In-laws baptized our children without permission

[EasterJoy]

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

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

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

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

No one said the baptism had no bearing on the child. The issue is that faith is something that cannot be thrust upon a person. Under normal circumstances, it ought to be something that is asked for, either by the person or by those with the duty to act on the person’s behalf. If, however, someone is near death and cannot ask for baptism, baptism is given to the person who might want it but cannot ask and that may very likely never get a chance to ask.

It is Providence that puts the person in that position: that is, near death, not able to ask, and with someone there to provide the baptism. It is like someone that Providence brings under a doctor’s care with no ability to accept or refuse care and no one to speak on their behalf. Although the physician would be very wrong to force a patient to accept care, even life-saving care, that the patient or the patient’s guardian refuses, the standard of care is for that physician to provide the care when the patient gravely needs it and cannot ask. Yes, the patient may wake up and say, “Why did you treat me? I did not want that!” but when the patient cannot choose then the physician forced to choose.

In baptism as in medicine, the person able to offer baptism and the person able to offer a physically-life-saving intervention has to choose according to his or her own knowledge of what is in the patient’s best interest. Why? I suppose because the patient actually staring at death has this way of wanting the life-saving intervention that they refused when death seemed more theoretical. In any event, that is the “standard of care” with other life-saving interventions that would normally require consent, so it is no surprise that it is this way with the sacraments, too.

 

[mek42]

As a fellow lapsed Catholic father, I am curious how the OP had planned to instill a moral code upon his children in the absence of organized religion as well as whether this event has changed that plan.

 

[Rau]

If Baptism really has no bearing on the child, if the parents of said child had no intention of any form of religious education…why would the church be concerned about Baptizing a child, whose life was in jeopardy?

A worthy question, and I cannot answer it. But now - think about the Justice that will be delivered on the last day by our God, and explain to me how an unfortunate baby who dies without baptism, perhaps to parents of non-Christians - will suffer.

 

[HandyAndy]

EasterJoy…I take on board what you are saying, however there has been cases where a child of a Jehovah’s Witness parent or parents, was given a blood transfusion against the wishes of the parents and that of the child. In these instances, a court overruled the parent and child’s right to choose. So…where it is perceived that the parents are endangering the life of the child…they can and are overruled by the courts.

As for Baptizing someone facing imminent death…I’m afraid that unless it was a new born…I would have assumed that a Baptism had already occurred at some early point in that persons life. A Baptism in the midst of a crisis just would not have crossed my mind. A Rosary yes. Perhaps I should commit Baptism to memory, just in case?

Interesting though…I waded through the document below, and it is apparent that the Catholic church has flip flopped around the issue, on the Baptism of a child. In particular whether the unbaptized child is removed from original sin and thus…whether the child requires Baptism to obtain salvation in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. The only sure answer from the church that I can gather, is that every man, women and child is required to be Baptized in order to receive salvation from original sin. The church simply puts the rest into the hands of God and prays for the unbaptized.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

This article leads me to believe that if being a Catholic…and if believing the evidence put forward on this matter…I feel that to not Baptize a child at the earliest opportunity is neglect on behalf of the parents…and a gift from those who seek to save the soul of a loved one, by performing it.

A Baptism made under the age of reason (7) only washes the child of original sin and claims the child for Christ. It implies no further obligation. However…once the age of reason has been reached the Baptism does imply that the recipient is made aware and understand their obligations under said Baptism…as I understand it.

A fair bit of uncertainty around this issue and as a Catholic…and if I were placed in the position presented…at this stage; I must side with the well being of my child or grand child, and I may well Baptize the child…if it were clear that the parents had no intention of doing so. Lest that child meet with an untimely death. The thought of not knowing whether a beloved child or grandchild had received salvation because of what I could have done and didn’t…may well only add further to my grief.

On the other hand…through faith…I should leave it all in the hands of God.

Tough call…and I pray that my children will never put me in such a position.

