Medical professionals and baptizing dying infants

[sw85]

I am interested in hearing people’s thoughts re: the baptism of dying infants in hospitals, where a priest or other qualified believer is not on hand to perform a baptism himself. Let’s take a few hypothetical situations.

May a doctor or nurse licitly baptize an infant (according to the proper form, matter, intention, etc.) under any of the following circumstances?

–The parents have expressly forbidden the baby’s baptism.

–The parents have not communicated disapproval or approval, but are known to be of a non-Christian religion.

–The parents have communicated no firm intention either way and are unavailable to give an answer (for instance, the mother died in labor and the father is present).

–The parents have communicated no firm intention either way and are nearby, but the baby’s death is so imminent that there is no time to consult them – e.g., it’s heart has just stopped and efforts to resuscitate it have failed.

Would you baptize a baby under any of these circumstances? To what extent do (or would) hospital regulations play a role in your decision? Would you do it if you knew you’d be fired if caught?

 

[Della]

I am interested in hearing people’s thoughts re: the baptism of dying infants in hospitals, where a priest or other qualified believer is not on hand to perform a baptism himself. Let’s take a few hypothetical situations.

May a doctor or nurse licitly baptize an infant (according to the proper form, matter, intention, etc.) under any of the following circumstances?

–The parents have expressly forbidden the baby’s baptism.

–The parents have not communicated disapproval or approval, but are known to be of a non-Christian religion.

–The parents have communicated no firm intention either way and are unavailable to give an answer (for instance, the mother died in labor and the father is present).

–The parents have communicated no firm intention either way and are nearby, but the baby’s death is so imminent that there is no time to consult them – e.g., it’s heart has just stopped and efforts to resuscitate it have failed.

Would you baptize a baby under any of these circumstances? To what extent do (or would) hospital regulations play a role in your decision? Would you do it if you knew you’d be fired if caught?

The answer is no. Unless one has the express permission of the parents no one should baptize a dying infant. That would be a violation of the parents’ rights. If infants die without baptism we entrust them to the mercy of God. Since they have no actual sin on their souls they will not be in danger of hell, but have a special place in God’s merciful heart.

 

[meltzerboy]

I am interested in hearing people’s thoughts re: the baptism of dying infants in hospitals, where a priest or other qualified believer is not on hand to perform a baptism himself. Let’s take a few hypothetical situations.

May a doctor or nurse licitly baptize an infant (according to the proper form, matter, intention, etc.) under any of the following circumstances?

–The parents have expressly forbidden the baby’s baptism.

–The parents have not communicated disapproval or approval, but are known to be of a non-Christian religion.

–The parents have communicated no firm intention either way and are unavailable to give an answer (for instance, the mother died in labor and the father is present).

–The parents have communicated no firm intention either way and are nearby, but the baby’s death is so imminent that there is no time to consult them – e.g., it’s heart has just stopped and efforts to resuscitate it have failed.

Would you baptize a baby under any of these circumstances? To what extent do (or would) hospital regulations play a role in your decision? Would you do it if you knew you’d be fired if caught?

I believe there was a thread on this topic a while back and the general consensus was that parents must give permission for their child to be baptized. I have no idea, however, what Church teaching is on the topic, or whether it is one of the gray areas. I would think if the parents are non-Christian or if they expressly forbid baptism, a priest (or a doctor or nurse) would be overstepping his authority by baptizing the baby. Some of your other scenarios are more challenging to me.

 

[Catholic90]

I am interested in hearing people’s thoughts re: the baptism of dying infants in hospitals, where a priest or other qualified believer is not on hand to perform a baptism himself. Let’s take a few hypothetical situations.

May a doctor or nurse licitly baptize an infant (according to the proper form, matter, intention, etc.) under any of the following circumstances?

–The parents have expressly forbidden the baby’s baptism. Absolutely NOT!

–The parents have not communicated disapproval or approval, but are known to be of a non-Christian religion. Absolutely NOT!

–The parents have communicated no firm intention either way and are unavailable to give an answer (for instance, the mother died in labor and the father is present). No!

–The parents have communicated no firm intention either way and are nearby, but the baby’s death is so imminent that there is no time to consult them – e.g., it’s heart has just stopped and efforts to resuscitate it have failed. No!

