In-laws baptized our children without permission

[EasterJoy]

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?

I’m not in a hurry to tell someone’s grandma she’s going to hell, but yes, I would strongly advise against taking a flippant attitude towards deliberately dispensing sacraments in a way that one knows is illicit, particularly when it is done in the hope and intention that a net of lies will keep the truth not only from the Church but even from the person being baptized. The intention is good, but that is a very serious choice in favor of disobedience. If it were not, why lie about it to everyone?

The grandparent who honestly did not know that such a baptism was illicit or needed to be recorded with the Church is in a different situation, though. The person who commits a sacrilege while believing herself to instead be acting according to the raison d’être of the sacrament is perhaps only guilty of not seeking pastoral advice when she ought to have known she needed it.

If you don’t know the best thing to do with regards to dispensing sacraments, for heaven’s sake ask your pastor. A person who runs across a dying child they don’t know wouldn’t have that chance, but a grandparent who has been contemplating doing this baptism every time he or she sees the child certainly does.

 

[josh987654321]

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).

I understand why the Church says X and I was defending Y because of how I would feel if I were in the grandparents shoes, although I am second guessing that defense from what EasterJoy said below, thank you for your replies Rau.

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.

:sad_yes: That makes sense. I don’t wish to deal in lies or deceit, nor encourage anyone else to do so.
John 18:20:

20 But Jesus told him, “I have spoken freely in front of everyone. And I have always taught in our meeting places and in the temple, where all of our people come together. I have not said anything in secret.

Thank you all for your replies. My apologies.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[BlueEyedLady]

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

So their only mistake was in not being dishonest enough?

You don’t seem to have any respect for the right of parents to raise their children, the right of children to know they were baptized, the laws church you belong to, the god and faith you profess to believe in, or even yourself, as you don’t even seem to have a basic standard of honesty or integrity. What is it that you do respect? What kind of good do you think comes from holding yourself so much above everyone and everything else? Doesn’t true faith result in a desire to be obedient? Why don’t you trust in your faith enough to follow the most basic of its rules?

 

[HandyAndy]

I understand what you are saying EasterJoy, and I agree with your scenario. It is evident that there can never be grace to be had in living or conducting one’s self in the realms of lies and deceit. They only bring more lies, more deceit and as is apparent…more destruction and angst within a family.

It still however doesn’t quite go far enough in explaining the necessity for any kind of forced Baptism under any circumstances? Whether at deaths door or not, without knowing the intentions of the parents or the child. IMHO the law would make more sense and exhibit more of a faith based reasoning, to prohibit all Baptisms without the consent of the person to be Baptized or in the case of a child…the consent of the parents. Remove all doubt.

Bring the little children unto me…for such is the kingdom of heaven.

 

[HandyAndy]

This is an emotive issue, and I can see both sides…and the emotions attached to each. It would be a hardened heart that could not stand in the others shoes in order to gain perspective. Personal attacks don’t really achieve much and are actually more destructive than constructive. As I’ve mentioned before…even the church has spent much time in deliberation over this topic. With a little humility and a compassionate heart…we may all actually be the wiser for this thread.

 

[EasterJoy]

I understand what you are saying EasterJoy, and I agree with your scenario. It is evident that there can never be grace to be had in living or conducting one’s self in the realms of lies and deceit. They only bring more lies, more deceit and as is apparent…more destruction and angst within a family.

It still however doesn’t quite go far enough in explaining the necessity for any kind of forced Baptism under any circumstances? Whether at deaths door or not, without knowing the intentions of the parents or the child. IMHO the law would make more sense and exhibit more of a faith based reasoning, to prohibit all Baptisms without the consent of the person to be Baptized or in the case of a child…the consent of the parents. Remove all doubt.

Bring the little children unto me…for such is the kingdom of heaven.

This is also a bit like medicine, because in the case of an infant in danger of death, there are times when the wishes of the parent can be overridden. That is why it is licit (within the boundaries of Church law) to baptize a child in danger of death, even over the objections of the parent. (A child who has not reached the age of reason in an infant in canon law.) When the person in danger of death is unable to give or withhold consent on their own behalf, it is partway between Scenario B and C.

***Can. 867 §1. **Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

**§2. *An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

IOW, don’t wait for the pastor or an ordinary minister if there is a danger of death before baptism.

