V
virtueseeking
Guest
Absolutely
- Status
B
Bezant
Guest
Agreed. Frankly, even if any of the situations put forth in the opening posts are permissible, it’s unnecessary to baptise the child–although there’s some room for consideration if you know that the parents are Christians, or wanted to become Christians.
In my opinion the present concerns here–offending the parents, putting out a bad name for Christians, your job–trump any concern about the child’s salvation, which we put in God’s hands. In a sense, performing what could be an illicit baptism may be rather presumptuous of his mercy.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Thanks!
C
chosen_people
Guest
We have to take into account that Jews, whether from their well known lack of intelligence or whether from an inherent character flaw, insist on keeping their eternal unbreakable covenant between God and the Jewish people and insist on their silly Jewish non pagan monotheistic beliefs.
They can and must be saved from themselves. There is a simple solution. We can return to the golden age of Catholic-Jewish relations - that of “convert or die”. According to this long tradition, Catholic mobs would rampage through Jewish neighborhoods screaming “convert or die”. The Jews would then have free will to chose between these two generous offers.
While Jedwabne and Kielce Poland are only fond fading memories of when Jews could be made to understand what was what (before all this post WWII Jew liberalism), the tradition of “convert or die” can be adopted to the modern hospital setting. All Jewish babies should be baptized at birth. The infant’s parents should be allowed the choice of whether they also want to be baptized. Those who agree to be baptized and to raise their child as a good Christian will be allowed to raise their infant. Those who refuse, can be eliminated and their child taken from them. I see no reason to deny salvation to an innocent Jewish child just because his/her parents don’t understand about God and just because they are not dying.
They can and must be saved from themselves. There is a simple solution. We can return to the golden age of Catholic-Jewish relations - that of “convert or die”. According to this long tradition, Catholic mobs would rampage through Jewish neighborhoods screaming “convert or die”. The Jews would then have free will to chose between these two generous offers.
While Jedwabne and Kielce Poland are only fond fading memories of when Jews could be made to understand what was what (before all this post WWII Jew liberalism), the tradition of “convert or die” can be adopted to the modern hospital setting. All Jewish babies should be baptized at birth. The infant’s parents should be allowed the choice of whether they also want to be baptized. Those who agree to be baptized and to raise their child as a good Christian will be allowed to raise their infant. Those who refuse, can be eliminated and their child taken from them. I see no reason to deny salvation to an innocent Jewish child just because his/her parents don’t understand about God and just because they are not dying.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I would baptize the baby unless the parents explicitly said no.
V
vera_dicere
Guest
As a nurse, and as a Catholic, I find this idea to be absolutely repugnant!!
For a health care worker to over step their duty by doign this is unprofessional and disrespectful to the parents, to the child, to God, and to ourselves.
Depending on what country you’re in, you could probably also loose your job and registration. What if the parents were Muslim? How happy do you think they’d be if you had marked their child in a manner that was ritual to a religion they probably think very poorly of?
Let’s flip the coin, what if your son had just died. Later you find out that before he died, a Jewish doctor decided to circumcise him and allow him to die a Jew. How would you feel about that? The Jewish doctor tells you he did what he beleived best for your son, would you accept that, and pat him on the back? Of course you wouldn’t! Youd’ be outraged! And justified in being so!
Jesus said allow the little children to come to him, orginial sin may be in their hearts, but I seriously don’t think God would allow babies who died so soon after birth an eternity in the lake of sulphur - we must trust these children to God, else where is our trust in Him at all as a merciful God? BEcause really, if people actually believed that its a Christian’s duty to baptise heathen babies, you’d be climbing in people’s windows at night baptising their babies while the household slept.
For a health care worker to over step their duty by doign this is unprofessional and disrespectful to the parents, to the child, to God, and to ourselves.
Depending on what country you’re in, you could probably also loose your job and registration. What if the parents were Muslim? How happy do you think they’d be if you had marked their child in a manner that was ritual to a religion they probably think very poorly of?
Let’s flip the coin, what if your son had just died. Later you find out that before he died, a Jewish doctor decided to circumcise him and allow him to die a Jew. How would you feel about that? The Jewish doctor tells you he did what he beleived best for your son, would you accept that, and pat him on the back? Of course you wouldn’t! Youd’ be outraged! And justified in being so!
Jesus said allow the little children to come to him, orginial sin may be in their hearts, but I seriously don’t think God would allow babies who died so soon after birth an eternity in the lake of sulphur - we must trust these children to God, else where is our trust in Him at all as a merciful God? BEcause really, if people actually believed that its a Christian’s duty to baptise heathen babies, you’d be climbing in people’s windows at night baptising their babies while the household slept.
C
Castello
Guest
Christ commanded us to baptize (it is called the Great Commission). It was not a suggestion, not a “if no one minds”, Jesus told me to GO so if I am there, a child is dying, I will obey.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
Can you direct me to a Bible verse that references Jesus baptizing anyone?
meltzerboy
New member
There is no doubt Polish antisemitism existed, particularly between the years of 1918 and 1946, in which some of the Catholic clergy, including at least one notable bishop and local priests, were implicated and even led the charge. Jewish children were not allowed to attend school with other Polish children, Jewish businesses were boycotted, violent pogroms took place, and Jews were not welcomed back to their homeland after the War. Hundreds of Jews were murdered in cold blood by Poles. The Jedwabne and Kielce massacres are blights in Polish history. The Polish people were made to fear the Jews as Marxist Communists, and the Soviet Union became more of a threat to them than Germany. It is still amazing to me that some of the Polish people adopted tactics similar to those of the Nazis, since the latter despised the Poles almost as much as they did the Jews. Evidently, the Jews–as so often in their history–became the scapegoats.We have to take into account that Jews, whether from their well known lack of intelligence or whether from an inherent character flaw, insist on keeping their eternal unbreakable covenant between God and the Jewish people and insist on their silly Jewish non pagan monotheistic beliefs.
