No infant Baptism unless parents take class and pay fee?

[Pug]

1. Finally, it helps people prioritize. This is sort of the flip side of number 2 above. I’ll be honest. It bothers me when a couple spends thousands, maybe even tens of thousands, of dollars on a wedding–renting tuxedos, dresses, a limo, hiring a DJ, a professional caterer, providing an open bar, hiring a professional organist and cantor, etc–and is offended when asked to contribute $500.00 to the Church to help pay the custodian who has to clean up after them, to pay the DRE who helped with their marriage prep, to pay to have the lights on in the Church, the AC on, and to rent the Church. (Let’s not forget that just because we are members of a particular parish, we don’t OWN that parish.) It’s a matter of priorities. “Where your heart is, there your treasure lies.” I know one priest, God bless him, who, in lieu of a set fee, asks a couple to tithe ten percent of whatever they are spending on their wedding to a charity. It could be the parish. It could be another worthwhile cause. He told me that he’s never, not even once, had a couple take him up on it–and he’s not what you would call “newly ordained.”

For me, by far the biggest expense involved in getting married was to pay for the church and the organist. All the flowers cost $25-35 dollars and my dress $100. The church and organist were like $500. And yes, I paid it, just like the priest told me to, even though I was in debt (school loans). No one suggested to me that I could request a reduction in the fee, but you are right that I probably would not have taken it if offered. And it was my mother who paid for the dress, though I paid for the flowers.

But I have grown up into someone who would be frustrated if asked to pay $50-100 for a baptism class which, since I teach the RCIA baptism class, would seem a rather superfluous hoop to “prove” I know the material and that I am serious about baptism. I find the fee structure scandalous as often found in practice.

I would not assume the objectors to fees are making poor decisions about priorities.

 

[Pug]

I can baptize the child myself !

Yes, anyone can baptize a child, but it is not licit to do so in most circumstances.

Not being licit means it is not in accordance with the Church rules or law. In the standard situation for your average Catholic couple, it ought to be the deacon or the priest (in the Latin rite) who baptizes the child.

 

[Xantippe]

For me, by far the biggest expense involved in getting married was to pay for the church and the organist. All the flowers cost $25-35 dollars and my dress $100. The church and organist were like $500. And yes, I paid it, just like the priest told me to, even though I was in debt (school loans). No one suggested to me that I could request a reduction in the fee, but you are right that I probably would not have taken it if offered. And it was my mother who paid for the dress, though I paid for the flowers.

But I have grown up into someone who would be frustrated if asked to pay $50-100 for a baptism class which, since I teach the RCIA baptism class, would seem a rather superfluous hoop to “prove” I know the material and that I am serious about baptism. I find the fee structure scandalous as often found in practice.

I would not assume the objectors to fees are making poor decisions about priorities.

Yes. The funny thing is, the less capable one is of managing expenses, the more likely one is to accept them without blinking–that was certainly true of me as a 20-something versus me as a 30-something. I think this may be misleading some of our DRE posters–the affluent are likely to be loud, while the less affluent are likely to be embarrassed and silent about their situations.

I agree about the issue of the superfluity of baptism classes for reasonably catechized parents–I’m pretty sure my husband could teach the class with little or no preparation.

If you are a reasonably well-informed Catholic, you don’t need a baptism class.

 

[Pug]

Yes. The funny thing is, the less capable one is of managing expenses, the more likely one is to accept them without blinking–that was certainly true of me as a 20-something versus me as a 30-something. I think this may be misleading some of our DRE posters–the affluent are likely to be loud, while the less affluent are likely to be embarrassed and silent about their situations.

I do agree that those with less means often seem to conceal it.

Perhaps also some individuals have spent their life avoiding conflict with anyone in authority, because that was the safest thing to do. The person dispensing the rules for what you need to pay is easily categorized as an authority figure who can cause you trouble later if you make waves or appear vulnerable.

 

[Xantippe]

I do agree that those with less means often seem to conceal it.

Perhaps also some individuals have spent their life avoiding conflict with anyone in authority, because that was the safest thing to do. The person dispensing the rules for what you need to pay is easily categorized as an authority figure who can cause you trouble later if you make waves or appear vulnerable.

Yep.

There’s a classic sociological study (Unequal Childhoods by Annette Lareau) that talks (among many other interesting) about there being a huge difference between working class and middle class families with regard to how they relate to authority. The middle class parents teach a style of relating to authority that involves teaching kids their rights, how to function effectively within the system, and how to communicate effectively with authority figures–which is essentially the “style” that it sounds like a number of parish employees on the thread have encountered from affluent families. Meanwhile, Lareau found that working class families tended to be scared of authority figures and taught the same attitude to their children.

