Non-Catholic baptism?

[Phemie]

The ‘one year’ rule is arbitrary but I have known at least one Pastor who did this when parents who never darkened the church’s doors requested baptism. In his case it was 6 months. I found that it never worked, they came to Mass for 6 months to meet the requirement and then never again after the baby was finally baptized.

I guess he simply hoped that if they attended Mass for 6 months it would become part of their lives. Unfortunately, when you come to Mass against your will just to fulfill the requirement to get a sacrament you don’t care about, but which you’re requesting ‘because Mom will kill me if I don’t get him baptized’, the odds that you’ll continue to attend beyond the minimal requirement are slim.

That said, my awareness of what Baptism requires of the baptized is the only reason I haven’t baptized my grandson in the tub since DD’s “No, we’re not having him baptized because I’d have to lie and say I’ll raise him Catholic when I have no intention of doing that.” If we lived nearby and I could be part of his day to day life, I wouldn’t have hesitated to baptize him and then report it to the parish. I’d make sure he was being taught what he needed. Alas, we live a thousand miles away and see him only once or twice a year.

 

[jilly4ski]

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.

Indeed, maybe the distinction is artificial. But Catholics are required, meaning all Catholics, your duty is not dispensed because you fell away. Just like they are required to follow the Church’s marriage laws and etc. This is the duty of Catholic parents, it is a different question than the well founded hope. But notice the wording. “Hope,” “truly lacking.” Words of uncertainty. The first canon I quoted is the duty of the Catholic parents. The second canon I quoted is for the baptism to be lawful. (And once performed it is the duty of Catholic parents to raise the child in the faith).

 

[Vico]

That canon changes nothing and has already been addressed several times.

I read it. The canon was not supposed to change anything was is?

It is a decision of the clergy to determine what test to use to satisfy the canon.

 

[LaSainte]

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.

Thank you for this. Very helpful. Honestly, I could understand if they were asking for a wedding, but this is BAPTISM. All children are supposed to be baptized within the first weeks of life as per canon law. Making them wait a year is just bizarre.

As to your point about Confirmation and convalidation, this may be a concern for the priest. They were married outside the Church (by the same minister brother) years ago, so maybe he wants them to have it convalidated? Also, the wife is Jewish and the husband was never confirmed. The Catholic school they were attending stopped doing confirmation class during his 8th grade year and he just sort of slipped through the cracks and never got it done. That being said, he is a cradle Catholic, 12 years of Catholic school, and was an altar boy. He really is sincere about raising this baby as a Catholic and his wife is totally on board with this as well.

Making the baby suffer for the faults of the parents seems a little strange to me. Perhaps the priest is just unconvinced of their sincerity? I know they would be perfectly willing to have their marriage convalidated and to start attending church in the meantime, but a year?

 

[Nicea325]

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?

First of all, Canon law does not recognize parish registration,so the parish your friend’s belong to are wrong.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Thank you for this. Very helpful. Honestly, I could understand if they were asking for a wedding, but this is BAPTISM. All children are supposed to be baptized within the first weeks of life as per canon law. Making them wait a year is just bizarre.

**As to your point about Confirmation and convalidation, this may be a concern for the priest. They were married outside the Church (by the same minister brother) years ago, so maybe he wants them to have it convalidated? Also, the wife is Jewish and the husband was never confirmed. The Catholic school they were attending stopped doing confirmation class during his 8th grade year and he just sort of slipped through the cracks and never got it done. That being said, he is a cradle Catholic, 12 years of Catholic school, and was an altar boy. He really is sincere about raising this baby as a Catholic and his wife is totally on board with this as well. **

Making the baby suffer for the faults of the parents seems a little strange to me. Perhaps the priest is just unconvinced of their sincerity? I know they would be perfectly willing to have their marriage convalidated and to start attending church in the meantime, but a year?

Now we see the other problems. If they are to be married in the Church, he will have to be confirmed first. That is done through Adult confirmation classes. Then they do marriage preparation, just like all engaged couples (except usually they don’t require a retreat, since the couple is already civilly married).

The priest is not just being arbitrary, but the report that you received makes it seem as if he is. He has reasons for refusing them baptism.

 

[Phemie]

First of all, Canon law does not recognize parish registration,so the parish your friend’s belong to are wrong.

