In-laws baptized our children without permission

[EasterJoy]

One cannot be saved without baptism. Yes it’s possible that we can’t limit God to the sacraments, but this idea that baptism of desire is the case of everyone not baptized will be saved through baptism of desire is an abuse of the term. The grandparents likely grew up prior to Vatican II when there was a strong emphasis that the grace received through baptism would lead the person to the Catholic faith later in life (Which does happen, btw). This is a conflict which still exists today if you talk to priests from traditional orders such as the FSSP.

On a side note, while I don’t agree with what the grandparents did, I have to say the parents ought to be ashamed of themselves for being so petty. As Catholics, it is your grave responsibility to raise your children in the Catholic faith, including having them baptized within the first few weeks of their birth. They neglected their duties towards their children, and the grandparents, concerned about the salvation of their grandchildren, took matters into their own hands. The parents have nobody to blame but themselves.

The issue is that the Church has never definitively made a statement on what happens to unbaptized babies (that is, persons who were never baptized and never reached the age of reason for the purposes of being capable of serious sin). The Church has had opinions, including the conjecture that included Limbo (which is neither Hell nor the Beatific Vision), but these are not binding and have never been taught as binding. They are “best guesses.”

This is the most recent Vatican statement:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

The problem, of course, is that baptism implies visible incorporation into the Body of Christ. Church law specifically cautions against the baptism of infants who do not have any reasonable hope of that incorporation, even if the consent of the infant’s parents can be obtained:

*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 child should not have been baptized until there was consent both for the baptism and the formation and incorporation into the Church that it implies. Salvation is not obtained by jumping through hoops, but by incorporating the graces that the sacraments bring.

It is not for us to try to shame the parents, because assigning shame requires assigning culpability, and assigning culpability is above our pay grade. They ought to be encouraged to return to the Church, which we can see as the objectively right course, including raising their children in the faith. How can you get a starving man to eat by shaming him? It is not reasonable for them to expect them to have a fear for their children’s souls that they do not have for their own souls, and by fear I mean a thirst for the grace that only comes from the life of the Church. We would not tell them to depend on their own baptism alone to save them, so of course we would not suggest they have a similar hope for their children.

The grandparents ought to have evangelized their children to return their entire family to the life and grace of the Church of their own accord. This desperate back-door attempt to save the grandchildren was not helpful towards that end. It is understandable, but it is easy to see why the Church forbids this option.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

Gosh! I am very surprised at the responses to the OP.

The Grandparents are believers. You are not.
The Grandparents believe your children need to be cleansed of the consequences of Original Sin. If the children die without that happening, the Grandparents believe the children will suffer some very negative consequences. To a believer this is not about things being easier later on if the children want to join a church. This is not mere paperwork. To the Grandparents, as believers, it is about life and death. Literally.

Out of love they baptised the children in what sounds like a small, surreptitious, private act.
They did this because they believe in the good of baptism. The children don’t even know what happened, they do not understand either the Grandparent’s beliefs or anything about what to be baptised means to any church or organisation.

The parents do not believe. The fact that their children are baptised should have NO importance to them at all, since the act is meaningless to them. They were not asked to participate, nor required to believe. They are not being asked to reaffirm the Catholic Church’s teaching on baptism, or to bring their children up as anything, much less Catholic.

Now the parents are furious and intend to jeopardise the relationship between the children and the Grandparents. This will have far reaching consequences on the well being of the children, and the family in general. Lack of connection and respect to others especially to those of older generations is a major problem in today’s society for both the young and the old. The children are being denied the love and warmth and wisdom of their Grandparents because of petulant anger on the parents part.

The near severing of relations between the children and the Grandparents will also deprive the Grandparents a natural and healthy connection to family. This can only serve to strain relations between the daughter (the mother) and her parents, and may reverberate to other siblings and family members.

The righteous indignation of the parents is causing a lot of hurt, pain and anger over what was only a loving act. The parent’s beliefs or non beliefs where not compromised either to themselves, nor to the children. As far as they are concerned, they only got their hair washed. No harm of any sort was perpetrated to anyone, except the parent’s egos. The children will grow up wondering what is wrong with Grandma and Grandpa. And it will foster a disrespect for the elderly.