***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.

§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.*

In this case, the law relaxes the normal boundaries and does not force the faithful to perform a baptism, but do allow it. When “the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law says 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’,” the intention is not to say that the action is either required or forbidden. It says that it is permissible, that there is an ethical call to make, much like a physician would have to make in the case of a person who has not matured enough to make their own decision.

It is not a call to make on the basis of emotion, not any more than a medical decision is based on emotion. That does not mean there are not some cases, albeit a very small number, where the decision requires judgment. I would say that unless telling would put the child’s life in danger, a child should not be baptized secretly. The child deserves to know, the parent deserve to know. You must tell the pastor of the parish in which the child is baptized, as well. If it is decided to do it because the situation requires it, do it, be honest about it, and take the consequences. If you are trying to implant baptism like a clandestine microchip, don’t do it.

I am not 100% convinced one way or the other in the case of the grandchild in the case where the child’s life is in danger, but if I were a grandparent I’d find myself duty-bound to consult with those having pastoral authority and learn more about what the boundaries were. The more likely you are to have this issue arise with you, the more I’d think you’d need to consider this part of your particular Catholic education.

 

[Rau]

§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

In this case, the law relaxes the normal boundaries and does not force the faithful to perform a baptism, but do allow it. When “the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law says 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’,” the intention is not to say that the action is either required or forbidden. It says that it is permissible, that there is an ethical call to make, much like a physician would have to make in the case of a person who has not matured enough to make their own decision.
But it doesn’t sound convincing - a bit like fence-sitting. The church neither encourages, nor discourages, nor gives guidance on the relevant ‘swing factors’. I struggle to see the point of a baptism separated from a Catholic upbringing, nor do I see how there can be a negative consequence for an infant dying absent baptism.

 

[HandyAndy]

**§2. **An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

IOW, don’t wait for the pastor or an ordinary minister if there is a danger of death before baptism.

Firstly…thank you for a well researched reply.

The above however still implies that the Baptism of an infant is of an urgent nature and I believe would not allay the fears that would be expressed by a grand parent in the position in question.

Rau:

EasterJoy:

§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

In this case, the law relaxes the normal boundaries and does not force the faithful to perform a baptism, but do allow it. When “the New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law says 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’,” the intention is not to say that the action is either required or forbidden. It says that it is permissible, that there is an ethical call to make, much like a physician would have to make in the case of a person who has not matured enough to make their own decision.

But it doesn’t sound convincing - a bit like fence-sitting. The church neither encourages, nor discourages, nor gives guidance on the relevant ‘swing factors’. I struggle to see the point of a baptism separated from a Catholic upbringing, nor do I see how there can be a negative consequence for an infant dying absent baptism.

From what I’m picking up…the church can only give clear direction on what it knows to be true, i.e. “…that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacrament of Baptism.”

From what the church can reasonably assume is that its findings “…provide strong grounds for the hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them, what we would have wished to do; namely; to Baptize them into the faith and life of the church.”

For the unbaptized infant “the church can only entrust them to the mercy of God.” and “All the more urgent is the church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of Holy Baptism.”

“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered above, give us serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that the unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the Beatic Vision. We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge.”

“None of the above considerations should be taken as qualifying the necessity of Baptism…or justifying delay in administering the sacrament.”

So…Looks like it comes down to what we know to be true…and what we can reasonably hope to be true.

This is the reason I guess we are urged to act without delay on what we know to be true…and trust with reasonable hope and faith in what we believe to be true. Hope and faith over lies and deceit? I think we can all see the right choice and the one that is more in keeping with faith and trust.****

 

[dedo]

This is an emotive issue, and I can see both sides…and the emotions attached to each. It would be a hardened heart that could not stand in the others shoes in order to gain perspective. Personal attacks don’t really achieve much and are actually more destructive than constructive. As I’ve mentioned before…even the church has spent much time in deliberation over this topic. With a little humility and a compassionate heart…we may all actually be the wiser for this thread.

Indeed. What alarms me about this thread is the propensity of people to condemn in group

There are several examples of this in the New Testament and Jesus handled them differently. Sometimes He just walked away, and other times He confronted the mob.

I have dealt with my share of family conflicts including one person coming to me with another’s wrongs. My initial reflex is always to “water the good” and turn the focus of the person to what the object of the complaint does well.

Our sermon at Mass yesterday was summed up with the admonition to seek compassion and forgiveness in every circumstance. The priest did not say in every circumstance except where you can find a fault.

The overwhelming consensus here is the grandparents made a mistake.

