Non-Catholic baptism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LaSainte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LaSainte

Guest
I have a friend (Catholic) who is having a baby and wants his baby baptized in the church. Problem is, they just moved into their community and the new church wants them to be members for A YEAR before doing the baptism. Obviously, this is unacceptable. His brother is a non-Catholic minister and he is considering just having the baby baptized by him and then having the other sacraments in the Catholic Church, since they obviously will not wait a full year. Can this be done?
 
Can they not get their previous pastor to “vouch” for their being a good, and faithful Catholics, and participants in the life of the Church?
 
Big_Feet said:
Can they not get their previous pastor to “vouch” for their being a good, and faithful Catholics, and participants in the life of the Church?
Click to expand...
Well, the problem is that like many new parents, they are just coming back to the faith, so they haven’t had a home parish for awhile. They would of course like to start fresh and raise their baby Catholic, but the pastor at the new church won’t budge on the baptism issue.
 
LaSainte said:
Well, the problem is that like many new parents, they are just coming back to the faith, so they haven’t had a home parish for awhile. They would of course like to start fresh and raise their baby Catholic, but the pastor at the new church won’t budge on the baptism issue.
Click to expand...
If the pastor is aware that the couple have not been attending mass, then he has good reason to do as he is doing. How can he be sure that the child will be properly instructed in the faith when the parents don’t even feel the need to go to mass? They obviously don’t know the faith very well themselves.
 
LaSainte said:
I have a friend (Catholic) who is having a baby and wants his baby baptized in the church. Problem is, they just moved into their community and the new church wants them to be members for A YEAR before doing the baptism. Obviously, this is unacceptable. His brother is a non-Catholic minister and he is considering just having the baby baptized by him and then having the other sacraments in the Catholic Church, since they obviously will not wait a full year. Can this be done?
Click to expand...
Why is that unacceptable? If they are just now returning to the faith, they can’t expect to just turn up and receive a sacrament because they want it. We had to take classes before our sons were baptized - not long, granted, but we had to do it. Do they understand that when they baptize their child as a Catholic, that child is under all the obligations of the faith? And that they are responsible for passing along the faith to their child?

How very Protestant of them to want the Church to bend to their desires instead of following the rules as Catholics.
 
I see it as unacceptable because without remittance of Original Sin, they’re risking the child’s eternal salvation in the name of a rigid technicality. Should the priest sit down with this couple and ask them a few questions about their faith and inform them of the obligations that come along with Baptism? Absolutely. That is his duty. But there’s nothing in Church law that requires a one-year waiting period. I can’t see a priest who recognizes the central role that Baptism plays as the laver of regeneration which instills sanctifying grace into an immortal soul taking so long to provide something so necessary.

Having said that, I wouldn’t go to a Protestant minister for the sacrament either.
 
mattkubes said:
I see it as unacceptable because without remittance of Original Sin, they’re risking the child’s eternal salvation in the name of a rigid technicality. Should the priest sit down with this couple and ask them a few questions about their faith and inform them of the obligations that come along with Baptism? Absolutely. That is his duty. But there’s nothing in Church law that requires a one-year waiting period. I can’t see a priest who recognizes the central role that Baptism plays as the laver of regeneration which instills sanctifying grace into an immortal soul taking so long to provide something so necessary.

Having said that, I wouldn’t go to a Protestant minister for the sacrament either.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If they DID choose to go this route just for the safety of the baby’s soul, would the child then be able to do first reconciliation and communion in the CC at the normal time?
 
LaSainte said:
Exactly. If they DID choose to go this route just for the safety of the baby’s soul, would the child then be able to do first reconciliation and communion in the CC at the normal time?
Click to expand...
Eh, that just doesn’t seem like a viable option to me. The baptism would be valid as long as the correct form was used, but this creates another set of problems. Especially if they’re going to be staying at that same parish for the foreseeable future.

I would encourage them to book some time with their priest and have a reasoned discussion with him about their concerns and their willingness to bring their child up in the Catholic Faith. I would tell them to be open to any reading/preparatory suggestions he had in the meantime, as long as “just sit quietly for a year” wasn’t one of them. Then they always have recourse to the local bishop.
 
mattkubes said:
I see it as unacceptable because without remittance of Original Sin, they’re risking the child’s eternal salvation in the name of a rigid technicality.
Click to expand...
One could then say the same about people who want their children baptized even though they are not practicing Catholics and have no intention or desire to be practicing Catholics.

And yet the Church says: No, infants are not to be baptized unless they will be raised in the faith.

The one year time frame is artificial, I concede that. But it is not appropriate to baptize this child without some reason to believe he/she will be raised as a Catholic.