The Grandparents are not telling anyone how to raise their kids. (Although when the going gets tough those estranged parents might do well to ask advice from the Grandparents who have done it all before…). They are not insisting the kids grow up in the Church. They sprinkled a little water on the heads of the very much loved children because they thought the children would benefit.

In my humble opinion, the Grandparents acted out of a deep abiding love for their Grandchildren. And I think the family should be grateful to have such loving people in their midst. Even if the execution was a bit unconventional.

I would say, talk to the Grandparents, express disappointment at the fact they did something they knew the parents would not approve of. But also express that it was done in love and concern. Tell them don’t do anything like that again, and let it go. Just let it go.

When you are their age you will realise that you made mistakes too without meaning to. You will not be a perfect parent, nor a perfect Grandparent.

FORGIVE THEM. Just like the many, many times they forgave you in growing up. They love you and they love your children. Be thankful for that as there are millions of other families out there that would kill to have such a loving family. I know whereof I speak.

You have all the time in the world to indoctrinate your children anyway you want. Having Grandparents that are faithful will not harm them. Creating tension, or separating them from their Grandparents will harm them.

Go get that Doctorate knowing that your children are in the best of all possible circumstances. Do a good job learning so you can cure others (restoring your patient’s families as you restored your own) instead of ruining your life and the relationship you have with your children because of the hassle and uncertainty of paid child care. This decision to estrange your family affects more people than you imagine.

Give your children the gift of their Grandparents. Give the Grandparents the gift of forgiveness, and understanding. Give yourself the gift of experienced, loving and free child care.

 

[His_helpmeet]

Gosh! I am very surprised at the responses to the OP.

The Grandparents are believers. You are not.
The Grandparents believe your children need to be cleansed of the consequences of Original Sin. If the children die without that happening, the Grandparents believe the children will suffer some very negative consequences. To a believer this is not about things being easier later on if the children want to join a church. This is not mere paperwork. To the Grandparents, as believers, it is about life and death. Literally.

Out of love they baptised the children in what sounds like a small, surreptitious, private act.
They did this because they believe in the good of baptism. The children don’t even know what happened, they do not understand either the Grandparent’s beliefs or anything about what to be baptised means to any church or organisation.

The parents do not believe. The fact that their children are baptised should have NO importance to them at all, since the act is meaningless to them. They were not asked to participate, nor required to believe. They are not being asked to reaffirm the Catholic Church’s teaching on baptism, or to bring their children up as anything, much less Catholic.

Now the parents are furious and intend to jeopardise the relationship between the children and the Grandparents. This will have far reaching consequences on the well being of the children, and the family in general. Lack of connection and respect to others especially to those of older generations is a major problem in today’s society for both the young and the old. The children are being denied the love and warmth and wisdom of their Grandparents because of petulant anger on the parents part.

The near severing of relations between the children and the Grandparents will also deprive the Grandparents a natural and healthy connection to family. This can only serve to strain relations between the daughter (the mother) and her parents, and may reverberate to other siblings and family members.

The righteous indignation of the parents is causing a lot of hurt, pain and anger over what was only a loving act. The parent’s beliefs or non beliefs where not compromised either to themselves, nor to the children. As far as they are concerned, they only got their hair washed. No harm of any sort was perpetrated to anyone, except the parent’s egos. The children will grow up wondering what is wrong with Grandma and Grandpa. And it will foster a disrespect for the elderly.

The Grandparents are not telling anyone how to raise their kids. (Although when the going gets tough those estranged parents might do well to ask advice from the Grandparents who have done it all before…). They are not insisting the kids grow up in the Church. They sprinkled a little water on the heads of the very much loved children because they thought the children would benefit.

In my humble opinion, the Grandparents acted out of a deep abiding love for their Grandchildren. And I think the family should be grateful to have such loving people in their midst. Even if the execution was a bit unconventional.

I would say, talk to the Grandparents, express disappointment at the fact they did something they knew the parents would not approve of. But also express that it was done in love and concern. Tell them don’t do anything like that again, and let it go. Just let it go.

When you are their age you will realise that you made mistakes too without meaning to. You will not be a perfect parent, nor a perfect Grandparent.

