Medical professionals and baptizing dying infants

[sw85]

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?

Their grief will pass with time, though.

It is conceivable that the baby will be denied Heaven. That is something that will *not *pass.

I would think the certainty of compounding earthly and transient grief in order to erase transcendent and eternal grief would be worth the risk.

Personally, I cannot imagine the circumstances that would drive anyone to rage at the prospect of someone baptizing their child, an act of love born of a desire to save their immortal soul, even if erroneous. A child is not a piece of property to dispose of however you see fit.

 

[Castello]

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.

We do not know the fate of children who die without baptism.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

Not everything that is licit is obligatory. And even what is in general obligatory sometimes should be omitted in some cases to avoid bad side effects. Like other aspects of the care of children, their religious care is primarily their parents’ responsibility, and non-Christian parents are highly likely to resent the unwanted baptism of their child. In our society, such resentment might well lead to hatred - of those immediately responsible, of the Church, and even of the Christianity - and that hatred often would have further bad effects. Therefore, it seems to me you should respect parents’ wishes about the baptism of their infants.

Luna

 

[meltzerboy]

Their grief will pass with time, though.

It is conceivable that the baby will be denied Heaven. That is something that will *not *pass.

I would think the certainty of compounding earthly and transient grief in order to erase transcendent and eternal grief would be worth the risk.

Personally, I cannot imagine the circumstances that would drive anyone to rage at the prospect of someone baptizing their child, an act of love born of a desire to save their immortal soul, even if erroneous. A child is not a piece of property to dispose of however you see fit.

More often, I think, grief diminishes but does not pass, especially the grief associated with the loss of a child.

I’m sure that those baptizing a baby have all the best intentions, but it may still be regarded as inappropriate, eliciting strong emotions such as anger and sadness, by parents who hold different views about the nature (or existence) of G-d. In my own case, I would not wish my child to be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as my religious understanding of G-d is not in the form of a Trinitarian G-d. It would be comparable to compelling a Catholic male infant and his family to partake of the religious ritual of circumcision, a Jewish as well as Islamic Sacrament. Baptism is a Christian Sacrament; I don’t believe it should be imposed on a family of non-Christians without their consent, or even a Christian family whose core beliefs do not include this Sacrament or who do not believe in infant baptism.

 

[Filii_Dei]

It would be comparable to compelling a Catholic male infant and his family to partake of the religious ritual of circumcision, a Jewish as well as Islamic Sacrament.

Not to pick nits, but it’s not exactly comparable. Catholics believe that the first Christians were Jewish and therefore circumcised, so they would not have a major objection to it. The only issue is that we, being Gentiles, are not compelled to do it, but doing so would not be seen as blasphemous by any stretch of the imagination. In any case, I get what you mean.

 

[Katholish]

The Church seems quite clear on this. The child is to be baptized if in danger of death.

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.

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.

 

[seekerz]

The Church seems quite clear on this. The child is to be baptized if in danger of death.

That’s not something I was aware of. I thought baptism could be done if death was imminent only if the parents’ are of a faith that practices infant baptism.

 

[Shin]

This is necessary knowledge, especially for those involved or associated with medical issues.

So too, for parents, ‘how to baptize in the case of miscarriage’.

 

[cornbread_r2]

The Church seems quite clear on this. The child is to be baptized if in danger of death.

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.

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.

The first bolded statement in your quote refers to Canon 867 and seems to apply to a case where the Catholic parents are already predisposed to baptism.

The second bolded statement in your quote is different than the one I found here and quote below.

Can. 867 §1 Parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptised within the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth, indeed even before it, they are to approach the parish priest to ask for the sacrament for their child, and to be themselves duly prepared for it.

§2 If the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptised without any
delay.

Can. 868 §1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required:

1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;

2° that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.

**§2 An infant of catholic parents, indeed even of non-catholic parents, may **in danger of death be baptised even if the parents are opposed to it.

Please note the use of the word “may”, implying, I think, that it is not a requirement. Also note that there is no reference to the licitness of such a baptism as there is in your quote. It doesn’t seem quite as clear-cut to me. My quote is from the 2007 Code of Canon Law.

 

[Filii_Dei]

The first bolded statement in your quote refers to Canon 867 and seems to apply to a case where the Catholic parents are already predisposed to baptism.

The second bolded statement in your quote is different than the one I found here and quote below.

Please note the use of the word “may”, implying, I think, that it is not a requirement. Also note that there is no reference to the licitness of such a baptism as there is in your quote. It doesn’t seem quite as clear-cut to me. My quote is from the 2007 Code of Canon Law.