Would you baptize a baby under any of these circumstances? To what extent do (or would) hospital regulations play a role in your decision? Would you do it if you knew you’d be fired if caught?

The baby is the parent’s child. It is THEIR decision, not anyone elses, whether the baby should be baptized. God will take care of his children. God is a merciful God.

 

[Castello]

IF baptism really does what we “claim” it does, if it really washes away Original Sin - and if I actually firmly believe it I would be hard pressed to watch any person die and not offer to baptize them.

 

[Publisher]

My child died less than 30 minutes after he was born…I would be more than offended and outraged if I had found out anyone would have dared perform a water baptism on him…we do not share the belief in original sin…nor the efficacy of water baptism…it would be a grave insult and breach of trust to have had this occur…a deep betrayal of both my wife and I when we were devastated by our son’s death to begin with…why visit one more “injury” upon parents who are already hurting beyond measure?

 

[SonCatcher]

At the risk of being contrarian:
[SIGN]Yes![/SIGN]

In all cases if an infant is certainly dying, (s)he may be baptized licitly, even against the wishes of the parents.

This was discussed in a previous thread.

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).

 

[Daralharb]

Skipping ahead to the 2nd of the 4 last things, a possible scenario:

"Jesus: Dar, when you had the chance to baptize that dying infant, you refused to do so. What have you to say for yourself on this issue?

Dar: No excuse, Lord.

Jesus: Inexcusable actions can never have an excuse. Be damned."

Yeah, I’ll just go ahead and risk ticking off a couple of people in lieu of God.

 

[meltzerboy]

At the risk of being contrarian:
[SIGN]Yes![/SIGN]

In all cases if an infant is certainly dying, (s)he may be baptized licitly, even against the wishes of the parents.

This was discussed in a previous thread.

By non-Catholic, is the Canon referring to Protestant or other Christians, or to non-Christians as well? I assume, actually hope, only the former; but even this seems to me a breach of parental authority.

 

[SonCatcher]

My child died less than 30 minutes after he was born…I would be more than offended and outraged if I had found out anyone would have dared perform a water baptism on him…we do not share the belief in original sin…nor the efficacy of water baptism…it would be a grave insult and breach of trust to have had this occur…a deep betrayal of both my wife and I when we were devastated by our son’s death to begin with…why visit one more “injury” upon parents who are already hurting beyond measure?

Publisher, I understand the pain of loss of a child. However, I would find great relief if a hospital worker baptized my child.

 

[SonCatcher]

By non-Catholic, is the Canon referring to Protestant or other Christians, or to non-Christians as well? I assume, actually hope, only the former; but even this seems to me a breach of parental authority.

The latter, I’m afraid. So Catholic law does intrude in some way on non-Christians, I admit.

I think that most people in such situations would defer to the sensitivities of the parents or the possible civil repercussions of the “subversive” baptism and instead trust in the teaching from the Catechism:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[Castello]

By non-Catholic, is the Canon referring to Protestant or other Christians, or to non-Christians as well? I assume, actually hope, only the former; but even this seems to me a breach of parental authority.

Children are a gift from God, however, they are more of a “loan”. That child belongs in the end to God, not to the parents. It is a Christian’s duty to do right by a dying child and to baptize them.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher, I understand the pain of loss of a child. However, I would find great relief if a hospital worker baptized my child.

I guess I’m just too close to the hyothetical situation to be objective about it…it would be a breach of trust I had place in the medical “professionals” and a deceit on the part of those who I put my trust in to care for my child…not to mention a “nose thumb” at my own faith traditions…but…as I said…too close to be objective…I’d not be very charitable…and I’ll bow out of this discussion for the same reason…charity escapes me at the moment…it is offensive beyond words to me.

 

[meltzerboy]

Children are a gift from God, however, they are more of a “loan”. That child belongs in the end to God, not to the parents. It is a Christian’s duty to do right by a dying child and to baptize them.

I understand your reasoning and feelings but disagree with them. From my perspective, Christian charity demands respect for others’ beliefs and instruction should be by loving example.

 

[Daralharb]

I understand your reasoning and feelings but disagree with them. From my perspective, Christian charity demands respect for others’ beliefs and instruction should be by loving example.

