In-laws baptized our children without permission

[Publisher]

Friend David, thank you so much flor this thread. It has reinforced my growing conclusion by the blatant disregard of you and your wife’s beliefs by the GP’s actions and the responses in this thread, that while many will be among the first to claim THEIR freedom of religion, they will deny it to others…be it freedom of or from religion.

Interesting how many Catholics will violate basic charity, dignity and religious expression of others…but be among the first to claim it for themselves.

The GP’'s used your children brutally to exercise their perceived religious rights by denying your rights and the rights of your children. Baffleling to me.

 

[VivienneJ]

I have followed this with interest. I know David’s question involved the issue of his children being baptised without his permission and that has moved the discussion into theological directions. But, it seems to me, that at the heart of the problem is lack of respect for David and his wife’s parenting choices.

I too am a grandparent and I have had to recognise that some of the choices my daughter and son-in-law make for their children, who are indeed my grandchildren, are not necessarily ones I support. It is not my position to undermine these decisions. I can certainly, if it is a battle I feel worth fighting, raise the issue with the parents; but I should not actively undermine their parenting decisions. One minor example concerns the other granny who insists on adding honey to their milk, even though she knows my daughter does not want to add unnecessary sugar to her childrens’ diets; every time they have milk there, honey is added - is she showing respect for a parenting decision?

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.

Glad you got the answers you were looking for, David. And congratulations on making a fair decision in a difficult situation.

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.

To go back to the ‘honey in the milk’ example, yes, my daughter accepts that when she has no choice but to allow unsupervised visits, few, if any of her decisions will be honoured. She has drawn definite battle lines on the issues that are biggest to her and stated that if ‘x’ happens the children will not be left there again; on others she just shrugs and deals with the after-effects.

What’s bothering me is lack of love and forgiveness in the situation…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.

Your in laws clearly thought they were doing a loving thing. My religion teaches me to forgive.

There is no lack of love and forgiveness that I can see. These grandparents will still see their grandchildren in a huge variety of situations, just not when either or both parents are not there.

Yes the grandparents thought that what they were doing was loving. Aside from this being one of the sacraments of our church, the grandparents were showing disrespect for the authority of the parents. Our role as grandparents is not to parent our grandchildren, we have had our chance to be parents.

 

[Publisher]

And from some of the posts the GP’s not only showed profound disrespect to the parents but also to the church they claim membership in…and profound disrespect to the sacrament itself.

 

[Rau]

What the grandparents did is inhumane.

Should be possible to extract very substantial damages in court then… Damages winnable are proportional to damage suffered. I wonder who has the better case - the parents or the kids? Any lawyers out there got a view?

 

[Rau]

Interesting how **many **Catholics will violate basic charity, dignity and religious expression of others…but be among the first to claim it for themselves.

It would be more appropriate to call out the specific posts that demonstrate these transgressions (committed by many Catholics, apparently?), rather than just firing off broad inflammatory statements, masquerading as established facts.

 

[Publisher]

Friend, we must not be reading the same thread. You may dismiss my observation…the GP’s put their beliefs over and above those express beliefs the children s parents held. The believe evidently their beliefs took precedence over that of the children’s parents. They thought nothing of violating the trust the parents placed with them.

The GP’s violated others beliefs and claimed what they did was right.

Participants in this thread felt the GP’s were justified, even against the canons of their church…even one poster compared it to a medical emergency…even though there was no danger in any stretch of the imagination…what does the Catholic Church teach about baptizing children against the parents wishes? Please refresh my memory.

Are you actually going to claim that no Catholic in this thread also sought to justify the GP’'s actions? Are you going to actually state that the parents religious rights were not disregarded concerning their.children by the GP’s ? Really? You’re going to actually assert the GP’s did mot put their own beliefs ahead of the parents beliefs and rights as parents?Really?

Are you really going to state that Catholics on this board believe they have the religious right to disregard the rights of others yet claim their own religious rights should not be violated ? Really?

Are you going to actually claim if I can’t or won’t cite “chapter and verse” it didn’t happen? Really?

You may dismiss my opinion as having no validity because I have no desire to quote “chapter and verse” from the responses in this thread? Really?

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

Have a good evening friend.

