn’t the fact that they were baptized, but rather that it was done behind our backs when they so clearly know that WE are the parents and WE will raise our kids as we see fit. Regarding the documentation of this so called baptism, I really do not know what they are planning on doing because we are currently awaiting an apology before we discuss anything.

 

[David011]

You and your wife may want to make it very clear to Grandma and Grandpa that if they ever take the children to Mass again, they absolutely do not have permission to give the children the Holy Eucharist!

Feel assured that this will not be happening anytime soon, if ever.

 

[coptsoldier]

David I will advise you to contact your local parish priest to let them know.

 

[David011]

Try and take it with love. They were doing what they thought was a loving thing and it shouldn’t become a reason to harm the children and it would harm them to keep them away from their grandparents.

Unless your children’s grandparents are actually abusing them then your child have a right to know them and be a part of their lives. You can clearly state boundaries for instruction but you really can’t expect them to show any kind of disdain for their religion because you do.

I have no idea why you and your wife have rejected the faith, but it shouldn’t be a choice you make for your children. They have a right to religion, period. Your problems with our Church are your problems. Don’t make them your children’s problems.

Try and accept the fact that they Baptized your children because they feel something about the Sacraments that you don’t and it was a gift whether or not you believe that. They love your children and your children love them. That is worth preserving no matter what you think about religion.

Glenda

I can most certainly set whatever boundary I desire, they are my children and they are just the grandparents. Anything that has to be done behind the parent’s back is something they should not be doing.

And you are perfectly right. It is certainly not our choice to make and neither is it the grandparents. If my kids decide to become Catholic then wonderful! If not, then great! This choice apparently was already made by the people who decided to baptize them.

Their grandparents will certainly be a part of their life. For now, and until they apologize for going behind our backs, be it for love or anything else, they will only be allowed supervised visits. Nothing upsets a parent more than having set boundaries and rules being treated as if they are nothing.

 

[coptsoldier]

Be at peace also knowing david that what happened was against the teachings of the catholic church

 

[David011]

Be at peace also knowing david that what happened was against the teachings of the catholic church

Yes, thank you! I’m glad that this was wrong so at least they can no longer try to justify it and I’ll have proof to prove them wrong. Thank you for you response!

 

[Viki63]

David,
I hope you will forgive me for speaking my mind, but I feel my experience may be of interest.
I didn’t baptize my oldest son, because I belonged to a denominational church at that time, and they believed in dedication only. So he was dedicated to the Lord, which only meant that his parents promised to raise him in the (Christian) church.

Fast forward 37 years – I returned to the Catholic church, and it has become the foundation of my life. All my other children have been baptized, and I feel ( and am told) that it gives them graces that they might not otherwise receive.
My oldest son, however, doesn’t have any religion of any kind that I’m aware of. It’s one of the great sorrows of my life that I never had him baptized, because I think that would help draw him closer to God.

You are no longer practicing Catholics for personal reasons, which sounds like you don’t believe what the church teaches. That may change someday. But the chance to teach your children about the faith while they are young will not come again.
I hope you will reconsider your position, and forgive the grandparents for overstepping your boundaries. What they did was surely wrong, but you can see they did it out of love.

 

[manualman]

I disagree with your assessment of the grandparents. There is nothing superstitious about the very serious imperative to baptize infants. I am not saying what they did was right, but it is far from supersitious.

We are clearly instructed to baptize infants in danger of death even without parental consent-- if baptism did not matter, why would the Church give us such instruction? Nothing superstitious there.

If you boil the definition of the word “superstition” down to its essentials, you are left with “attempts to manipulate the supernatural via performance of merely external physical actions.”

Infant baptism is only allowed when there is a well founded reason to believe the child will be raised in the faith because the Graces of baptism are NOT mere magical transformations caused by the incantations of the words and the pouring of water, but a gift from God in response to the faith of the parents and godparents that desire the baptism for the baby. Baptising a child that will clearly have no exposure to or training in the faith suggests that the grandparents have placed excessive faith in the external performance of the Sacrament and insufficient comprehension of the way the Grace of the Sacrament actually functions.

I stand by my assertion that while this act may have technically been a valid baptism, the grandparents committed the sin of superstition by trying to use the baptism rite to coerce God and the parents into conforming to the grandparents’ will. That IS superstition, almost by definition. Their actions suggest that they see baptism as little more than a Christian magic spell.

 

[1ke]

If you boil the definition of the word “superstition” down to its essentials, you are left with “attempts to manipulate the supernatural via performance of merely external physical actions.”

Infant baptism is only allowed when there is a well founded reason to believe the child will be raised in the faith because the Graces of baptism are NOT mere magical transformations caused by the incantations of the words and the pouring of water, but a gift from God in response to the faith of the parents and godparents that desire the baptism for the baby. Baptising a child that will clearly have no exposure to or training in the faith suggests that the grandparents have placed excessive faith in the external performance of the Sacrament and insufficient comprehension of the way the Grace of the Sacrament actually functions.

I stand by my assertion that while this act may have technically been a valid baptism, the grandparents committed the sin of superstition by trying to use the baptism rite to coerce God and the parents into conforming to the grandparents’ will. That IS superstition, almost by definition. Their actions suggest that they see baptism as little more than a Christian magic spell.

If a child in danger of death is baptized against parental wishes and then recovers, the child also has little hope of being brought up in the faith, yet we are instructed to baptize EVEN against parental wishes. The child is no less baptized. So, there must be something to it other than “superstition” and “externals”.

It is not superstition at all.

And I don’t think you can accurately say what the grandparents were thinking, let alone assign a sin to them. That actually is judgment in the biblical sense of the word-- something we are to refrain from. At most, we can say they they committed a gravely wrong act, one that needs to be discussed with their pastor.

 

[manualman]

True I’m not there and shouldn’t judge the actual case. Touche.

But I stand by my general assertion. That’s precisely the reason that the church requires there to be a well founded hope that the child will be raised in the faith. Otherwise it would be a charity to secretly baptize practically every kid we came across. Heck, every PERSON we came across!

 

[Brendan]

What bothers isn’t the fact that they were baptized, but rather that it was done behind our backs when they so clearly know that WE are the parents and WE will raise our kids as we see fit. Regarding the documentation of this so called baptism, I really do not know what they are planning on doing because we are currently awaiting an apology before we discuss anything.

I would place a call to their pastor. He would most likely be the correct resource to explain to them that what they did was disobedient to the teachings that they profess to hold.

 

[on_the_hill]

I disagree with your assessment of the grandparents. There is nothing superstitious about the very serious imperative to baptize infants. I am not saying what they did was right, but it is far from supersitious.

I agree.

This same issue came up in my family (coincidentally, it was the subject of my first post on CAF). My wife and I suspected that my MIL would surreptitiously baptize our niece (her granddaughter) because the girl’s mother (my wife’s sister) rejected the Church, became an atheist and then converted to Judaism. Her husband is Jewish.

Sure enough, my wife mentioned it to her mom, and her mom gave her a smirk, a wink, and a nod. In other words, my MIL **did **secretly baptize the baby. The girl’s parents have never found out.

I’m sure that my MIL never reported the secret baptism to a priest. She is a very conservative Catholic with pre-Vatican II leanings—but only so far as she agrees with it.

Hey, that leads to a question: Is it a sin if I never tell my sister-and-brother-in-law that my MIL secretly baptized their daughter?

 

[on_the_hill]

Otherwise it would be a charity to secretly baptize practically every kid we came across. Heck, every PERSON we came across!

Let’s leave that to the Mormons.