 

[EasterJoy]

EasterJoy…I take on board what you are saying, however there has been cases where a child of a Jehovah’s Witness parent or parents, was given a blood transfusion against the wishes of the parents and that of the child. In these instances, a court overruled the parent and child’s right to choose. So…where it is perceived that the parents are endangering the life of the child…they can and are overruled by the courts.

As for Baptizing someone facing imminent death…I’m afraid that unless it was a new born…I would have assumed that a Baptism had already occurred at some early point in that persons life. A Baptism in the midst of a crisis just would not have crossed my mind. A Rosary yes. Perhaps I should commit Baptism to memory, just in case?

Interesting though…I waded through the document below, and it is apparent that the Catholic church has flip flopped around the issue, on the Baptism of a child. In particular whether the unbaptized child is removed from original sin and thus…whether the child requires Baptism to obtain salvation in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. The only sure answer from the church that I can gather, is that every man, women and child is required to be Baptized in order to receive salvation from original sin. The church simply puts the rest into the hands of God and prays for the unbaptized.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

This article leads me to believe that if being a Catholic…and if believing the evidence put forward on this matter…I feel that to not Baptize a child at the earliest opportunity is neglect on behalf of the parents…and a gift from those who seek to save the soul of a loved one, by performing it.

A Baptism made under the age of reason (7) only washes the child of original sin and claims the child for Christ. It implies no further obligation. However…once the age of reason has been reached the Baptism does imply that the recipient is made aware and understand their obligations under said Baptism…as I understand it.

A fair bit of uncertainty around this issue and as a Catholic…and if I were placed in the position presented…at this stage; I must side with the well being of my child or grand child, and I may well Baptize the child…if it were clear that the parents had no intention of doing so. Lest that child meet with an untimely death. The thought of not knowing whether a beloved child or grandchild had received salvation because of what I could have done and didn’t…may well only add further to my grief.

On the other hand…through faith…I should leave it all in the hands of God.

Tough call…and I pray that my children will never put me in such a position.

God put this question in the hands of the Church, and so we do not lack guidance. The question is whether or not we will choose to be obedient to the authority God has placed over us or not.

A conditional baptism when you do not know for certain that the person facing death has been baptized is reasonable, yes.

The following is not correct: A Baptism made under the age of reason (7) only washes the child of original sin and claims the child for Christ. It implies no further obligation. It is incorrect because until the child reaches the age of reason it is the parent who is obliged. If this were not true, why would the Church herself refrain from baptizing the child of Catholic parents who ask for it for their child because the child had no reasonable expectation of receiving formation in the faith after baptism? After the age of reason, the obligation gradually shifts to the child, starting with the choice to accept baptism (if the child is not baptized) and eventually ending with the cradle Catholic being entirely given the personal duty and choice to follow the faith. That is the OP’s whole point, and why it is inexplicable that obedient Catholics would seize a choice for themselves that the Church has very clearly taught is not theirs to make, either for their children or for their grandchildren.

The Church is very clear: It is forbidden for anyone, whether layperson or priest, to baptize a person not in danger of death when the person is not properly disposed to receive the sacrament. To say that proper disposition includes consent of the person or their guardian ought to go without saying. If you are not honestly confronted with the reasonable belief that the person may die before having the opportunity to be more properly disposed, then DO NOT take it upon yourself to baptize a person who is not disposed to receive the sacrament…period.

 

[Book_Worm]

It seems to me that those grandparents who baptize their grandchildren secretly, in opposition to their patents’ wishes because a child MIGHT die without Baptism and thus be denied heaven, lack a belief and trust in a just and loving God.

 

[Elizium23]

It seems to me that converts who accept Christ and are baptized, and strive to live their lives in personal holiness according to the teachings of the Church, instead of just trying to be a good person without all of that religion stuff, has a lack of trust in a just and loving God.

 

[Book_Worm]

It seems to me that converts who accept Christ and are baptized, and strive to live their lives in personal holiness according to the teachings of the Church, instead of just trying to be a good person without all of that religion stuff, has a lack of trust in a just and loving God.

Huh?