 

[mommy_k]

I did not get a chance to read all of the replies, so I hope this is not a repeat answer.
Did you ask themn why they did this?

Although your children’s grandparents are devout, I am sure they are not familiar with canon law. They are from a different time.

I am certain they did this as a precaution for your children. In the older days, there was much talk of where unbaptized children go- IE: limbo. Even when I was in catholic school growing up, every year we had a collection from the students to sponser a ‘pagan’ baby, and would give a baptism name to them. These babies were baptised by catholic missionaries. Babies in catholic orphanages were also baptised before adoption too.

Which opens the question- were these babies insured a catholic upbringing under the obligation of baptism? I would not think so- but they were baptised nontheless.

This is where their mind was at I believe. Did the grandparents overstep? Yes. This is not a dietary or clothing decision. But understand that they did not do this so the children are raised catholic. They did this for their belief in salvatiion, and wanted this for your children.

I believe it is up to you as a parent if you want this recognised formally in the church. The formality and recording would then place the obligation of raising the children catholic. If not, then their souls are still without original sin. God will understand and witnessed everthing.

I hope a mutually respectful relationship can be restored within your family.

 

[severus68]

Friend, we must not be reading the same thread. You may dismiss my observation…the GP’s put their beliefs over and above those express beliefs the children s parents held. The believe evidently their beliefs took precedence over that of the children’s parents. They thought nothing of violating the trust the parents placed with them.

The GP’s violated others beliefs and claimed what they did was right.

Participants in this thread felt the GP’s were justified, even against the canons of their church…even one poster compared it to a medical emergency…even though there was no danger in any stretch of the imagination…what does the Catholic Church teach about baptizing children against the parents wishes? Please refresh my memory.

Are you actually going to claim that no Catholic in this thread also sought to justify the GP’'s actions? Are you going to actually state that the parents religious rights were not disregarded concerning their.children by the GP’s ? Really? You’re going to actually assert the GP’s did mot put their own beliefs ahead of the parents beliefs and rights as parents?Really?

Are you really going to state that Catholics on this board believe they have the religious right to disregard the rights of others yet claim their own religious rights should not be violated ? Really?

Are you going to actually claim if I can’t or won’t cite “chapter and verse” it didn’t happen? Really?

You may dismiss my opinion as having no validity because I have no desire to quote “chapter and verse” from the responses in this thread? Really?

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

Have a good evening friend.

Most here agreed that the GPs were wrong , that the GPs disrespected the parents and breached their trust. I do too and think the GPs were very wrong.

One or two does not equal “many Catholics” as you have stated.

 

[Publisher]

Most here agreed that the GPs were wrong , that the GPs disrespected the parents and breached their trust. I do too and think the GPs were very wrong.

One or two does not equal “many Catholics” as you have stated.

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

 

[HoneyBea]

Is it wrong of me to be happy that the grandparents did this?

 

[nodito]

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

Publisher, Friend, I’ve read the whole thread and it is my impression that most people posting in response to the OP think that the grandparents overstepped their bounds and should not have. Full stop. There have been one or two posters who have repeatedly posted a contrary opinion. I think the rest of us are just recognizing that it can’t be undone and are therefore discussing how it affects the child and her family.

But if you’re counting, I strongly believe the parents should not have baptized their grandchildren against the will of their parents.

God bless.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Is it wrong of me to be happy that the grandparents did this?

Well, I don’t want to tell you that your feelings are wrong, but they damaged the relationship that they have with the OP and their children, went against church teaching, violated the trust that was placed in them, and could have created a logistical nightmare for the child when they are an adult and enter into an invalid marriage before deciding that they would like to become active in the church. I’m not sure what there is to be happy about.

 

[HoneyBea]

Well, I don’t want to tell you that your feelings are wrong, but they damaged the relationship that they have with the OP and their children, went against church teaching, violated the trust that was placed in them, and could have created a logistical nightmare for the child when they are an adult and enter into an invalid marriage before deciding that they would like to become active in the church. I’m not sure what there is to be happy about.

All those things mentioned, while important and valid, are all worldy matters. I’m happy for this child’s soul and the graces received through this sacrament…I’m happy about the bigger picture : )

 

[BlueEyedLady]

All those things mentioned, while important and valid, are all worldy matters. I’m happy for this child’s soul and the graces received through this sacrament…I’m happy about the bigger picture : )

I have never heard a catholic say that the church’s laws regarding something so sacred are a “worldy concern”.