That’s because you, and many here, do not have a modicum of a clue about the vast breadth of charity (love) and what forms love can take while still being love despite not appearing so.

Is it loving to watch someone live in sin without admonishing said sin? No.

Is it loving to tackle a person to keep them from getting hit by a truck? Yes, though the person who was tackled might not see it as such.

etc.

There is a very necessary aspect of love that is totally absent from the majority of Western minds: tough love.

Tough love makes the world a place where other forms can then flourish.

Kinda goes along with that whole “ruling with an iron rod” thing.

 

[meltzerboy]

That’s because you, and many here, do not have a modicum of a clue about the vast breadth of charity (love) and what forms love can take while still being love despite not appearing so.

Is it loving to watch someone live in sin without admonishing said sin? No.

Is it loving to tackle a person to keep them from getting hit by a truck? Yes, though the person who was tackled might not see it as such.

etc.

There is a very necessary aspect of love that is totally absent from the majority of Western minds: tough love.

Tough love makes the world a place where other forms can then flourish.

Kinda goes along with that whole “ruling with an iron rod” thing.

I’m well aware of the concept of tough love and, in certain instances, agree with it. However, in this instance, we’re talking about grieving parents whose baby is dying. Do you believe tough love is applicable here?

 

[Daralharb]

I’m well aware of the concept of tough love and, in certain instances, agree with it. However, in this instance, we’re talking about grieving parents whose baby is dying. Do you believe tough love is applicable here?

Even more so! Tough love doesn’t have to be offensive (though it often is to some).

No one says it has to be this huge production.

The situation as presented is a little iffy, considering that most medical professionals are not going to quit applying medical procedures until the Doctor “calls” the death. Postmortem baptism, by definition, is pointless. Such a situation would result in “conditional baptism” wherein the preface to the “I baptize thee…” rubric is “if thou art alive…”.

This is such a “what if” situation, we’re gonna find ourselves running in circles whilst the door we walked through has a sign on the other side which says, “Dept. of Pointless Discourse”.

Now… about all those hospitals that circumcise without permission and then make money from the foreskins… THAT is an argument worth having as it involves blatant mutilation of a child. The excuse? “It’s good for them” or “It’s healthier”. Somehow, though, their soul is just reduced to parental property? That dog don’t hunt.

 

[Allegra]

My child died less than 30 minutes after he was born…I would be more than offended and outraged if I had found out anyone would have dared perform a water baptism on him…we do not share the belief in original sin…nor the efficacy of water baptism…it would be a grave insult and breach of trust to have had this occur…a deep betrayal of both my wife and I when we were devastated by our son’s death to begin with…why visit one more “injury” upon parents who are already hurting beyond measure?

I’m so sorry to hear about the loss of your son. I’m wondering why you would be so upset if he’d been baptised though. If you don’t believe that the baptism is real, why would it have hurt you so much? Do you believe it would have harmed your son’s soul in some way?

 

[meltzerboy]

My child died less than 30 minutes after he was born…I would be more than offended and outraged if I had found out anyone would have dared perform a water baptism on him…we do not share the belief in original sin…nor the efficacy of water baptism…it would be a grave insult and breach of trust to have had this occur…a deep betrayal of both my wife and I when we were devastated by our son’s death to begin with…why visit one more “injury” upon parents who are already hurting beyond measure?

My condolences for your terrible loss, Publisher.

 

[Leegal]

Children are a gift from God, however, they are more of a “loan”. That child belongs in the end to God, not to the parents. It is a Christian’s duty to do right by a dying child and to baptize them.

I was taught the same – that children are on loan from God.

However, I would be hard pressed if I knew the parents disapproved and specifically said they did not want Baptism. I would not Baptise a non Christian baby in any case because if the child had been born healthy, Baptism was not in the parents plan for the child – when speaking of Jews, Hindus, Sikhs (Sikhs do Baptise but entirely differently) Buddhists, etc.

Tough one. I think we have to trust in God’s mercy that he will understand that the child was powerless in death and would receive the child in Heaven by HIS endless loving Mercy, as no fault can be imputed upon an infant who dies without Baptism.