It’s definitely something to bear in mind.

 

[Xantippe]

There’s another thread running in the family life forum where a mother of four (including a disabled child) is talking about a very difficult financial and interpersonal situation involving her husband. He is spending a chunk of his salary on a multitude of small luxuries while the rest of the family goes without. The situation obviously is causing a lot of shame to the mother of the family and also makes it difficult for the mother to seek out the usual avenues of help, as her household isn’t technically needy, it’s just that she and the kids are.

There can be a lot of shame and embarrassment involved in financial distress, and so many people (even people who are lookin’ good) are (if we only knew their circumstances) in deep trouble.

 

[babochka]

Yes. The funny thing is, the less capable one is of managing expenses, the more likely one is to accept them without blinking–that was certainly true of me as a 20-something versus me as a 30-something. I think this may be misleading some of our DRE posters–the affluent are likely to be loud, while the less affluent are likely to be embarrassed and silent about their situations.

I agree about the issue of the superfluity of baptism classes for reasonably catechized parents–I’m pretty sure my husband could teach the class with little or no preparation.

If you are a reasonably well-informed Catholic, you don’t need a baptism class.

I agree that the baptism class is superfluous for many, but I can see why most parishes require one, given the number of people who apparently only darken the door of a church for their children’s sacraments.

This is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I’m not sure if a “lowest common denominator” class is the best choice. It kind of reminded me our our marriage preparation. I went into it excited and ready to learn and really prepare for marriage, but we were the only couple who were attending Mass weekly and not cohabiting. It completely changes what is discussed in the sessions if the vast majority are just jumping through a hoop, rather than seeking to grow in their knowledge of the faith. I don’t know the answer to the problem, though. How can you exempt some, but not others? I think the best answer is that every person bringing a child for baptism should have a one-on-one meeting with a priest or deacon, where the required information can be given, while be tailored to the situation, but in many (if not most) parishes, that is not a practical solution.

I wonder how this is handled in other countries. Are classes and fees normal elsewhere, or is this a cultural issue in the U.S.?

 

[Xantippe]

I agree that the baptism class is superfluous for many, but I can see why most parishes require one, given the number of people who apparently only darken the door of a church for their children’s sacraments.

This is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I’m not sure if a “lowest common denominator” class is the best choice. It kind of reminded me our our marriage preparation. I went into it excited and ready to learn and really prepare for marriage, but we were the only couple who were attending Mass weekly and not cohabiting. It completely changes what is discussed in the sessions if the vast majority are just jumping through a hoop, rather than seeking to grow in their knowledge of the faith. I don’t know the answer to the problem, though. How can you exempt some, but not others? I think the best answer is that every person bringing a child for baptism should have a one-on-one meeting with a priest or deacon, where the required information can be given, while be tailored to the situation, but in many (if not most) parishes, that is not a practical solution.

I wonder how this is handled in other countries. Are classes and fees normal elsewhere, or is this a cultural issue in the U.S.?

If I were czar, I wouldn’t opt anybody out of marriage prep, including people who have been civilly married for a decade.

We’ve never had to do a baptismal class and I have heard of at least one person on CAF who didn’t have to do marriage prep. But frankly, the latter horrifies me. Even really devout, knowledgeable and godly people need marriage prep.

 

[pnewton]

Anyone one either side that even considers weighing the costs of class materials versus eternal life is totally beyond my comprehension. The principle of the matter? What would Jesus say? Heck, he told one person to go sell all he had. Try that one out today. He said anyone who sets his hand to the plow and looks back is not worthy of the Kingdom. The Church has simony laws that prohibit money from ever being a barrier to the Grace of God. However, there is nothing that prevent the sin of pride from being a barrier to salvation.

 

[babochka]

We’ve never had to do a baptismal class and I have heard of at least one person on CAF who didn’t have to do marriage prep. But frankly, the latter horrifies me. Even really devout, knowledgeable and godly people need marriage prep.

Absolutely! But there should be more options, tailored to individual circumstances. One-size-fits-all is going to serve nobody well. Perhaps other diocese do it better than mine. I went to marriage prep excited and looking forward to it; I wasn’t looking to jump through a hoop. I walked away thinking that it had been a waste of my time (except I did get some good ideas on catering my own wedding from the caterer who prepared our meals). A couple civilly married for a decade doesn’t really need the rather light information given on communication and budgeting. My class spent two hours on basic Catholic information such as “what is a sacrament” and “what are the requirements for marriage in the Catholic Church”. We also spent a long time discussing the merits of cohabitation and why it really isn’t a problem. Prior to this experience, I had thought that the Catholic Church offered really good marriage prep. Maybe the program I went to was just poorly run - I hope so, for the sake of everyone else who goes to marriage prep. My pastor is currently preparing a couple in my parish for a church wedding. They’ve been civilly married for 14 years. I’m so impressed with the prep that they are getting, but it is one-on-one and tailored to their circumstances. I don’t think they’ve spent a single minute on budgeting. I guess I’m still a little bitter, nearly 14 years later.