They can and must be saved from themselves. There is a simple solution. We can return to the golden age of Catholic-Jewish relations - that of “convert or die”. According to this long tradition, Catholic mobs would rampage through Jewish neighborhoods screaming “convert or die”. The Jews would then have free will to chose between these two generous offers.
While Jedwabne and Kielce Poland are only fond fading memories of when Jews could be made to understand what was what (before all this post WWII Jew liberalism), the tradition of “convert or die” can be adopted to the modern hospital setting. All Jewish babies should be baptized at birth. The infant’s parents should be allowed the choice of whether they also want to be baptized. Those who agree to be baptized and to raise their child as a good Christian will be allowed to raise their infant. Those who refuse, can be eliminated and their child taken from them. I see no reason to deny salvation to an innocent Jewish child just because his/her parents don’t understand about God and just because they are not dying.
HOWEVER, there is another, parallel Polish history, which involves many rural Polish families who shielded Jews from the Nazis, sometimes at the cost of their own lives, as well as a more pro-Jewish attitude in the urban centers of Poland at the time. This history too has been documented. Moreover, the Church’s shameful lack of response to the Polish massacres has a flip side, revealed in several important books on the topic of the Vatican’s protection of hundreds of Jews from their Nazi pursuers. There is much controversy surrounding Pope Pius, but most scholars find him to be more of a benefactor toward the Jews who were fleeing Nazi persecution, than a Nazi collaborator. We must look at both sides of Polish history.
Insofar as the baptism issue is concerned, I made my feelings clear about this in prior posts. I would be upset if my child were baptized, for the same reasons as you. But to compare, directly or indirectly, a person who baptizes a Jewish child–with good but misguided intentions, in my view-- to those who murdered Jewish children, is wrong. We should NEVER forget the injustices of the past, but we MUST move forward as well, if there is to be any hope of progress in this world for all of us. Otherwise, we will always label ourselves as victims and other people as persecutors.
S
SonCatcher
Guest
I’m not sure how an illicit baptism would be presumptuous of God’s mercy. It would certainly be presumptuous of other things (mainly social and legal consequences).
It seems to me that refusing to baptize solely on account of CCC 1261 (see post 11) would be presumption of God’s mercy.
C
Castello
Guest
S
SonCatcher
Guest
Actually, the Gospel states that Jesus did not baptize anyone himself. However, it does state that the Apostles did baptize (while Jesus was still in ministry) and it records Jesus’ command to the Apostles to go out and baptize.
H
He_Man
Guest
Opinions aside, didn’t this post pretty much answer the topic’s question?
S
SonCatcher
Guest
The discussion on sensitivity, etc. is also valuable.
H
He_Man
Guest
So kiss the baby then baptize him/her?The discussion on sensitivity, etc. is also valuable.
D
Daralharb
Guest
Your high horse is a Shetland pony, Nurse.
No one is saying “overstep” duty, for that duty ends when the doctor calls it. Nurses do things which are outside their job description ALL the time, and a lot of times, they do so outside of their faith.
Your argument places self before another in the fear of losing a job, etc. Well, ya know what, that mindset is EXACTLY why the laity are self-persecuting and the Church is suffering with us.
Your sanctimonious excuses are vapid and ridiculous in light of everything. We’re running an eternal race and you’re fixated on the entirely wrong things when it comes right down to it.
The lack of jailed Christians and martyrs in the West, given the climate, is indicative of how lukewarm western Catholicism really is right now.
Baptism is not genital mutilation and as a nurse you should definitely know the friggin’ difference. Circumcision does not a Jew make, and if you understood Judaism, you’d understand that.
“Christchurch” in name only, mate.
B
Bezant
Guest
A baptism under the circumstances listed in the OP may (inadvertently) imply that God’s mercy isn’t enough for the child’s salvation without your (non-obligatory) assistance.
I’m not sure of what you mean.
Of course, CCC 1261 isn’t the only consideration here. Performing a baptism is a sacred privilege, and to knowingly perform what is likely an illicit baptism, in my opinion, is no different than knowingly distributing the Eucharist to someone who is not prepared to partake of it.
B
Bezant
Guest
What a rude response.
B
Bezant
Guest
Well, a baptism under the circumstances listed in the OP can inadvertently imply that God’s mercy isn’t enough for the child’s salvation without your (non-obligatory) assistance.
In my view, it could also be a desecration of the sacrament–not much different than knowingly distributing the Eucharist to someone who wasn’t prepared to partake of it.
Not really. We can largely control and better anticipate social and legal consequences. Furthermore, our responsibility for the social and legal consequences are much clearer than our responsibility for salvation.
It could presume that God’s salvation is guaranteed, but 1261 isn’t our only consideration here.
S
SonCatcher
Guest
Actually, if an infant is validly baptized and then dies, salvation is dogmatically guaranteed. 1261 is a question mark - it does not presume what God actually does nor does it presume the actual disposition of the child toward salvation.
- Status