FORGIVE THEM. Just like the many, many times they forgave you in growing up. They love you and they love your children. Be thankful for that as there are millions of other families out there that would kill to have such a loving family. I know whereof I speak.

You have all the time in the world to indoctrinate your children anyway you want. Having Grandparents that are faithful will not harm them. Creating tension, or separating them from their Grandparents will harm them.

Go get that Doctorate knowing that your children are in the best of all possible circumstances. Do a good job learning so you can cure others instead of ruining your life and the relationship you have with your children because of the hassle and uncertainty of paid child care. This decision to estrange your family affects more people than you imagine.

Give your children the gift of their Grandparents. Give the Grandparents the gift of forgiveness, and understanding. Give yourself the gift of experienced, loving and free child care.

I do not see that the issue here is that the children were baptized. The issue, to me, is primarily that the GPs did it WITHOUT CONSENT. ANYONE who tries to do something to my child secretly or without consent does not get to be around my child - whether that is baptizing my child surreptitiously, giving my child food I don’t want them to have, or anything else.

The GPs decision, while founded on good intentions, was: a) illicit, and b) a serious breach of trust. There is no founded hope that the children will be raised in the faith. A more appropriate approach is to pray for the conversion of the parents and the children, and to broach the topic with the children when they are adults. It was NOT the GPs place to make that decision. Ultimately, the issue here is that the GPs have overstepped their authority as GPs. They are NOT the parents of the children and NOT the ones who bear responsibility for their spiritual upbringing.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

We have all lost the wisdom of
“It takes a village to raise a child.”

Anyone who thinks the have complete control over their child, even in infancy, is kidding themselves and setting themselves up for a lot of heartache.

The Grandparents did not take the kids to a brothal, they did not teach them how to sacrifice a dog to Satan, they did not instruct them on how to freebase drugs.

They sprinkled a little water on their heads and said a few words. Consent or not, the punishment must fit the crime. And the consequences of the punishment must be considered.

If the child had a heart attack would you wait to get consent from a parent before starting CPR? Would you not take the child to a doctor if it hurt itself even if the parents only believed in prayer for healing? This is the magnitude of baptism to the Grandparents.
.
The OP doth protest too much, consent or not. They should a lot more loving and less controlling.

 

[nodito]

The child was baptized by a Catholic. It was a Catholic baptism. Neither the Methodists nor the Lutherans had a thing to do with it, because the parents are neither Methodist nor Lutheran. nor is the party that performed the baptisms. How could it not be deceptive to register the baptism with them? Besides, by your logic the child would be bound to practice as a Methodist or a Lutheran–there are no “random” denominations who don’t expect the baptized to do anything. Their expression of the demands of their faith may not be as formal as the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, but it binds them just as surely.

I shouldn’t have specifically said Lutheran or Methodist, because I really have no idea what their membership requirements are. But I didn’t mean to suggest that the parent lie about anything. They wouldn’t say they were a particular denomination or even claim to be Christian. I guess I kind of envisioned it like this:

Parent: Pastor Bob, we’re not Christians. But our child was just baptized by his grandparents in the bathtub. What do we do?

I used the term “Catholic baptism” in this thread: What Makes a Baptism Catholic? and was told it is not the faith/denomination of the person baptizing that matters for church membership, but rather, an external manifestation of the desire to join the Church. So if a Protestant nurse performs an emergency baptism in the hospital, the baby is still recognized as Catholic when the Catholic parents tell Fr. Joe about it later, even though the nurse wasn’t Catholic.

And maybe the parents in the OP don’t want the baptism recorded anywhere, but if they do, I’d argue it’s perhaps not in the best interest of the child to have it recorded as having been a decision to join the Catholic Church.

 

[masuwerte]

I wonder if the grandparents really intended to do what the Catholic Church intends with baptism. If not, would it still be a Christian baptism? Would it still be a Catholic baptism?

 

[masuwerte]

How would the grandparents respond if they were told that they would be baptised into the LDS after death?

 

[Publisher]

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.

Friend, I sympathize with you completely.