Are you equating people who live according to the rules of the Church in which they believe because they think that is what God wants to people who don’t have enough faith in a living God who will not punish innocent children for something which is beyond their control?

 

[EasterJoy]

It seems to me that converts who accept Christ and are baptized, and strive to live their lives in personal holiness according to the teachings of the Church, instead of just trying to be a good person without all of that religion stuff, has a lack of trust in a just and loving God.

There are ex-Catholics who believe that. It would be true if we didn’t believe that it is the desire of God that baptism be the normal route to life in the Body of Christ, and that outside of Christ there is no life at all.

The command is quite clear, after all: Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." Matt. 28:18-20

He didn’t say to just baptize and he didn’t say to just teach. He said disciples are to be made both by baptism and by teaching. The two go together, and are not meant to be separated.

 

[HandyAndy]

One can reasonably see that the church had much deliberation over this same issue as well. See attachment.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

So once again I go back to my question. Why does the church feel the need to Baptize a child who is in mortal danger? Why not trust in God? Why the necessity for such a ruling from the church, if it trusts the Lord to take care of the unbaptized child? And if Baptized by a Catholic and the family are another religion…what then of the obligations now imposed if what you are saying is true? The definition I used concerning the Baptism of a child under the age of reason, was taken from the NRSV Sacramental Edition, Catholic Bible.

Not attacking here…just asking the questions.

 

[Rau]

One can reasonably see that the church had much deliberation over this same issue as well. See attachment.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

So once again I go back to my question. Why does the church feel the need to Baptize a child who is in mortal danger? Why not trust in God? Why the necessity for such a ruling from the church, if it trusts the Lord to take care of the unbaptized child? And if Baptized by a Catholic and the family are another religion…what then of the obligations now imposed if what you are saying is true? The definition I used concerning the Baptism of a child under the age of reason, was taken from the NRSV Sacramental Edition, Catholic Bible.

Not attacking here…just asking the questions.

Me too. So, at the same time, I ask this question:

Think about the Justice that will be delivered on the last day by our God, and explain to me how an unfortunate baby who dies without baptism, perhaps to parents of non-Christians - will suffer.

 

[EasterJoy]

One can reasonably see that the church had much deliberation over this same issue as well. See attachment.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

So once again I go back to my question. Why does the church feel the need to Baptize a child who is in mortal danger? Why not trust in God? Why the necessity for such a ruling from the church, if it trusts the Lord to take care of the unbaptized child? And if Baptized by a Catholic and the family are another religion…what then of the obligations now imposed if what you are saying is true? The definition I used concerning the Baptism of a child under the age of reason, was taken from the NRSV Sacramental Edition, Catholic Bible.

Not attacking here…just asking the questions.

Ah, it turns out that the staff at Catholic Answers has fielded this question in a handout.

catholic.com/quickquestions/if-a-child-is-in-danger-of-death-would-a-secret-baptism-without-the-parents-knowledge

*A baptism in a clear danger-of-death situation would be considered licit and valid, providing the baptism was conferred with the correct form, the correct matter, and the correct intention (see CCC 1256). According to the Code of Canon Law, “An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents can be baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents” (CIC 868 §2). However, the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law makes it clear that the canon “in no way advocates that a child, even in danger of death, be baptized against the express will of the parents. It simply presents a juridical clarification of the liceity of a baptism administered under those conditions” (1057). Canon 868 states:

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.*

IOW, the danger of death allows a person to act with the benefit of the doubt, but is not an excuse for a sacramental “kidnapping.” This is similar to a doctor who gets a patient who will die without his intervention–if he *does not know *whether or not the patient (or their guardian) would give consent, he provides the care on the assumption that they would. If, OTOH, he knows well that the patient (or guardian) has said the life-saving care is not wanted, he may not ethically use the special situation as an excuse to override the known wishes of the patient.

This makes sense, since it is why Jews and atheists who check in to Catholic hospitals don’t fear they’re going to wake up belonging to the Church if they lose consciousness due to a serious medical condition.