If in doubt, refer to the copy on the Vatican website.

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.

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.

Do note that this particular subsection merely says that the baptism is recognised as licit if performed on a dying infant even without parental consent, not whether there is an obligation to baptise, which appears to be covered in Canon 867 instead. However, as to how this interacts with Canon 867 §2, I have no comment. Interpret it as you will (and can).

 

[Publisher]

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?

No, not at all…not only would I have had to deal with the loss of my son, but the betrayal that my faith tradition was completley set aside by those I trusted to try to save my son.

I would have been more concerned that the time would have been taken to perform an empty ritual special words spoken over him instead of that time being used to care and save my son.

That the “medical professional” took what little time we had away from us to offer our own prayers and affirm our own faith traditions that would comfort us by allowing our own affirmation in the love and mercy of God to care for our son was now “circumvented” to impose other’s religious views upon my dying son.

That it would be asserted my wife and I had no better sense to care for the spiritual welfare of our son to the point somone else would have had to step in and perform some ritual because neither she nor I was spiritually mature enough to care for his needs. It would have mattered because we did not come to the hospital to have our faith assaulted by well meaning “medical professionals” but to assist with the birth of our son…and when we realized complications were occuring, any time performing meaningless rituals could be best used to save his life and allow US the dignity of affirming our own faith in the presence of our son’s fading life.

I admit…I am way too close to this hypothetical situation to be objective…I still…after 30 years miss him…and I miss my wife who died a year later in a car accident…for me to look back and realize that some “medical professional” cared so little for the dark cold grief and pain we were experiencing after trying for so long to have a child…to have the responsibility of his spiritual welfare ripped from us at a time when we needed our faith to sustain us and instead suffer a further “betrayal” at the hands of a well meaning “medical professional” sets my heart racing and my mind screaming “HOW DARE YOU DO THIS TO ANYONE and claim it’s a caring and loving act.” is beyond my ability to embrace…it’s not logical…I guess one never “gets over” the loss of a child…or a spouse…and to complicate the situation with the betrayal of all we believe and hoped by one careless…though well meaning but mis-placed act…touches upon the basest emotions deep within my heart…to be objective about even the possibility of such betrayal at a time when even now, the “shadow” of grief raises it’s head…no…there is no justification anyone could provide to justify this seemingly “innocent” act of brutality to two hurting people who had just lost their child…that day dreams died along with that tiny soul…and a year later fully extinguished…

Even though no one tried to baptize my child against my and my wife’s will…I can only imagine the pain, based on a “what if” in my own life…other parents would experience…and THAT angers me beyond expression…

 

[cornbread_r2]

If in doubt, refer to the copy on the Vatican website.

Do note that this particular subsection merely says that the baptism is recognised as licit if performed on a dying infant even without parental consent, not whether there is an obligation to baptise, which appears to be covered in Canon 867 instead. However, as to how this interacts with Canon 867 §2, I have no comment. Interpret it as you will (and can).

Thanks for the link to the Vatican version. I’ll use that one in the future.

IMO, paragraph §2 of Canon 868 seems to contradict what goes before it in that same Canon, specifically: “§1, 1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place ****must ****consent.” (my bolding). In any case, I’ll attempt to get an answer from the diocesan office.

 

[Della]

Thanks for the link to the Vatican version. I’ll use that one in the future.

IMO, paragraph §2 of Canon 868 seems to contradict what goes before it in that same Canon, specifically: “§1, 1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place ****must ****consent.” (my bolding). In any case, I’ll attempt to get an answer from the diocesan office.

There is no conflict. §2 of Canon 868 is saying is that even baptisms done against parents’ wishes are considered licit and thus valid. It’s talking about validity not whether or not such baptisms ought to be done. Some of us here are taking it out of context and reading into it more than it actually says. There’s a reason people study canon law and good reasons why most of us are not qualified to interpret it or other Church documents. That is the duty of our bishops.

And for those who have put forward the idea that God is going to damn anyone who doesn’t perform baptisms against parents’ wishes, no, God is not doing that. This is a matter of prudential judgment, on a case by case basis. God gave his Church the authority to decide such matters. As Catholics we follow the Church’s directives.

 

[cornbread_r2]

There is no conflict. §2 of Canon 868 is saying is that even baptisms done against parents’ wishes are considered licit and thus valid. It’s talking about validity not whether or not such baptisms ought to be done. Some of us here are taking it out of context and reading into it more than it actually says. There’s a reason people study canon law and good reasons why most of us are not qualified to interpret it or other Church documents. That is the duty of our bishops.