I have had this discussion with many believing Catholics…and a couple Catholic nurses. My son only lived for around 30 minutes before he was Called back to the Presence…I don’t know why this happened…but it did.

As a Friend, we do not practice outward rites and ordinances. We reject that any ritual observance to gain the favor of God is of no consequence…God is not swayed by a chant or lighting a candle or reciting so many litanies to somehow “change God’s mind” about any subject.

One nurse acquaintence told me if she would have been in the delivery room, she would have made sure my child was baptized. I informed her I would have filed charges with the hospital…and perhaps even sued them for violatiing my and my wife’s religous beliefs. It was wrong for the GP’s to do this to YOUR children. They are God’s gift to YOU and your wife. God placed them in your care, not the GP’s care.

I told my nurse acquaintence I would have sought to have her dismissed for such a breach of trust against two grieving parents.

When my wife was killed, I can’t tell you how many people asked me outside of Friends circles “was your wife baptized?” She was baptized as a child Methodist. I have never been baptized…I see no reason to wet my head for nothing. I get it wet each morning in the shower…or when it’s raining. But the almost physical sign of relief that crossed their faces was bafflling…as though God would judge her harshly for not allowing her head to be wetted or her body dunked in water when she was an amazing, loving woman who served others with joy and love. He love for God was undisputable, and her character beyond reproach.

It’s a “touchy” subject for sure. Your in-laws commited a betrayal toward you and your wife…sad for things like this to occur in a family.

If my parents would have done such a thing to my son if he would have lived, I’m afraid our relationship would be severely compromised…because they would have shown no respect to me and my wife in any way shape or form.

While not unforgiveable, it still is a deep wound…maybe as indelible mark on the souls of you and your wife as Catholics believe occured on your children. Time heals…but it would certainly give me pause to place my children in their care again for any reason.

Your children are YOUR responsibility…not your inlaws.

Peace to you friend.

 

[David011]

We have all lost the wisdom of
“It takes a village to raise a child.”

Anyone who thinks the have complete control over their child, even in infancy, is kidding themselves and setting themselves up for a lot of heartache.

The Grandparents did not take the kids to a brothal, they did not teach them how to sacrifice a dog to Satan, they did not instruct them on how to freebase drugs.

They sprinkled a little water on their heads and said a few words. Consent or not, the punishment must fit the crime. And the consequences of the punishment must be considered.

If the child had a heart attack would you wait to get consent from a parent before starting CPR? Would you not take the child to a doctor if it hurt itself even if the parents only believed in prayer for healing? This is the magnitude of baptism to the Grandparents.
.
The OP doth protest too much, consent or not. They should a lot more loving and less controlling.

First and for most, did you even read the whole thread? Not that I have to explain (or explain again ) to anyone, the children will not be separated from the grandparents. We will NOT be severing ties with them in anyway that will deprive the kids. They did something without OUR consent, to OUR children. I like the idea of having my kids being baptized Catholic behind my back as you would having your kids baptized Mormon behind your back. They will simply no longer be looking after them without my wife or I present. The free loving child-care will now be coming from my own parents until my in-laws realize where their place is regarding my kids. Regardless of what they do, I love them as my wife’s parent’s and the grandparents of our children and that is something that will never change. They can can come see them whenever they like, provided I or my wife are there. But until they change their behavior and attitude, they will no longer enjoy the children’s company without our presence. My in-laws have every right to be grandparents but they have NO right to be the parents. They overstepped their boundary, and this is their consequence.

As for your logic regarding the children’s lives being in danger, from what other posters have stated, the Catholic Church allows baptism in this case. However, my kids where in no danger, much less having any type of life threatening condition. Therefore this was an illicit act.

Also,I am very surprised that as a Catholic, you speak of baptism as just “sprinkled water on the head with a few words”. Even I ,as a non believer, have more respect to the faith to know it certainly means much more than that to a Catholic which is why we aren’t cutting ties with my in-laws. We may not change their way of thinking but we certainly have a say in how they treat and act around OUR children.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

To you, a baptism is a little sprinkled water. To me it is something different.

