Kids not Catholic

[recentrevert]

Parish Priest says he won’t baptize them unless mother agrees. Dad wants them to be full Catholics and the kids do too. My son knows I baptized them myself. Don’t even know if this is legit. The kids want to know why they aren’t good enough to receive Communion. I try to explain without blaming the parent who refuses. The kids are observing Lent. I teach them about Catholic Sacraments and traditions.

If the children believe in the teachings of the Church and genuinely desire baptism then priest whose job it is to save souls should not deny them that just because of their mother. Neither he nor the children need the mother’s permission (or the father’s) now that they are above the age of reason. If the baptism you gave them was valid (you intended to baptise them and you poured water over them while saying 'I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) then they are already baptised and need preparation to receive Confession, Communion and Confirmation.

If it is the case that the children genuinely accept the teachings of the Church and desire baptism (or to receive the other sacraments) but the priest will not do it without the mother’s permission you should tell him that canon law does not require the parent’s permission and if he still refuses report him to his bishop and ask the bishop to intervene to make sure they are not kept out of the Church and away from the Sacraments.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Baptising an infant in danger of death is a good thing though - even if the parents foam at the mouth.

Also, I am not defending illicit baptism, but Catholicism is true and Mormonism and Wicca are false.

Baptism is a holy thing and should not be used as a weapon in a passive aggressive game involving a child or grandchild. The primary educators of the faith are parents. For a grandparent to do this in secret without permission is horrendous. It’s actually one of the worst things you could do. Anyone who thinks they should do this to a grandchild in secret is in my opinion dangerous. If one truly believed they were doing a holy thing they should have no problem fessing up and owning it.
Subverting the parents in matters of faith is at best cowardly and misguided, at worst it is blasphemous and evil.

 

[recentrevert]

Baptism is a holy thing and should not be used as a weapon in a passive aggressive game involving a child or grandchild. The primary educators of the faith are parents. For a grandparent to do this in secret without permission is horrendous. It’s actually one of the worst things you could do. Anyone who thinks they should do this to a grandchild in secret is in my opinion dangerous. If one truly believed they were doing a holy thing they should have no problem fessing up and owning it.
Subverting the parents in matters of faith is at best cowardly and misguided, at worst it is blasphemous and evil.

To baptise an infant below the age of reason who is not in danger of death against the will of both parents is wrong, yes.
To baptise a child in danger of death is a very good thing to do, regardless of the will of the parents, who do not own the child (God does).
To help grandchildren over the age of reason to receive baptism and the sacraments against their parents’ will is a good thing to do - it could even be an obligation in charity.

 

[KnitNut]

To help grandchildren over the age of reason to receive baptism and the sacraments against their parents’ will is a good thing to do - it could even be an obligation in charity.

Okay, apart from potentially violating court orders (see also, divorce decree), which could well get a no-contact/no-religious-involvement order for Grandma, if the mom brings it back to court…

How, exactly, are the “over the age of reason” children supposed to get to their formation classes behind mom’s back?

How, exactly, are the children going to fulfill their new obligations, like all the obligatory attendance, behind mom’s back? (Or are we thumping the letter of the law only when we want to?)

And how is it possibly in keeping with those pesky Commandments, to do all this behind mom’s back and in direct disobedience to her priest? This is perhaps the most grave issue of the scenario, for an adult, practicing Catholic.

 

[Lou2U]

Also, I am not defending illicit baptism, but Catholicism is true and Mormonism and Wicca are false.

It doesn’t matter, though. A baptism should be done with consent from both parents and the Priest. Unless in danger of death, no child should be baptised without this consent.

Of course to you Catholicism is true. But to the mother of these children, it is not. Her wishes should have been respected, and the OP should not have gone behind her back because it’s now creating conflict between the children and the mother. It was not the OP’s place to do so, no matter how good the intentions.

Lou

 

[recentrevert]

Okay, apart from potentially violating court orders (see also, divorce decree), which could well get a no-contact/no-religious-involvement order for Grandma, if the mom brings it back to court…

How, exactly, are the “over the age of reason” children supposed to get to their formation classes behind mom’s back?

How, exactly, are the children going to fulfill their new obligations, like all the obligatory attendance, behind mom’s back? (Or are we thumping the letter of the law only when we want to?)

And how is it possibly in keeping with those pesky Commandments, to do all this behind mom’s back and in direct disobedience to her priest? This is perhaps the most grave issue of the scenario, for an adult, practicing Catholic.