And for those who have put forward the idea that God is going to damn anyone who doesn’t perform baptisms against parents’ wishes, no, God is not doing that. This is a matter of prudential judgment, on a case by case basis. God gave his Church the authority to decide such matters. As Catholics we follow the Church’s directives.

It has been my understanding that a baptism can be both illicit and valid at the same time. For instance, I think the forced baptism of an adult against his/her will would be considered illicit, but if the baptism was properly performed, as to form etc, it would still be considered a valid baptism, i.e. the person is still considered to have been baptized. I could certainly be mistaken, but I don’t think validity is the issue with Canon 868.

As I read Canon 868 now, it seems that an exception is being made to the conditions set forth in the first paragraph; that the consent of at least one of the parents is not required if the infant is in danger of death. While I can understand why the Church would feel justified in thinking that way, I also know that that stance has led to significant problems in the past.

In addition, I’m exceedingly uncomfortable when third parties are allowed (or even encouraged) to make unilateral, potentially momentous, religious decisions for children who are not their own. For instance, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that some sect might think that baptism into the Catholic Church might actually endanger one’s soul. In such a case, I would whole-heartedly support any parents who objected to having their child so baptized.

As I indicated, I’ll attempt to get clarification from the diocesan office.

 

[Kaninchen]

Could it be that the only safe course for parents is to require that medical assistance for their children be provided by non-baptizers?

 

[SonCatcher]

It has been my understanding that a baptism can be both illicit and valid at the same time. For instance, I think the forced baptism of an adult against his/her will would be considered illicit, but if the baptism was properly performed, as to form etc, it would still be considered a valid baptism, i.e. the person is still considered to have been baptized. I could certainly be mistaken, but I don’t think validity is the issue with Canon 868.

I’m pretty sure that an attempted baptism of an adult against his will would be invalid. Baptism requires an act of faith on the part of the baptized. In the case of an infant, that faith is supplied by an adult. However, only an adult can only provide faith for himself.

 

[cornbread_r2]

I’m pretty sure that an attempted baptism of an adult against his will would be invalid. Baptism requires an act of faith on the part of the baptized. In the case of an infant, that faith is supplied by an adult. However, only an adult can only provide faith for himself.

You could very well be correct; no one is going to mistake me for a Canon lawyer. Can anyone think of an example of when a baptism might be illicit and still be valid?

 

[Agape11]

I am an EMT and have been for over 10 years. My first call that I transported was an OB call where the young mother delivered in the back of my ambulance. While, I was well trained and has assisted in deliveries before, this was a difficult delivery. The baby was basically dead when she was born although still attatched to her umbilical cord and circulating blood. I baptized her with sterile water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I wasn’t sure of what I was doing but her prognosis was grim and her mother wasn’t able to tell me her wishes. The life support I provided kept the child viable until we got to the ER and then into the OB ward. The mother made contact with me 3 days after and told me her baby had survived. I was thankful and I am now the God Mother to the now 11 year old girl. The mother was not Christian but now, we have 2 more Catholic followers.

My point… I had no authority but my conscience and look what happened.

 

[sw85]

I am an EMT and have been for over 10 years. My first call that I transported was an OB call where the young mother delivered in the back of my ambulance. While, I was well trained and has assisted in deliveries before, this was a difficult delivery. The baby was basically dead when she was born although still attatched to her umbilical cord and circulating blood. I baptized her with sterile water in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. I wasn’t sure of what I was doing but her prognosis was grim and her mother wasn’t able to tell me her wishes. The life support I provided kept the child viable until we got to the ER and then into the OB ward. The mother made contact with me 3 days after and told me her baby had survived. I was thankful and I am now the God Mother to the now 11 year old girl. The mother was not Christian but now, we have 2 more Catholic followers.

My point… I had no authority but my conscience and look what happened.

You are precisely the kind of person whose story I was looking for when I posted this thread. Happy to hear you did (what I’m pretty sure is) the right thing, and that it all worked out in the end. Deo gratias!

 

[Castello]

You could very well be correct; no one is going to mistake me for a Canon lawyer. Can anyone think of an example of when a baptism might be illicit and still be valid?

Gramma is concerned that her adult child refuses to baptize the grandbaby (baby is not in danger of death), so she decides to do it herself. She uses water and a valid formula. The baby is then validly yet illicitly baptized.