It’s quite possible the priest wants to be sure they are not parish shopping.

One gal in my parish did just that.

She had a major problem with the Pastor when she was preparing for marriage so she stormed out 2 days before her wedding and went to be married by a JP. A few months later I got a visit from the military Protestant Padre (Anglican) who wanted to know if the Pastor was refusing to baptize the children of invalidly married couples. I said no, that wasn’t happening, as I could see by the baptismal register. Then he asked, “Then why would one of your parishioners approach me to baptize her baby? She plans to raise the child Catholic.” It turned out it was this gal, who couldn’t face the Pastor so she was shopping for a parish that would baptized.

The Anglican Padre gave her these options:
1 - Join my parish and after 6 months we’ll see.
2 - Go to the native mission and after you’ve been there 6 months maybe Fr. N. will baptize your baby.
3 - Go to your mother’s parish and have the baby baptized there.
4 - Grow up and go back to your Pastor and ask him to baptize your baby as you should have done from the beginning.

 

[Nicea325]

It’s quite possible the priest wants to be sure they are not parish shopping.

One gal in my parish did just that.

She had a major problem with the Pastor when she was preparing for marriage so she stormed out 2 days before her wedding and went to be married by a JP. A few months later I got a visit from the military Protestant Padre (Anglican) who wanted to know if the Pastor was refusing to baptize the children of invalidly married couples. I said no, that wasn’t happening, as I could see by the baptismal register. Then he asked, “Then why would one of your parishioners approach me to baptize her baby? She plans to raise the child Catholic.” It turned out it was this gal, who couldn’t face the Pastor so she was shopping for a parish that would baptized.

The Anglican Padre gave her these options:
1 - Join my parish and after 6 months we’ll see.
2 - Go to the native mission and after you’ve been there 6 months maybe Fr. N. will baptize your baby.
3 - Go to your mother’s parish and have the baby baptized there.
4 - Grow up and go back to your Pastor and ask him to baptize your baby as you should have done from the beginning.

Problem lies with IGNORANCE. Precisely why as the Director Catechetical Ministry I meet with parents to teach them about the teachings of the church.

 

[LaSainte]

I suppose I just think it is strange that there are so many requirements from the parents that have nothing to do wih the baby. The idea here is to cleanse the baby of Original Sin and welcome it into the church. I think that if the parents say they will raise the baby Catholic, that is a reasonable hope that they will raise the child Catholic. I get that the priest might be skeptical, but for the sake of the baby, I think these doubts should be put aside. I mean, the Church itself says that unbaptized babies might not go to heaven. They should be baptizing babies right and left, not making the parents jump through hoops to prove their “Catholicness”.

 

[Phemie]

I suppose I just think it is strange that there are so many requirements from the parents that have nothing to do wih the baby. The idea here is to cleanse the baby of Original Sin and welcome it into the church. I think that if the parents say they will raise the baby Catholic, that is a reasonable hope that they will raise the child Catholic. I get that the priest might be skeptical, but for the sake of the baby, I think these doubts should be put aside. I mean, the Church itself says that unbaptized babies might not go to heaven. They should be baptizing babies right and left, not making the parents jump through hoops to prove their “Catholicness”.

It’s not doing the child any favours to put obligations on him that he will never be able to meet since he won’t be aware of them.

 

[LaSainte]

It’s not doing the child any favours to put obligations on him that he will never be able to meet since he won’t be aware of them.

Well if he’s never aware of them, then he doesn’t really have those obligations. At least it cleanses him from original sin so that he definitely goes to Heaven if (God forbid!) something should happen to him before he reaches the age of consent.

 

[MissBorgia]

I personally would take it up with the Bishop.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Well if he’s never aware of them, then he doesn’t really have those obligations. At least it cleanses him from original sin so that he definitely goes to Heaven if (God forbid!) something should happen to him before he reaches the age of consent.

Not true. If the child is baptized, his soul is marked by the sacrament and he is a Catholic regardless whether or not he realizes it. You may not agree with it, but that’s how it is. That’s why parents should NEVER baptize a baby themselves. Or grandparents, or anyone. That child could be in danger of committing lifelong mortal sins and not really even knowing it. Not a good idea at all.