 

[Pug]

Yep.

There’s a classic sociological study (Unequal Childhoods by Annette Lareau) that talks (among many other interesting) about there being a huge difference between working class and middle class families with regard to how they relate to authority. The middle class parents teach a style of relating to authority that involves teaching kids their rights, how to function effectively within the system, and how to communicate effectively with authority figures–which is essentially the “style” that it sounds like a number of parish employees on the thread have encountered from affluent families. Meanwhile, Lareau found that working class families tended to be scared of authority figures and taught the same attitude to their children.

It’s definitely something to bear in mind.

Oh, I might like to read that if I get the time, thanks, I’ll look it up. I’ve watched something akin to what you describe play out where I work. Some people do try to negotiate with me, but others never even try, and I’m perceived as super approachable in real life.

Oh, cool, my local library has it.

 

[Xantippe]

Absolutely! But there should be more options, tailored to individual circumstances. One-size-fits-all is going to serve nobody well. Perhaps other diocese do it better than mine. I went to marriage prep excited and looking forward to it; I wasn’t looking to jump through a hoop. I walked away thinking that it had been a waste of my time (except I did get some good ideas on catering my own wedding from the caterer who prepared our meals). A couple civilly married for a decade doesn’t really need the rather light information given on communication and budgeting. My class spent two hours on basic Catholic information such as “what is a sacrament” and “what are the requirements for marriage in the Catholic Church”. We also spent a long time discussing the merits of cohabitation and why it really isn’t a problem. Prior to this experience, I had thought that the Catholic Church offered really good marriage prep. Maybe the program I went to was just poorly run - I hope so, for the sake of everyone else who goes to marriage prep. My pastor is currently preparing a couple in my parish for a church wedding. They’ve been civilly married for 14 years. I’m so impressed with the prep that they are getting, but it is one-on-one and tailored to their circumstances. I don’t think they’ve spent a single minute on budgeting. I guess I’m still a little bitter, nearly 14 years later.

We did several one-on-one meetings with our pastor after filling out the big questionnaire and it was actually really good. I thought it was extremely valuable to do a meeting, have a week or two, have another meeting, have another week or two, etc. It gives you time to think. And as I mentioned, nobody ever asked us for a dime.

The cattle call approach does sound terrible, especially when it’s just one big weekend thing.

I probably could have used the budgeting lesson. Actually, to be very honest, I needed it in the worst way.

 

[Xantippe]

Anyone one either side that even considers weighing the costs of class materials versus eternal life is totally beyond my comprehension. The principle of the matter? What would Jesus say? Heck, he told one person to go sell all he had. Try that one out today. He said anyone who sets his hand to the plow and looks back is not worthy of the Kingdom. The Church has simony laws that prohibit money from ever being a barrier to the Grace of God. However, there is nothing that prevent the sin of pride from being a barrier to salvation.

You know that about simony, I know that, but does your target audience know that? I wouldn’t count on it.

Also, are we really talking about the sin of pride, or something more like self-respect or dignity? I said “pride,” speaking very loosely, but I think it is actually an admirable impulse to want to stand on one’s own two feet and not go groveling for special favors. I’ve gotten over that, being older, more prosperous, and also having a special needs child (so I need to do a fair amount of begging for favors for her), but I would never demand that a person poorer than myself give up their dignity, if their dignity was the only thing they had left.

 

[Xantippe]

Oh, I might like to read that if I get the time, thanks, I’ll look it up. I’ve watched something akin to what you describe play out where I work. Some people do try to negotiate with me, but others never even try, and I’m perceived as super approachable in real life.

Oh, cool, my local library has it.

Enjoy!

It’s a little bit dated at this point, but it is a classic.

 

[pnewton]

Also, are we really talking about the sin of pride, or something more like self-respect or dignity?

When I used the word, I meant pride, not dignity, as in the mortal sin. If one allows their own view of what is right and wrong to stand between them and the grace of God, that is pride, not dignity. It was not Satan’s dignity that caused him to say, “I will not serve,” though I bet he could have argued it was his dignity.

Your use of the word may be that of human dignity. I know that “pride” is often used in this way.