 

[HoneyBea]

I have never heard a catholic say that the church’s laws regarding something so sacred are a “worldy concern”.

First time for everything! : )

 

[VivienneJ]

Well, I don’t want to tell you that your feelings are wrong, but they damaged the relationship that they have with the OP and their children, went against church teaching, violated the trust that was placed in them, and could have created a logistical nightmare for the child when they are an adult and enter into an invalid marriage before deciding that they would like to become active in the church. I’m not sure what there is to be happy about.

Well said, BlueEyedLady. I have been trying to think of a kind response to HoneyBea’s question, you nailed it.

All those things mentioned, while important and valid, are all worldy matters. I’m happy for this child’s soul and the graces received through this sacrament…I’m happy about the bigger picture : )

^^

I have never heard a catholic say that the church’s laws regarding something so sacred are a “worldy concern”.

It is a sad state of affairs when an Atheist has a better grasp of the matter than a Catholic, and HoneyBea, your response to the above from BlueEyedLady is unnecessarily flippant.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

There is another issue here that I think that both Catholics and non-Catholics should consider, and that’s the likelihood that the parents will ever allow their child to be exposed to Catholicism via the grandparents at this point.

Using myself as an example: If my child was old enough (14 or so) and I felt that they were mature enough, and they showed a desire to join a religion, I would support that an allow it. If they showed an interest in Catholicism, I would call or email my MIL and explain the situation and see if she would be happy to provide some materials and guidance to my child as they start to explore this. (Trust me, she, like all religious grandmothers, would be thrilled to do so.) Of course I would attend all church services and things like that with my child at first, but the idea would be that as soon as my mind was put to rest and I trusted the people (and their motives) that were now around and trying to influence my child, I would take a large step back. Of course, I would still keep an eye on what they were being taught, but I wouldn’t be over my child and my MIL’s shoulder.

However, if while my child was an infant my MIL showed herself to be predatory when it came to my child and religion, so much so that she would baptize behind my back and against my wishes, the above would never happen. Of course, I would still allow and encourage my child to explore whatever religion they were feeling called to, but my MIL would not have an active role in it and would not be allowed to instruct my child in religion at all. I just simply couldn’t trust her.

Who suffers in this? Well, the child, who won’t have the opportunity to learn about the religion that they desired from close relatives, the grandparents, who won’t get to educate or bond with the children in that manner, and the family as a whole, because of the weakened bonds and broken trust.

 

[EasterJoy]

…By the way, I’ll just go ahead and say, from all the crazy conservative points of views on all these threads and forums, you’re one of the few people I always agree with.

You did notice the coincidence that she is not Catholic? That could account for your meeting of the minds.

 

[EasterJoy]

All those things mentioned, while important and valid, are all worldy matters. I’m happy for this child’s soul and the graces received through this sacrament…I’m happy about the bigger picture : )

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.

 

[ahs]

Agreed [that it “shouldn’t” count].
How can this count?

While it perhaps “shouldn’t” in a subjective sense, it does count. This has been dicussed in the thread already. While it was illicit, it was none-the-less valid.

That would mean that any babysitter or daycare teacher or nanny could “baptize” every child they come into contact with–be they Jewish or Muslim or whatever–as Catholics, and go have it recorded (or does it have to be a relative who does it?).

Yep. That is why the Church says that the parents should consent and be present at the Baptism. The people who would do this behind the parents’ back are NOT in the right…it is an act which is contrary to justice. But this does not have any affect on the validity of the Baptism.

I don’t know if this makes the grandparents “bad” or “overboard” Catholics…but it sure does make them dishonest and secretive and rather manipulative people.

They crossed a boundary…overstepped. It needs to be addressed with their Priest.

I’m sure Catholic parents would not like it if a Mormon relative secretly had their baby baptized into the Mormon church, even if the Mormon relative had loving, good, Godly, soul-saving intentions.

If that happened, would it also be valid? Would the child of Catholic parents then be considered Mormon?

.

Mormons don’t have valid Baptism because they lack the proper formula (they do not believe in the Trinity and are not Baptizing with the Trinitarian formula). So, no, it would not count.