If someone were to baptise me into the Mormon church, the pagan church, the outer space church, the church of Elvis, I wouldn’t care one wit. Those rites mean nothing to me. To me they are mere play acting with no basis in reality. I assume you feel the same about a Christian baptism? Maybe you don’t…

If supervised visits are as equal to unsupervised visits why do divorced fathers always hate them? What difference would it make? A visit is a visit…

Sorry, but I think you are blowing this up way out of proportion. And I think there are more important things to worry bout, AND I think you will be doing your wife, your kids and your in-laws a disservice if you only allow supervised visits. You are marginalising people in your family for prideful reasons.

You asked for opinions, not for permission.

And I still think you protest too much.

 

[David011]

To you, a baptism is a little sprinkled water. To me it is something different.

If someone were to baptise me into the Mormon church, the pagan church, the outer space church, the church of Elvis, I wouldn’t care one wit. Those rites mean nothing to me. To me they are mere play acting with no basis in reality. I assume you feel the same about a Christian baptism? Maybe you don’t…

If supervised visits are as equal to unsupervised visits why do divorced fathers always hate them? What difference would it make? A visit is a visit…

Sorry, but I think you are blowing this up way out of proportion. And I think there are more important things to worry bout, AND I think you will be doing your wife, your kids and your in-laws a disservice if you only allow supervised visits. You are marginalising people in your family for prideful reasons.

You asked for opinions, not for permission.

And I still think you protest too much.

And thank you for your opinion, I personally think it’s completely wrong and you certainly like skipping lines when you read. I could care less that they were baptized Catholic, the point is no one had any consent to do this. When it comes to my children, I can protest as much as I desire. The children will be staying with their paternal grandparents and no bank account (not that it’s any of your business) will be hurt.

As for divorced fathers, I certainly wouldn’t know but perhaps you do. Either way it has nothing to do with my family. You sound exactly just like my father in law, regarding this issue and it’s just reenforcing the decision my wife and I made.

By the way I never asked for opinions, I asked for church teachings on validity and 1ke, EasterJoy and other posters did a wonderful job of answering with exact church documentation and not just with their own emotions. Something clearly is bothering you regarding this issue so this will be my last response to you.

Have a good day.

 

[EasterJoy]

We have all lost the wisdom of
“It takes a village to raise a child.”

Anyone who thinks the have complete control over their child, even in infancy, is kidding themselves and setting themselves up for a lot of heartache.

The Grandparents did not take the kids to a brothal, they did not teach them how to sacrifice a dog to Satan, they did not instruct them on how to freebase drugs.

They sprinkled a little water on their heads and said a few words. Consent or not, the punishment must fit the crime. And the consequences of the punishment must be considered.

If the child had a heart attack would you wait to get consent from a parent before starting CPR? Would you not take the child to a doctor if it hurt itself even if the parents only believed in prayer for healing? This is the magnitude of baptism to the Grandparents.
.
The OP doth protest too much, consent or not. They should a lot more loving and less controlling.

If the child had a heart attack, then consent is not necessary for either CPR or baptism. Otherwise, both medical care and pastoral care require parental consent, as both should.

The grandparents did what was implicitly forbidden by the parents and what is expressly forbidden by the Church. In so doing, they abused a position of trust. More to the point, they have not expressed remorse or a recognition that they have overstepped their authority. If my child had a physician like that, I’d remove my child from that physician’s care. Likewise with a teacher, a sitter, or a relative.

A necessary first step is for the grandparents to come around and admit that they should never have done what they did. Until they do that, the parents are kind of stuck with the knowledge that the grandparents do not respect their authority as parents. The parents have to plan their childrens’ visits with their grandparents accordingly, either resolving to be there to supervise or else resigning themselves that their wishes will not necessarily be honored. That is the fix they are in; it is not their fault, but the cards the grandparents have unfortunately dealt them.

 

[Deltadeliquent]

What’s bothering me is lack of love and forgiveness in the situation.
That’s all. I sought to inject a bit of that.
And I fail to understand why you are so angry about something that has no meaning for you at all. I’m not saying the Grandparents were right, I’m saying forgiveness is the best policy here. I’m sure this palava has shown them in no uncertain terms who is the boss. I bet they never do anything remotely like this again.

You need not use insult and innuendo towards me and my posts. You have no idea who I am, nor what my life is like.