On the other hand, the parents should most definitely be taught how to perform an emergency baptism.
 
wasserfall said:
The one year time frame is artificial, I concede that. But it is not appropriate to baptize this child without some reason to believe he/she will be raised as a Catholic.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there are much more reasonable ways to ascertain this; for example, a conversation with the parents! A blanket and prolonged waiting period for infant baptism makes little sense to me.
On the other hand, the parents should most definitely be taught how to perform an emergency baptism.
Click to expand...
Haha yes, I agree.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
No problem. I call 'em like I see 'em. Making demands like that means that people aren’t acting Catholic.
Click to expand...
Except this isn’t a law of the Church, rather it is the policy of an individual priest. There is nothing in Church law or tradition that can be said to have formed the basis of such a decision. Moreover, it is an unjust policy.
 
mattkubes said:
Except this isn’t a law of the Church, rather it is the policy of an individual priest. There is nothing in Church law or tradition that can be said to have formed the basis of such a decision. Moreover, it is an unjust policy.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and since Canon law requires that Catholics (note it does not say practicing Catholics) ensure their children are baptized within the first few weeks, a year time frame sounds absolutely unreasonable. If the parents (who are presumably Catholic) have been to confession and are now attending Mass, then there does not seem to be any reason to bar the child from the sacrament.
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.
Click to expand...
Other relevant canons
Can. 868 §1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required:
Click to expand...
1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Why is that unacceptable? If they are just now returning to the faith, they can’t expect to just turn up and receive a sacrament because they want it. We had to take classes before our sons were baptized - not long, granted, but we had to do it. Do they understand that when they baptize their child as a Catholic, that child is under all the obligations of the faith? And that they are responsible for passing along the faith to their child?

How very Protestant of them to want the Church to bend to their desires instead of following the rules as Catholics.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s “very Protestant” of them at all to want to baptize their child within the first few months of life (as is required of all Catholics), especially since the year-long waiting policy is an arbitrary and somewhat bizarre decision of one particular pastor rather than a rule of the church. Other parishes do not typically delay the process of baptizing an infant more than a few weeks for newcomers vs. regular attendees, and I’ve certainly never heard of a year’s wait.

I suspect they could go to any neighboring Catholic parish and the priest is likely to be more accommodating, but in any case I don’t see anything wrong with having his brother perform the baptism. If they were regular churchgoers but wanted their brother to do it, it would not be unusual for either him to go to the Catholic church or the priest to go to his church so he can participate along with the priest. Having him do it alone is irregular for Catholic parents but it is preferable to waiting a full year. The parents could of course perform the baptism themselves also, but if a sibling is a minister there are valid family reasons for having him or her participate, even if the priest is willing to do it tomorrow. If they do decide to have the brother baptize the child, there would be no reason whatsoever why they couldn’t have first communion at the normal age. They would of course have to learn the basics of the faith and make an informed decision to proceed with reconciliation and first communion, but one hopes that every Latin-rite child will do no less.
 
jilly4ski said:
Indeed, and since Canon law requires that Catholics (note it does not say practicing Catholics)
Click to expand...
I don’t think we can legitimately make this distinction. Canon Law says there has to be a well-founded hope that the child be raised Catholic.

But yes, the particular policy being discussed here is not even indirectly called for in Canon Law. On the contrary, it would seem to go against the canons you quoted.
 
If they were married outside the church, the priest may be enforcing a year’s waiting policy for the convalidation, with the intention of performing the baptism immediately after the marriage is convalidated. (A year is a very long time to wait for a convalidation, but some parishes will make you wait that long if they’ve never seen you before and you recently married, or perhaps one of the parents is divorced or there is some other impediment.) Even so, there is no reason in canon law why baptism should be delayed until after the convalidation. If at least one parent is baptized and confirmed, has been to confession, has been attending mass even if only for the past two weeks, and has sought out the priest to arrange a baptism, then a well-founded hope exists that the infant will be raised Catholic. Children whose parents are not validly married are baptized all the time.
 
mattkubes said:
I see it as unacceptable because without remittance of Original Sin, they’re risking the child’s eternal salvation in the name of a rigid technicality. Should the priest sit down with this couple and ask them a few questions about their faith and inform them of the obligations that come along with Baptism? Absolutely. That is his duty. But there’s nothing in Church law that requires a one-year waiting period. I can’t see a priest who recognizes the central role that Baptism plays as the laver of regeneration which instills sanctifying grace into an immortal soul taking so long to provide something so necessary.

Having said that, I wouldn’t go to a Protestant minister for the sacrament either.
Click to expand...
CIC (Canon Law)

Can. 868 §1 For an infant to be baptized 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 baptized even if the parents are opposed to it.
 
That canon changes nothing and has already been addressed several times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top