In the current case, if one really feels strongly about the subject, dignity might motivate to argue the point or even seek redress of a perceived wrong from the priest or bishop. Pride would say that either baptism is not important enough, or the Bride of Christ is not important enough, to bend one’s will.

 

[Memaw]

I agree that the baptism class is superfluous for many, but I can see why most parishes require one, given the number of people who apparently only darken the door of a church for their children’s sacraments.

This is a problem that needs to be addressed, but I’m not sure if a “lowest common denominator” class is the best choice. It kind of reminded me our our marriage preparation. I went into it excited and ready to learn and really prepare for marriage, but we were the only couple who were attending Mass weekly and not cohabiting. It completely changes what is discussed in the sessions if the vast majority are just jumping through a hoop, rather than seeking to grow in their knowledge of the faith. I don’t know the answer to the problem, though. How can you exempt some, but not others? I think the best answer is that every person bringing a child for baptism should have a one-on-one meeting with a priest or deacon, where the required information can be given, while be tailored to the situation, but in many (if not most) parishes, that is not a practical solution.

I wonder how this is handled in other countries. Are classes and fees normal elsewhere, or is this a cultural issue in the U.S.?

The Church’s mission is to teach us and ours is to learn and co-operate with what the Church teaches. If we’re not willing to do that, how can we call ourselves Catholic. Contrary to popular opinion, we are NOT the Church. We don’t set the guidelines.We are members of Christ’s Holy Church and we should be very thankful for that. Baptism is just the beginning of our lifelong learning. The Church is here to teach us and sanctify us on our journey to Eternity. Not to cater to our every whim. We need to stop whimpering and roll up our sleeves, open our hearts and work with the Church, not against Her. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Xantippe]

When I used the word, I meant pride, not dignity, as in the mortal sin. If one allows their own view of what is right and wrong to stand between them and the grace of God, that is pride, not dignity. It was not Satan’s dignity that caused him to say, “I will not serve,” though I bet he could have argued it was his dignity.

Your use of the word may be that of human dignity. I know that “pride” is often used in this way.

In the current case, if one really feels strongly about the subject, dignity might motivate to argue the point or even seek redress of a perceived wrong from the priest or bishop. Pride would say that either baptism is not important enough, or the Bride of Christ is not important enough, to bend one’s will.

It seems a bit unreasonable to me to expect the poorly catechized to pay for their and their kids’ own evangelization before they understand the point of it.

If they were well-catechized, they’d understand the point of supporting their local church and funding the CCD program. Since they’re not, they don’t.

 

[Xantippe]

When I used the word, I meant pride, not dignity, as in the mortal sin. If one allows their own view of what is right and wrong to stand between them and the grace of God, that is pride, not dignity. It was not Satan’s dignity that caused him to say, “I will not serve,” though I bet he could have argued it was his dignity.

Your use of the word may be that of human dignity. I know that “pride” is often used in this way.

In the current case, if one really feels strongly about the subject, dignity might motivate to argue the point or even seek redress of a perceived wrong from the priest or bishop. Pride would say that either baptism is not important enough, or the Bride of Christ is not important enough, to bend one’s will.

That also doesn’t address the problem of how to prevent the needy from spending money that they don’t have, partly out of a sense of pride (or dignity or self-respect) and from a sense of embarrassment about their situation and how they got there, not to mention that they might honestly not understand that they don’t have the money to spend.

The poor and proud person (as I was in my early 20s) will hand over the money, no matter how much, how badly it hurts them or how eligible they are for a waiver.

How would you deal with that problem?

 

[Xantippe]

Here’s an example from this week of a situation that would be humiliating to explain, and where the person would also be unsure of whether they would get a waiver or not:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=913370

I bet this woman doesn’t ask for CCD waivers because she’s trying to keep up appearances.

 

[Xantippe]

Sorry for monopolizing the thread, but here’s a story from my early 20s.

I was a graduate student making about $800 a month. There was a book scholarship for $200 available. I didn’t do it, because I didn’t feel poor (I had come from a background where I’d been a poor relative and often made to feel it, I felt like I was living in the lap of luxury to have 800 dollars all to myself every month, plus I’d just come out of the Peace Corps) and felt that the money should be reserved for people less fortunate than myself (!!!). I was talking to a graduate student from a solidly middle class family and happened to let it slip that I wasn’t taking the book money. “That’s really stupid!” he said.

If I had it to do again, I would take the money, but at the time, it didn’t even cross my mind.

That’s just to give you an example of how people from different backgrounds will approach essentially the same situation and make decisions that are incomprehensible to each other. There’s also the issue of age and experience–my attitude toward money and asking for favors is entirely different now than it was 17 years ago.

And that is why the waiver is not actually a solution.