 

[HandyAndy]

*A baptism in a clear danger-of-death situation would be considered licit and valid, providing the baptism was conferred with the correct form, the correct matter, and the correct intention (see CCC 1256). According to the Code of Canon Law, “An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents can be baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents” (CIC 868 §2). However, the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law makes it clear that the canon “in no way advocates that a child, even in danger of death, be baptized against the express will of the parents. It simply presents a juridical clarification of the liceity of a baptism administered under those conditions” (1057). Canon 868 states:

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.*

LOL Going to need GPS to navigate this.

Sorry EasterJoy, but you’re going to need some patience with me on this one.

The first law said yep…go ahead without parental consent and the next law said, but wait…we’re not advocating doing so without parental consent. What the…

So why do it in the first place? Why should this be such an issue? Simply trust in God and let the cards fall where they may. The church in effect IS creating doubt.

My heart says leave it to God…but church law is creating some doubt, that in fact a Baptism may be necessary for salvation…even for a child.

 

[josh987654321]

I think I get it now.

Your right EasterJoy, the grandparents shouldn’t have baptised their grandchild without the parents consent.

Off the record … good job Grandparents. lol

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Rau]

Off the record … good job…

Josh, let’s assume the baptised child died soon after. Is it your understanding that, were it not for that Baptism, the child would suffer in the afterlife?

 

[josh987654321]

Josh, let’s assume the baptised child died soon after. Is it your understanding that, were it not for that Baptism, the child would suffer in the afterlife?

I don’t know. I trust in God’s love and mercy, but I don’t expect them either, God knows us intimately and he will judge us rightly, he also doesn’t have to follow his own rules and thus can save anyone he wishes but I also take Christ when he say’s “do all you can to enter through the narrow gate.” and hence i’ll follow the philosophy “hope for the best and prepare for the worst” and “better safe than sorry.”

I wouldn’t recommend going around baptising other peoples kids without their consent, but If I were in the Grandparents shoes and presented with the opportunity, I would have probably done it (alot ealier than the Grandparents did in this scenario though).

It would be a win win, the children would be too young to report what happened to their parents, if it isn’t true than I didn’t do anything, if it is true than I would have given them a great gift and in such a scenario there is everything to gain and nothing to lose, so why not?

Id say the mistake the grandparents made was waiting too long and thus getting caught. They should have made their minds up whether to do it or not alot ealier I believe.

So on the record, I agree with EastorJoy etc, but off the record, Id tell the grandparents that they should have done it alot ealier so they didn’t get caught and if they missed that opportunity to do it in secrecy, than it wasn’t wise to do it without the parents consent.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[EasterJoy]

LOL Going to need GPS to navigate this.

Sorry EasterJoy, but you’re going to need some patience with me on this one.

The first law said yep…go ahead without parental consent and the next law said, but wait…we’re not advocating doing so without parental consent. What the…

So why do it in the first place? Why should this be such an issue? Simply trust in God and let the cards fall where they may. The church in effect IS creating doubt.

My heart says leave it to God…but church law is creating some doubt, that in fact a Baptism may be necessary for salvation…even for a child.

OK, you are a doctor. A patient comes in with a life-threatening injury.

Scenario A: Patient is conscious, refuses treatment. You may not legally force the patient to accept treatment. You know better, but it is his/her life and his/her choice. Hard on the doctor to see that, but the doctor must respect the patient’s right to refuse treatment.

Scenario B: Patient is unconscious, and cannot choose for himself and his wishes are unknown. You give the patient the best treatment, dictated by the standard of care where you practice.

Scenario C: Patient is unconscious, but you know with certainty that he does not want the treatment you would usually recommend. You don’t force the patient to accept the treatment he refused in advance.

Even if it were legal to treat the patient in Scenario C, ask yourself if it is ethical to treat him?

 

[Rau]

It would be a win win, the children would be too young to report what happened to their parents, if it isn’t true than I didn’t do anything, if it is true than I would have given them a great gift and in such a scenario there is everything to gain and nothing to lose, so why not?

Id say the mistake the grandparents made was waiting too long and thus getting caught. They should have made their minds up whether to do it or not alot ealier I believe.