Your in laws clearly thought they were doing a loving thing. My religion teaches me to forgive.
So I counselled you to forgive.
I am living my religion as best I can.
I guess you are too.

 

[EasterJoy]

What’s bothering me is lack of love and forgiveness in the situation.
That’s all. I sought to inject a bit of that.
You need not use insult and innuendo towards me and my posts. You have no idea who I am, nor what my life is like.
Your in laws clearly thought they were doing a loving thing. My religion teaches to forgive.
So I counselled you to forgive.
I am living my religion as best I can.
I guess you are too.

Forgiveness does not mean that people who have violated our trust ought to be returned to a position of trust when they have not shown they deserve it. Neither does unconditional love. Our Lord, after all, is all-loving, but even He did not trust everyone!

“But Jesus would not trust himself to them because he knew them all, and did not need anyone to testify about human nature. He himself understood it well.” John 2:24-25

IOW, the decision of the OP and his wife to limit the amount of trust they put in her parents does not mean they do not love them, understand them, or forgive them for their offense. It only means that they recognize that the offense and the lack of remorse for it are reasonable indications of how much trust the in-laws deserve, at least for the time being. When the in-laws amend themselves, then perhaps things will change. The OP just came here to verify that the Church concurs with his reasoning. In her official laws, the Church does.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

First off, OP, I commend you for handling this so well. My biggest shortcoming is my temper, and if I were in your position, my anger problem would be visible to everyone involved in this. I think it shows a lot of love, patience, and character that you are still willing to allow your in-laws to have as much access to your children as they want. I’m not sure that I’m that forgiving, at least not when faced with people who would be so willing to trample all over me as a parent when it comes to my own children, and then refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong.

This is a basic safety issue. I don’t care if they thought it was the right thing, they knew that you were against it. What else would they be willing to do behind your back believing that they know better than you do? Furthermore, the lack of respect that they have shown you and your wife is astounding.

In your position, my first concern would be keeping the child’s grandparents at bay. My second concern would be keeping my child’s name off of church documents. If they intend to report the baptism and you don’t want them to, talk to them, then talk to the priest, and then talk to an attorney. I really don’t know if you have legal recourse, but it can’t hurt to look into it. I can’t imagine that its just ok for a religious organization to count your son among them against the wishes of the parents. If nothing else, a strongly worded letter from a lawyer may do the trick. I did a quick google, it looks like there is a way to formally defect from the church. I don’t know if you can do that on behalf of your minor son, but if all else fails, it might be worth a shot.

I am so sorry this happened to you. What a blatant violation of your family.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You probably know Sam Levenson’s cynical old parents’ saw, though: The reason grandchildren and grandparents get along so well is that they have a common enemy.

Seriously, though, children have actually been known to get faith and religious practices from their grandparents pretty well. If the parents allow the grandparents to instill a religious practice in the children, it isn’t unusual for the children to take to it, particularly if it is the “ancestral” religion. It is not necessarily any more confusing than having a mother who cooks from a cookbook and a grandmother who uses a handful of this and a taste of that to cook what she learned from her mother who learned from her mother who learned from hers and so on.

No, this is about the grandparents respecting their child and their son- or daughter-in-law in their authority as parents, and not treating them as an adversary. It is not just that the parents deserve the respect, although that alone would be enough, but that evangelization needs to be done respectfully in order to be worthy of its purpose.

(Bolding Mine) Yes, completely, 100%, agree.

However, I was responding to the notion that the grandparents should be allowed to bring the kids up Catholic. That idea isn’t exactly comparable to cooking. I’m trying to imagine, in my own family, how that would work. And keep in mind that although a lot of my values are more liberal, my personal life is quite orthodox and conservative, so these issues would be amplified even more in a less traditional family.

But lets say I decided to allow my in-laws to bring my kids up in the Catholic faith. The catholic church’s views on social issues like abortion and gay marriage is antithetical to how I want to raise my children, and I in fact would consider it a personal failure if my child ended up pro-life or anti gay marriage. I want to raise my kids in an open and honest household when it comes to sex. I don’t plan on censoring a lot of media, and birth control and safe sex will be discussed from an early age. If my 9 year old child had a question that pertained to faith, my husband and I would answer honestly, and in a way that is in line with our beliefs and values. Frankly, between having parents who raise them like that 6 days a week, and grandparents that believe they’ll go to hell for it, the child would likely end up confused and resentful. Not to mention the toll this would take on so many family relationships.