 

[LaSainte]

Not true. If the child is baptized, his soul is marked by the sacrament and he is a Catholic regardless whether or not he realizes it. You may not agree with it, but that’s how it is. That’s why parents should NEVER baptize a baby themselves. Or grandparents, or anyone. That child could be in danger of committing lifelong mortal sins and not really even knowing it. Not a good idea at all.

It is impossible to commit a mortal sin unknowingly. If a priest in Africa baptized a baby randomly and left without the parents ever knowing, God is not going to hold that child accountable for say, missing Sunday mass.

 

[LaSainte]

I personally would take it up with the Bishop.

So would I.

 

[Vico]

Not true. If the child is baptized, his soul is marked by the sacrament and he is a Catholic regardless whether or not he realizes it. You may not agree with it, but that’s how it is. That’s why parents should NEVER baptize a baby themselves. Or grandparents, or anyone. That child could be in danger of committing lifelong mortal sins and not really even knowing it. Not a good idea at all.

CIC Canon 867 §2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

 

[Br_Mark]

To get back to the OP question about a Non-Catholic baptism.

One may be baptized in a Catholic Church, or a Methodist Church , or a Orthodox Church , or an Episcopal Church …etc.

But one is not baptized a Catholic. Methodist, Orthodox or an Episcopalian …etc.

One is baptized into the Body of Christ, one is baptized a Christian; one is made one with and sealed as one of Christ’s own.

May we all be made one with Christ,

Br Mark osb

 

[DhuAlQarnayn]

Given this new information, the answer the priest gave you does seem more reasonable than before. A priest will generally not baptize a child if neither of his or her parents has been confirmed, and the father can’t get confirmed if he’s in an invalid marriage. Therefore, the baptism would have to wait until after the convalidation. A year is still a long time, but different parishes have different rules for these circumstances. In your particular case, I think the best option would just be to have the brother baptize the child, and then proceed normally with the confirmation and convalidation. Being baptized by a Protestant minister will change nothing for the child in terms of his or her ability to participate in church and be confirmed at the appropriate time.

Thank you for this. Very helpful. Honestly, I could understand if they were asking for a wedding, but this is BAPTISM. All children are supposed to be baptized within the first weeks of life as per canon law. Making them wait a year is just bizarre.

As to your point about Confirmation and convalidation, this may be a concern for the priest. They were married outside the Church (by the same minister brother) years ago, so maybe he wants them to have it convalidated? Also, the wife is Jewish and the husband was never confirmed. The Catholic school they were attending stopped doing confirmation class during his 8th grade year and he just sort of slipped through the cracks and never got it done. That being said, he is a cradle Catholic, 12 years of Catholic school, and was an altar boy. He really is sincere about raising this baby as a Catholic and his wife is totally on board with this as well.

Making the baby suffer for the faults of the parents seems a little strange to me. Perhaps the priest is just unconvinced of their sincerity? I know they would be perfectly willing to have their marriage convalidated and to start attending church in the meantime, but a year?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

CIC Canon 867 §2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

Most infants are NOT in danger of immediate death. This clause has been used to justify clandestine baptism since any baby MIGHT die. It is meant for very sick babies or those who have been hurt badly in accidents. NOT infants whose parents have been told they need to clear up some problems before the baby can be baptized.

 

[Vico]

Most infants are NOT in danger of immediate death. This clause has been used to justify clandestine baptism since any baby MIGHT die. It is meant for very sick babies or those who have been hurt badly in accidents. NOT infants whose parents have been told they need to clear up some problems before the baby can be baptized.

True.

It is similar in the eastern canon law also:

CCEO Canon 681

1. For an infant to be licitly baptized it is necessary that:
   (1) there is a founded hope that the infant will be educated in the Catholic Church, with due regard for 5;
   (2) the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully takes their place, consent.
2. An abandoned infant or a foundling, unless his baptism is certainly established, should be baptized.
3. Those who lack the use of reason from infancy are to be baptized as infants.
4. An infant either of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholics, who is in a critical situation wherein death is prudently foreseen before he or she reaches the use of reason, is licitly baptized.
5. The infant of non-Catholic Christians is licitly baptized, if the parents, or one of them or the one who legitimately takes their place, request it and if it is physically or morally impossible to approach their own minister.