It might be that the grandmother would end up in trouble, possibly. The children could receive their formation when they are not around their mother. The children are not bound by the Sunday Mass obligation or other church laws if it would genuinely be too difficult to follow them. The fourth commandment does not tell us to put authority over Christ. The whole purpose of life is to know and love God and it is hardly possible to persevere in this outside the Church. And what are you talking about ‘disobedience’ to her priest? I said she should speak to the priest and get him to baptise/instruct the children or report the priest to his bishop if he would not.

 

[recentrevert]

It doesn’t matter, though. A baptism should be done with consent from both parents and the Priest. Unless in danger of death, no child should be baptised without this consent.

Of course to you Catholicism is true. But to the mother of these children, it is not. Her wishes should have been respected, and the OP should not have gone behind her back because it’s now creating conflict between the children and the mother. It was not the OP’s place to do so, no matter how good the intentions.

Lou

We agree then that there is objective morality - that some things are actually right and others are actually wrong regardless of our own opinions about what is and is not right or wrong? Because you say ‘should’ and ‘should not’ it seems you believe these things are actually right and wrong not just your own opinions.

 

[KnitNut]

It might be that the grandmother would end up in trouble, possibly. The children could receive their formation when they are not around their mother. The children are not bound by the Sunday Mass obligation or other church laws if it would genuinely be too difficult to follow them. The fourth commandment does not tell us to put authority over Christ. The whole purpose of life is to know and love God and it is hardly possible to persevere in this outside the Church. And what are you talking about ‘disobedience’ to her priest? I said she should speak to the priest and get him to baptise/instruct the children or report the priest to his bishop if he would not.

The priest already has been asked and refused. (And perhaps Don Ruggero or any of the other Catholic priests here would clarify this next part?) My understanding is, your priests will only baptize if there is a reasonable belief that the children will be “raised” Catholic. Since the children do not live with the grandmother (nor the father, it seems), and since the mother appears to have control over the children’s religious formation, I don’t see how a priest could possibly believe they’ll be raised Catholic. (Remember, the kids are older - they’ve gone unformed for a very long time…which raises the question of the dad’s involvement/determination here…it sounds like the grandmother is the only one really digging in on this, and stirring up the kids.)

As for your comment, “The whole purpose of life is to know and love God and it is hardly possible to persevere in this outside the Church,” you are setting yourself against your very own Pope and Magisterium. Do you hold Vatican II to be an authentic Catholic Ecumenical Council, and do you adhere to its teachings?

 

[Lou2U]

We agree then that there is objective morality - that some things are actually right and others are actually wrong regardless of our own opinions about what is and is not right or wrong? Because you say ‘should’ and ‘should not’ it seems you believe these things are actually right and wrong not just your own opinions.

So what is your opinion? Do you believe the OP to be in the right to go against the mother’s wishes (and the Priest’s) by baptising the children?

It isn’t the OP’s place to decide on religion for her grandchildren.

Lou

 

[recentrevert]

The priest already has been asked and refused. (And perhaps Don Ruggero or any of the other Catholic priests here would clarify this next part?) My understanding is, your priests will only baptize if there is a reasonable belief that the children will be “raised” Catholic. Since the children do not live with the grandmother (nor the father, it seems), and since the mother appears to have control over the children’s religious formation, I don’t see how a priest could possibly believe they’ll be raised Catholic. (Remember, the kids are older - they’ve gone unformed for a very long time…which raises the question of the dad’s involvement/determination here…it sounds like the grandmother is the only one really digging in on this, and stirring up the kids.)

As for your comment, “The whole purpose of life is to know and love God and it is hardly possible to persevere in this outside the Church,” you are setting yourself against your very own Pope and Magisterium. Do you hold Vatican II to be an authentic Catholic Ecumenical Council, and do you adhere to its teachings?

The priest might have refused for unsound reasons - e.g. a false belief that he needs or ought to have the consent of the parents to instruct and administer the sacraments to children above the age of reason. I could be that the priest had other, genuine reasons, I don’t know.

The priest only needs a founded hope that the children will be raised Catholic to baptise infants below the age of reason. If the children are older and request baptism or the sacraments he cannot refuse them unless they are unfit to receive them. Once they reach the age of reason (approximately seven) they are capable of making these decisions themselves and must not be hindered from entering or remaining within the Church out of respect for the parents.

The Second Vatican Council did not teach that it is easy or common for those outside the visible Church to persevere and achieve salvation. The Second Vatican Council was indeed an authentic council of the Church. I am not setting myself against the Pope and the Magisterium at all - that is a baseless assertion.