The disturbing part is the lack of seeking reconciliation by the many of posters in favor of condemnation.

I don’t know what the future holds for this couple and setting boundaries is an important skill for any young couple. Over the years, I have learned to be subtle, gentle, but firm when I set boundaries.

The road of zealous condemnation, ignoring the religious foundation of your children, and zero self reflection are alarming to say the least and are more alarming to me than grand parents that crossed a boundary. I hope the couple and the grandparents communicate. If the husband chooses to start a battle with his in-laws, over time the wife is highly likely to side with her family.

Also, to the nonbelievers who look for any reason to justify your actions, I sincerely hope you do take a look at Padre Pio’s writings. In the ones I have read, the Padre answered the false arguments you make in the most direct and truthful way possible.

At the end of the day, we are all answerable for what we do and say.

The entire Christian religion is founded on love of God, neighbor, and self and reading a few passages of the Catechism is not going to be a valid excuse to ignore that foundation, even if you have a lot of company.

Sometimes it is difficult to know when and where to “take a stand” on a moral issue. For example could the grand parents have done something so egregious that it justifies a firm response? When this dilemma crosses my mind, I try and look at the person / entity that has committed the offense and especially look at whether the person / group is strong or weak, and are they hurting others who are weak.

In this case the grand parents are weak. They are not in any kind of a pattern of committing harm to those weaker than themselves. Standing up to the weak is not an act of bravery, but the opposite.

If you want to take a moral stand and be sure you are on the right side of an issue, then stand up to those who harm people weaker than themselves. That usually means you are standing up to groups and governments, not grandparents.

 

[EasterJoy]

…disturbing part is the lack of seeking reconciliation by the many of posters in favor of condemnation…

…The road of zealous condemnation, ignoring the religious foundation of your children, and zero self reflection are alarming to say the least and are more alarming to me than grand parents that crossed a boundary. I hope the couple and the grandparents communicate. If the husband chooses to start a battle with his in-laws, over time the wife is highly likely to side with her family.

Also, to the nonbelievers who look for any reason to justify your actions, I sincerely hope you do take a look at Padre Pio’s writings. In the ones I have read, the Padre answered the false arguments you make in the most direct and truthful way possible.

At the end of the day, we are all answerable for what we do and say.

If anyone thinks that we will be able to point the finger at some old geezer and say, they are the reason that I ignored scores of warnings and admonitions to live a different life then you are sadly mistaken.

The entire Christian religion is founded on love of God, neighbor, and self and reading a few passages of the Catechism is not going to be a valid excuse to ignore that foundation, even if you have a lot of company.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. The problem is not that the OP is condemning his in-laws or making them out to be horrible people. He’s not. He’s being very reasonable, and he does not hate them or anything like that. He also “gets” why they did what they did. He and his wife are not keeping them away from their children, either.

The problem is that his in-laws will not admit they have anything to repent about. The consensus here is that the grandparents made mistake, yes, but the grandparents don’t see it that way! They are in the “it is too bad we got caught” frame of mind, which means that they feel justified in choosing for themselves what is best for their grandchildren, regardless of what Mom and Dad say. Well, of course if a parent has relatives who will do things behind their back with their kids, they make sure they stick close by when the kids are with those relatives.

This is not a huge deal. Many grandparents won’t babysit for their grandchildren, and many can’t because small children are too much for them. It is perfectly possible to have a normal relationship with your grandparents without ever having them as your primary caretaker. This is the kind of relationship the OP and his wife have decided on. In a way it is too bad, but in a way it is also not such a big deal, because the OP and his wife like spending time with her parents, too. There is no reason this has to be a big deal.

 

[Indyann]

I am in awe at the lack of ill will that the OP has in regard to his in-laws!
In fact, he even stated that they were “annoyed with them.” I would be extremely angry. What the GP did was unthinkable. I don’t buy that they did not know canon law and didn’t know it was wrong. Common sense would tell anyone with one brain cell that it was certainly “wrong” and objectively sinful.

And unless, they are both senile or victims of altzheimer’s, “old and Catholic” is no excuse.

It seems to me that all the forgiveness and compassion is on the side of the OP. The GP state they would do it again

If it were my children, it would be a looooong, loooong time before there was ever a chance to do anything again to my children.