 

[EasterJoy]

First off, OP, I commend you for handling this so well…I think it shows a lot of love, patience, and character that you are still willing to allow your in-laws to have as much access to your children as they want…

In your position, my first concern would be keeping the child’s grandparents at bay. My second concern would be keeping my child’s name off of church documents. If they intend to report the baptism and you don’t want them to, talk to them, then talk to the priest, and then talk to an attorney. I really don’t know if you have legal recourse, but it can’t hurt to look into it. I can’t imagine that its just ok for a religious organization to count your son among them against the wishes of the parents. If nothing else, a strongly worded letter from a lawyer may do the trick. I did a quick google, it looks like there is a way to formally defect from the church. I don’t know if you can do that on behalf of your minor son, but if all else fails, it might be worth a shot.

I am so sorry this happened to you. What a blatant violation of your family.

It can cause harm to the family, not to mention unnecessary expense, to bring this to the attention of an attorney. If a church could be sued for performing religious rituals behind someone’s back, someone would have stopped the Latter Day Saints by now.

The OP is handling this in a very-level-headed manner, though, I do agree with you on that!

 

[BlueEyedLady]

It can cause harm to the family, not to mention unnecessary expense, to bring this to the attention of an attorney. If a church could be sued for performing religious rituals behind someone’s back, someone would have stopped the Latter Day Saints by now.

The OP is handling this in a very-level-headed manner, though, I do agree with you on that!

I’m not talking about suing the church. The church/priest are not responsible in any way for this. This is the grandparents. However, it is perfectly understandable why they would not want their child’s name put on the official records of an organization that they have severe moral disagreements with. The Mormon church still does baptisms for the dead, but they have been sued to remove names of posthumously baptized people from their membership records. An attorney may be able to get involved and without litigation or any sort of legal proceedings, convince the grandparents via a strongly worded letter that pursuing the baptism issue further will result in charges of harassment, or convince the priest that the consequences of dying on the hill of keeping the OP’s baby on baptismal records isn’t worth the fight. (It’s been my experience that many of the issues that lawyers sort our are solved with simple letterhead. People simply don’t want to fight an attorney who sounds committed to pursuing the issue if they have to.)

You never know, of course, but it’s certainly an option he can try.

And of course, this is a last resort. Talking to the grandparents, and then the priest, and then trying to file a formal defection should all come first.

 

[BettyBoop416]

Gosh! I am very surprised at the responses to the OP.

The Grandparents are believers. You are not.
The Grandparents believe your children need to be cleansed of the consequences of Original Sin. If the children die without that happening, the Grandparents believe the children will suffer some very negative consequences. To a believer this is not about things being easier later on if the children want to join a church. This is not mere paperwork. To the Grandparents, as believers, it is about life and death. Literally.

Out of love they baptised the children in what sounds like a small, surreptitious, private act.
They did this because they believe in the good of baptism. The children don’t even know what happened, they do not understand either the Grandparent’s beliefs or anything about what to be baptised means to any church or organisation.

The parents do not believe. The fact that their children are baptised should have NO importance to them at all, since the act is meaningless to them. They were not asked to participate, nor required to believe. They are not being asked to reaffirm the Catholic Church’s teaching on baptism, or to bring their children up as anything, much less Catholic.

Imagine for a moment that you have a young child, and you left him in the care of your Jewish in-laws. Your in-laws are well aware of the fact that you are not going to raise your child in the Jewish faith. Because they believe that the Jewish faith in the one true religion, out of love and concern they took your child and had him circumcised. You okay with that?

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Imagine for a moment that you have a young child, and you left him in the care of your Jewish in-laws. Your in-laws are well aware of the fact that you are not going to raise your child in the Jewish faith. Because they believe that the Jewish faith in the one true religion, out of love and concern they took your child and had him circumcised. You okay with that?

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.