 

[recentrevert]

So what is your opinion? Do you believe the OP to be in the right to go against the mother’s wishes (and the Priest’s) by baptising the children?

It isn’t the OP’s place to decide on religion for her grandchildren.

Lou

I was asking a serious question actually, do you believe in objective right and wrong? The OP did wrong in baptising the children illicitly but now they are old enough to accept the Faith for themselves she does well to teach them it and to get them baptised validly (If the original baptism was invalid) and help them to receive the other sacraments. The mother has no right to stop the children entering the Church although it is easy to see how she might think she has.

 

[Lou2U]

I was asking a serious question actually, do you believe in objective right and wrong? The OP did wrong in baptising the children illicitly but now they are old enough to accept the Faith for themselves she does well to teach them it and to get them baptised validly (If the original baptism was invalid) and help them to receive the other sacraments. The mother has no right to stop the children entering the Church although it is easy to see how she might think she has.

I wasn’t arguing for an objective right or wrong. I was arguing that despite the OP’s (and your) belief that Catholicism is true, the mother obviously does not believe so, and her place shouldn’t have been usurped by a grandparent.

As far as I understand it, the baptism is valid, but illicit. Unless the children were in immediate danger of death, the OP should not have baptised them. This can be seen from the Priest’s refusal to baptise the children unless both parents agree to raise their children in the Catholic faith. If there is no hope that the children will actually be brought up as Catholics, they shouldn’t be baptised, which is taught by the Church. We don’t know how often the children see their father and grandmother, but if the mother is the primary carer, there isn’t enough hope for her to raise the children Catholic.

Now that the children are above the age of reason, they should have a say in their religious upbringing, I agree. The problem is that the OP took away the mother’s decision into their faith, which was not her place to do so.

Lou

 

[recentrevert]

I wasn’t arguing for an objective right or wrong. I was arguing that despite the OP’s (and your) belief that Catholicism is true, the mother obviously does not believe so, and her place shouldn’t have been usurped by a grandparent.

As far as I understand it, the baptism is valid, but illicit. Unless the children were in immediate danger of death, the OP should not have baptised them. This can be seen from the Priest’s refusal to baptise the children unless both parents agree to raise their children in the Catholic faith. If there is no hope that the children will actually be brought up as Catholics, they shouldn’t be baptised, which is taught by the Church. We don’t know how often the children see their father and grandmother, but if the mother is the primary carer, there isn’t enough hope for her to raise the children Catholic.

Now that the children are above the age of reason, they should have a say in their religious upbringing, I agree. The problem is that the OP took away the mother’s decision into their faith, which was not her place to do so.

Lou

The problem really is that the grandmother treated the sacrament of baptism unworthily by baptising infants who would not be brought up Catholic. However, the consent of only one parent or guardian is needed for a lawful infant baptism because the good of the child’s soul outweighs the need to respect the parent’s will.

It is what you say about right and wrong that interest me. You say you are not arguing for objective morality but you say ‘should’ and ‘shouldn’t’ . What can this mean other than you believe we are subject to obligations? That the grandmother did wrong?

 

[Lou2U]

The problem really is that the grandmother treated the sacrament of baptism unworthily by baptising infants who would not be brought up Catholic. However, the consent of only one parent or guardian is needed for a lawful infant baptism because the good of the child’s soul outweighs the need to respect the parent’s will.

That being said, if the mother has primary custody, it is unlikely the children will be raised Catholic, which could have given the Priest a reason to refuse unless both agreed. The OP should now inform her Priest that she has already baptised the children, because it doesn’t need to be done again.

It is what you say about right and wrong that interest me. You say you are not arguing for objective morality but you say ‘should’ and ‘shouldn’t’ . What can this mean other than you believe we are subject to obligations? That the grandmother did wrong?

I do believe that the grandmother did wrong. She took upon herself something that is frowned on by the Church, has gone against the mother’s wishes and done something that the Priest would not. For these reasons, I say she should not have baptised them.

Lou

 

[KnitNut]

Now that the children are above the age of reason, they should have a say in their religious upbringing, I agree. The problem is that the OP took away the mother’s decision into their faith, which was not her place to do so.