 

[EasterJoy]

…I don’t buy that they did not know canon law and didn’t know it was wrong. Common sense would tell anyone with one brain cell that it was certainly “wrong” and objectively sinful…

Oh, I totally believe that they were unsure about the right thing to do. When your family has practiced the Catholic faith for a thousand years and your grandchildren are being denied that patrimony, of course it is difficult to stand by and “do nothing.”

For instance, if the grandparents belonged to an ethnic group and were secretly teaching their grandchildren the language and stories of their ancestors over their children’s prohibitions, it would be understandable, would it not? Well, the patrimony of eternal life is even more strongly something that grandparents would believe is the right of their grandchildren.

The thing is, though, the OP and his wife did not prohibit teaching the children about the faith. They prohibited initiating the children into the Church when the parents had no intention of taking up the duty of their formation. Still, the temptation is entirely understandable. It speaks well of the OP and his wife that they see that.

Another thing that the grandparents probably do not appreciate is that tactics that involve any kind of subterfuge or coercion are going to work against the return of their own children to the faith, too. That goal has to be kept in mind, too.

I think the OP and his wife are handling this situation as well as can be managed, all things considered. We have to hope and pray that they return to us, but in the meantime this is the best that can be managed.

 

[Indyann]

Oh, I totally believe that they were unsure about the right thing to do. When your family has practiced the Catholic faith for a thousand years and your grandchildren are being denied that patrimony, of course it is difficult to stand by and “do nothing.”
"
For instance, if the grandparents belonged to an ethnic group and were secretly teaching their grandchildren the language and stories of their ancestors over their children’s prohibitions, it would be understandable, would it not? Well, the patrimony of eternal life is even more strongly something that grandparents would believe is the right of their grandchildren.

The thing is, though, the OP and his wife did not prohibit teaching the children about the faith. They prohibited initiating the children into the Church when the parents had no intention of taking up the duty of their formation. Still, the temptation is entirely understandable. It speaks well of the OP and his wife that they see that.

Another thing that the grandparents probably do not appreciate is that tactics that involve any kind of subterfuge or coercion are going to work against the return of their own children to the faith, too. That goal has to be kept in mind, too.

I think the OP and his wife are handling this situation as well as can be managed, all things considered. We have to hope and pray that they return to us, but in the meantime this is the best that can be managed.

I am afraid I will have to disagree in part. I don’t believe that they were unsure of the “right thing to do”,else why would they do it in secret?

And I have 12 grandchildren who have not been baptized in the Catholic Church. Yes, the temptation is understandable, but I could never, never, never actually intrude on my children’s marriages in that manner. It breaks my heart, but all my children know how I feel and I pray daily for them all and leave it in God’s Hands.

If GP were teaching anything to my children that I had explicitly voiced that I did not agree with, that would definitely be an issue. It is the parents sole right to raise their children as they see fit. (excluding neglect, isolation, etc)

BTW, I am “old and Catholic” too, and I cannot imagine doing such a despicable act, tempting though it may be.

 

[EasterJoy]

I am afraid I will have to disagree in part. I don’t believe that they were unsure of the “right thing to do”,else why would they do it in secret?

And I have 12 grandchildren who have not been baptized in the Catholic Church. Yes, the temptation is understandable, but I could never, never, never actually intrude on my children’s marriages in that manner. It breaks my heart, but all my children know how I feel and I pray daily for them all and leave it in God’s Hands.

If GP were teaching anything to my children that I had explicitly voiced that I did not agree with, that would definitely be an issue. It is the parents sole right to raise their children as they see fit. (excluding neglect, isolation, etc)

BTW, I am “old and Catholic” too, and I cannot imagine doing such a despicable act, tempting though it may be.

There is objective sin–that is, there are offences which are objectively wrong acts, also called material offenses–and there is formal sin, in which the person not only does what is wrong, but is also guilty in their conscience before God.

A person who leaves the Christian faith, as the daughter has apparently done, is materially an apostate. (If she is still a Christian but has only left the Catholic Church, she is materially in schism.) A person who performs a sacrament illicitly is likewise *materially guilty *of a serious offense against the sacrament.

The compassion in this situation is that the grandparents, seeing their daughter is materially committing apostasy, are willing to believe that she may not be guilty in her conscience before God. They are willing to believe that she is doing her best, but that somehow in spite of their teaching in her childhood, her conscience has become malformed. The OP and his wife, meanwhile, see that the wife’s parents have materially violated their rights as parents, not to mention Church laws concerning baptism. They, too, however, are in compassion and a desire to extend charity wiling to believe the parents have misinformed consciences, and so perhaps are not guilty in their consciences before God of this offense. In both cases: maybe there is formal sin, but maybe there is not, and each party is willing to suspend judgment on the other even while trying to get the other to recognize their wrong-headedness and repent from it.