So on the record, I agree with EastorJoy etc, but off the record, Id tell the grandparents that they should have done it alot ealier so they didn’t get caught and if they missed that opportunity to do it in secrecy, than it wasn’t wise to do it without the parents …

On the record?..Off the record?..what you mean is "I know the Church says X, but I would do Y, (even though I don’t understand the benefit of “Y” in this circumstance).

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t know. I trust in God’s love and mercy, but I don’t expect them either, God knows us intimately and he will judge us rightly, he also doesn’t have to follow his own rules and thus can save anyone he wishes but I also take Christ when he say’s “do all you can to enter through the narrow gate.” and hence i’ll follow the philosophy “hope for the best and prepare for the worst” and “better safe than sorry.”

I wouldn’t recommend going around baptising other peoples kids without their consent, but If I were in the Grandparents shoes and presented with the opportunity, I would have probably done it (alot ealier than the Grandparents did in this scenario though).

It would be a win win, the children would be too young to report what happened to their parents, if it isn’t true than I didn’t do anything, if it is true than I would have given them a great gift and in such a scenario there is everything to gain and nothing to lose, so why not?

Id say the mistake the grandparents made was waiting too long and thus getting caught. They should have made their minds up whether to do it or not alot ealier I believe.

So on the record, I agree with EastorJoy etc, but off the record, Id tell the grandparents that they should have done it alot ealier so they didn’t get caught and if they missed that opportunity to do it in secrecy, than it wasn’t wise to do it without the parents consent.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Let your yes be yes and your no be no, and none of this “off the record” and “on the record” stuff. If you cannot defend your plan in front of your bishop, just don’t do it.

I cannot get on board with a moral course that depends on “not getting caught”. To baptize and then lie about it by omission is an offense against the truth. Every person who is baptized has a right to know they have been baptized and a right to receive formation in the faith. The “lose” on your “win-win” is that the grandparent has taken a choice on herself that was not hers to make. Did it ever occur to you that God might take her to task for the sin of disobedience, for presuming to baptize when forbidden by the Church and to choose baptism for someone who was not properly disposed and with the intention of lying about it? Is it really ever a “win-win” to lie about something as important as the imposition of baptism? That is what is being proposed! Lie to the Church (because the baptism must be recorded, but that won’t happen), lie to the person baptized and lie to the person obliged to raise the child in the faith! Has it occurred to no one that disobedience and lying is offensive to God and that treating baptism as if it were a lucky charm deposited under the skin of the “unwary” might just be offensive, as well?

To make your other point, however (italics mine):

**CCC 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.59 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.60 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.61 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

 

[SerraSemper]

I don’t know. I trust in God’s love and mercy, but I don’t expect them either, God knows us intimately and he will judge us rightly, he also doesn’t have to follow his own rules and thus can save anyone he wishes but I also take Christ when he say’s “do all you can to enter through the narrow gate.” and hence i’ll follow the philosophy “hope for the best and prepare for the worst” and “better safe than sorry.”

I wouldn’t recommend going around baptising other peoples kids without their consent, but If I were in the Grandparents shoes and presented with the opportunity, I would have probably done it (alot ealier than the Grandparents did in this scenario though).

It would be a win win, the children would be too young to report what happened to their parents, if it isn’t true than I didn’t do anything, if it is true than I would have given them a great gift and in such a scenario there is everything to gain and nothing to lose, so why not?

Id say the mistake the grandparents made was waiting too long and thus getting caught. They should have made their minds up whether to do it or not alot ealier I believe.

So on the record, I agree with EastorJoy etc, but off the record, Id tell the grandparents that they should have done it alot ealier so they didn’t get caught and if they missed that opportunity to do it in secrecy, than it wasn’t wise to do it without the parents consent.

Thank you for reading
Josh

You are saying you’d rather risk your own immortal soul with a mortal sin of baptizing illicitly than do as the Church teaches and refrain from baptizing? What good would it do to baptize the whole world if your own soul is lost?