Apart from the children having a “say”, they also have to present themselves for formation. A simple “yes” isn’t enough if they are truly above an “age of reason”. The children don’t appear to be enrolled in a religious education program (indeed, if the relative was going to sneak them into the communion line). It’s also not clear how frequently the children are with the other relatives to be exposed to anything from the faith. With the information we have, how could a priest, the guardian of the chalice, permit their reception? Because if we’re going to argue that they are “old enough to decide” then they must also be old enough to attend formation, etc. (And I guarantee you, no court is likely to compel the custodial parent, 13 years after the fact, to bring said children to a church to which that parent does not subscribe.) Likewise, the priest is possibly unwilling to become involved in what seems to be a sort of family feud, pitting himself against a custodial parent (with presumably binding court orders following the divorce) in favor of the other parent, or a grandparent. (We still don’t know what dad’s situation is, here. I think this grandmother has probably tried the normal path - asking the parents to enroll the kids in classes, offering to bring them, etc…and that hasn’t worked. Hence the discussion of alternate options.)

Really, absent the buy-in from mom (or a change of custody), the kids are going to have to wait until the priest agrees - perhaps when the oldest is driving and can get to services/classes on his/her own, for example.

 

[recentrevert]

That being said, if the mother has primary custody, it is unlikely the children will be raised Catholic, which could have given the Priest a reason to refuse unless both agreed. The OP should now inform her Priest that she has already baptised the children, because it doesn’t need to be done again.

I do believe that the grandmother did wrong. She took upon herself something that is frowned on by the Church, has gone against the mother’s wishes and done something that the Priest would not. For these reasons, I say she should not have baptised them.

Lou

Yes, the OP does need to tell the priest that she has baptised the children so that they can work out whether the baptism was valid and record it but I think she said she had already done that.

A Catholic would have to agree with you that what the grandmother did was wrong. She actually did something the Church forbids and has gone against the parents’ wishes in a matter that must be left to them until the children are able to choose for themselves.

What is important now though, is that she examines her conscience and makes a good confession if she sees that she has seriously, knowingly sinned. As far as the children are concerned she must do what she can to teach them the Faith and get them to the sacraments. If the baptism was valid they are already Catholics.

 

[deaconjohnO]

she must do what she can to teach them the Faith and get them to the sacraments. .

Which consists of talking to the parish priest regarding the matter. There is nothing that mentions the desire of the children to receive the sacraments and become full practicing members of the Church in the OP’s remarks.

The Children are at the age of reason so the only thing Grandma can really do here is take the kids to the local parish and have them fully informed of what they are getting themselves into which is quite a bit more than attending a communal penance service and reception of the eucharist at Easter time. In fact the more you look at it, the grandkids likely should be placed in a process of reception of the remaining sacraments of initiation. This means reception of the sacraments in the correct order.

Now with this in mind we cannot ignore the fact that these children are minors and Grandma may not be the person who has custodial rights. Going against a parental guardians wishes may or may not have some sticky civil issues. (I am not a lawyer so I wouldn’t know)

We do know this though. Sneaking the kids into a communal penance service and then having them get in the communion line at Easter is likely not the way Mother Church intends the process to unfold. The children should be given the opportunity to express their earnest desire to begin the process of completing the sacraments of initiation. I think the representative of the church (the parish priest) would be the person who decides what course to take.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I want to teach my grandkids about the Eucharist and let them take Holy Communion on Easter for the first time. They are 13, 11 and 9. I baptized them when they were babies. Parents are divorced. One parent won’t allow them to be brought up in the church. I will take them to the Parish Penance Service since they won’t have the Sacrament of Reconciliation. What are the repercussions for them and for myself.

What you have done is truly reprehensible.

It constitutes a serious abuse of the sacrament of baptism.

It also is to commit repeated acts that are outside of ecclesial communion with those who properly and uniquely have the care of souls and the moderation of the liturgy and of the sacraments: namely the pastor of the parish where the grandchildren are canonically domiciled as well as the bishop of the diocese where that parish is located.

Canon Law properly guides the pastor in the decision that is actually his to make – either to admit a child to the sacraments or to defer the administration of the sacraments. Ecclesial governance is to be respected.

It is only in a situation of danger of death and with the impossibility of getting a sacred minister (bishop, priest, or deacon) that a lay person should proceed to baptise an infant. In such a case, there is a liturgical ceremony that is to be conducted as soon as possible afterward to supply, by a sacred minister, the rites that are missing and to duly record the baptism in the sacramental register.

This sort of baptism is NEVER to be done when the reason is that you do not agree with the decision of the pastor or because of parental opposition.