I think it is charitable that both sides are willing to believe that there is a chance that the other party is acting according to honest conscience. Yes, when we accept better, we have to do better. Until we do better, however, it is compassionate for others to believe that we are accepting as much of the truth as we are currently, in our human weakness, able to do. Since the parents see evidence of human weakness in the grandparents, it is no lack of compassion for them to take that into account when arranging visits between grandparents and grandchildren.

IOW, you may be absolutely right, but it is good if the OP and his wife can put the best possible interpretation on her parent’s actions, and impose only those consequences they need to impose in order to head off future transgressions of a similar kind. They are doing very well, and provided that they are not violating their own consciences with regards to having left the Church, they are to be commended.

 

[HandyAndy]

David011…My sincerest apologies.

The grand parents were wrong in doing what they have done. Their lack of faith has led them to succumb to the ways of Satan. A means to an end. The tools of deceit are not those used by God.
The Baptismal grace has been tainted by sin. The end results are all too self evident…a family in disunity.
I believe that you will now be able to respectfully converse with the grand parents and gently point out the error of their thinking. Whilst perhaps well intended…they used evil works…deceit…as a means to an end. This is never the path of God. Their doubts and fears have made them susceptible to evil works and led them off the path of faith and trust in God.

I have learned much. Thank you.

 

[Rau]

I am afraid I will have to disagree in part. I don’t believe that they were unsure of the “right thing to do”,else why would they do it in secret?

I’m sure the GPs knew that their actions would greatly annoy the parents - but they saw this as a tolerable risk attached to what was otherwise (in their opinion) a good thing.

Whether they knew the canon law is for us unknowable.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m sure the GPs knew that their actions would greatly annoy the parents - but they saw this as a tolerable risk attached to what was otherwise (in their opinion) a good thing.

Whether they knew the canon law is for us unknowable.

The OP’s wife (and I think the OP, too) is apparently a confirmed Catholic, and by what we gather she has by her conscience decided that in spite of canon law she is not obliged to remain in the Church or to raise her children in it. Surely she understands that even if her parents know a canon law they might yet feel duty-bound to break it, because she has been in that spot herself.

This issue is more about her parents breaking* her *rules while she acts against the rules of life *her parents raised her *to live by. She is being compassionate with them, which is good of her and her husband, because while obviously they see what the grandparents did as a grave offense against them, they also understand how these choices sometimes come about.

You have to say this for them: They’re defending their own boundaries, but they don’t have a double standard when it comes to compassion about acts of conscience. As the Gospel says, “For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.” Matt. 7:2. Surely even someone who doesn’t follow the Gospel can see the fairness in that maxim. It seems this family does, and that is a good thing.

 

[HandyAndy]

If one were to step back from this situation and give thought to the forces of good and evil at play here…one can’t help but perhaps…ponder on the force for evil…and how he has taken the sacrament of Baptism…and through his cunning has in effect:-
. Mocked it by staining it with a deception on the part of the grand parents.
. Drawn the grandparents into his realm, where they have failed in their trust and faith in God.
. Has created division within a family which may lead to further anger and destruction within it.
. Opened the possibility for these issues of anger and trust, to spill over to the grand children via parents and/or grand parents.
. He may in effect, claim three generations through the one act of deceit.

Certainly something to think about.

 

[dedo]

Declaring grandparents to be part of the forces of evil?

That may be eligible for an Olympic medal for bullocks.

If you want to fight evil, then fight the strong who harm the weak – especially in groups.

Throughout history, you can see scores of examples of people who join groups to declare the weak as “evil”. Usually they are targeting an individual or small group of women, minorities, animals, etc. who cannot defend themselves.

Declaring the weak as “evil” justifies their despicable behavior.

One scholar made a famous quote that all the criminal violence in the world is insignificant compared to the violence of groups.

So if you want to make even criminals look like amateurs, join a group and attack the weak.

 

[HandyAndy]

Declaring grandparents to be part of the forces of evil?

Steady up! No one said they were evil.

I was merely pointing out that all of us can so easily be tempted and fall from grace. We can become so focused on the right of it all…that we justify the means to achieve it.

Perhaps you didn’t step back quite far enough. lol