You would grossly compound the offenses you have already committed by doing what you propose. It is the responsibility of the pastor to determine that a child has been adequately prepared to be admitted to first confession and first Communion.

These children are, in fact, not Catholic and have no business receiving either the sacrament of reconciliation or the sacrament of the Eucharist, least of all by subterfuge.

You have put them into an ecclesiastical no-man’s land by your illicit actions. A determination would have to be made as to whether or not the baptisms were valid. Personally, as a priest, I would conditionally baptise them. They would need to be admitted to the Church by a formal act. They would need to be admitted to a programme to properly prepare them to receive the remaining sacraments of initiation: first reconciliation, first Communion, and Confirmation through their proper canonical parish.

What you are doing is not only grievously injurious to your own soul and destructive to your own relationship to the Church, you are setting up your grandchildren for the eventual discovery that they have no sacramental records – either when they seek confirmation, marriage, or religious profession or holy order – and no affiliation with the Church.

Now…Beyond this canonical quagmire is the actual situation of the parents. All else being equal, and where it truly concerns infants, the consent of one parent is sufficient relative to Canon 868. That presumes, however, that the other parent is not adamantly opposed. Given the presence of a divorce, and above all if there is a court imposed custody arrangement, neither the parish priest (nor the bishop) will act in a manner that contravenes the finding of civil authorities relative to religious accommodation…nor should they; the diocese would risk being justly found in contempt of court.

IF the children wish to be received into the Catholic Church and IF the custodial parent was to consent, that needs to be worked out with the canonical pastor of these children, who needs to be informed of the illicit baptisms as that knowledge will alter the procedure of what the priest would need to do to resolve this most unfortunate situation. If the custodial parent remains opposed, the children will need to wait until they have reached adulthood. There, too, the priest would need to be informed of the illicit baptism.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

If the children believe in the teachings of the Church and genuinely desire baptism then priest whose job it is to save souls should not deny them that just because of their mother. Neither he nor the children need the mother’s permission (or the father’s) now that they are above the age of reason. If the baptism you gave them was valid (you intended to baptise them and you poured water over them while saying 'I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) then they are already baptised and need preparation to receive Confession, Communion and Confirmation.

If it is the case that the children genuinely accept the teachings of the Church and desire baptism (or to receive the other sacraments) but the priest will not do it without the mother’s permission you should tell him that canon law does not require the parent’s permission and if he still refuses report him to his bishop and ask the bishop to intervene to make sure they are not kept out of the Church and away from the Sacraments.

This is simply not correct. No diocese in fact would allow a priest to administer sacraments to a child at or above the age of reason in the face of parental opposition…least of all in a situation such as is described here.

Such an action is to put the Church and her ministers in legal jeopardy. I have worked with teenagers older than these children who wanted to become Catholic but their parent(s) were opposed; they needed to wait until they were adults to realise their desire to be Catholic. The matter is very simple and resolves in a matter of a relative few years.

Citing canon law, that he already quite well knows, to a pastor of a parish is really not an endearing thing to do. We quite know it. And you will find that a bishop, when informed that a priest declined to administer sacraments to a minor child whose custodial parent adamantly opposed the child receiving said sacraments, will not only support the priest’s decision he would act sternly to any other response.

I can only think you have not actually worked in a diocese, least of all in the 21st century with its propensity for litigation. There is good reason today that quite often at least one of the chancery officials is a civil lawyer, able to give the bishop, the members of his curia, and the priests of the diocese sound legal counsel.

If the child(ren) wish(es) to be Catholic, they can become Catholic when they are an adult.

 

[Kevin12]

I was asking a serious question actually, do you believe in objective right and wrong? The OP did wrong in baptising the children illicitly but now they are old enough to accept the Faith for themselves she does well to teach them it and to get them baptised validly (If the original baptism was invalid) and help them to receive the other sacraments. The mother has no right to stop the children entering the Church although it is easy to see how she might think she has.

Let me ask you something: since you think seven is the age of reason because ecclesiastical law says in can be so, I assume you have no problem with a seven year old marrying, right?

Oh, and actually, though you can certainly say the mother has no right to have any control over her children once they become seven if you like, and you can certainly advise people to complain to their Bishop about a priest who wouldn’t permit someone to catechize a child that according to canon law has the use of reason, there’s something called “prudence” that would suggest that in fact, the priest might actually be considering that once the mother finds out he’s going against her will with her children, will use the law of the land that says her children are not in the age of reason to prevent him from ever seeing him again. Just a thought.