OK to remove poster from public bulletin board you disagree with, or not?

[TimOliv]

You people are so worried about offending people or being fair in the secular scheme of things that you are sacrificing your morals. You’re worried that baptizing the baby of non-christians will offend the parents when you SHOULD be concerned about the salvation of the dying child.

What if the parents are Wiccan? Should you, as a Catholic Priest, be performing a Wiccan Ceremony because that is what the parents would want? You, as a priest, would be responsible for saving souls. If you want to deny that Priests, no, all Catholics are responsible for the salvation of souls, then you’ve got more issues than can be addressed on a discussion board. But if you would choose your JOB at a hospital over the spiritual well-being of a dying child, you truly do sicken me.

 

[Pug]

in danger of death is licitly baptized even against the will of the parents

The passage from the CIC supports the idea that the baptism would be licit. By itself, that is insuffient demonstration that the baptism would be obligatory in every circumstance.

Also, when I mentioned religious liberty (back to the astral poster), I didn’t mean it to come off as a secular concern. I feel it is a Christian concern, though perhaps one that the secular world partly agrees upon. Consider this quote from Vat2:
dignitatis humanae 10:

…the principle of religious liberty contributes in no small way to the development of a situation in which men can without hinderance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will…

 

[Kuriakos]

OK, we have a debate on another thread, where many people think it’s okay to remove a poster that they think will lead people astray spiritually. In this case, it was for a course on astral travel. It could very well be something else, such as a pro-choice rally, Lesbian support group, Since it was a little derailing the thread, I’m starting a separate thread.

My argument was that it is wrong because in a Free Country such as the United States, a public bulletin board should be a forum for all points of view, and that there should be a certain civic responsibility to tolerate opposing points of view, otherwise the whole system would break down, with people ripping down posters advertising things they don’t like.

Others on the thread stated that they were serving a higher good by saving people from being led astray by a class in astral travel, which is occult and evil.

So, what is right?

I draw the line when people use the image of Christ. If a cultic group uses the image of Jesus to promote their beliefs, I have no qualms taking it down.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You people are so worried about offending people or being fair in the secular scheme of things that you are sacrificing your morals. You’re worried that baptizing the baby of non-christians will offend the parents when you SHOULD be concerned about the salvation of the dying child.

What if the parents are Wiccan? Should you, as a Catholic Priest, be performing a Wiccan Ceremony because that is what the parents would want? You, as a priest, would be responsible for saving souls. If you want to deny that Priests, no, all Catholics are responsible for the salvation of souls, then you’ve got more issues than can be addressed on a discussion board. But if you would choose your JOB at a hospital over the spiritual well-being of a dying child, you truly do sicken me.

Acts 2:38-39 & Acts 16:30-33 clearly shows the Church’s practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby. And CCC1253 states that “Baptism is the sacrament of faith.”

You would disobey scripture and church law so that you can play “hero” and you have the gall to find fault with those that would obey scripture and church law. What nerve!

Let me ask you this … if someone confessed to you that they were doing horrible things to a small child, would you break the confessional seal to save the child or would you let the child continue to suffer?

If you would break the seal, then you have no business being a “Seminarian”. If you would keep the seal, as church law requires you to do, then why would you break church law and perform a baptism against the will of the parents? Doesn’t the church teach that those that die without being baptized are left to the infinite mercy of God? Do you doubt the mercy of God or do you doubt church teaching?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Way to go, you chose your job over the salvation of a child. Now you get to answer for that at your own judgement!

Was that hip-shot intended to be sarcasm?

If you had any idea whatsoever of my circumstances and what has happened to me and my family in the last five years, you would never DARE make a reference about me choosing a career over righteousness.

Thank you for the information on baptism, though. I was not aware that the Church taught that it’s OK to baptize a child against the parents’ wishes. For some reason, in the baptisms I’ve been involved with, the Church has given me the illusion that parental consent is important and even necessary. I suppose that’s just a surface observation; I do not know canon law.

TimOliv asked for an opinion, and I gave my personal opinion – in ignorance of Church teachings to be sure. Plus I didn’t see the relevance to the topic at hand, as I wasn’t sure what abstraction TimOliv was using to construct the scenario. I gave it my best shot and I guess I sent a baby to hell in the process…

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

You people are so worried about offending people or being fair in the secular scheme of things that you are sacrificing your morals. You’re worried that baptizing the baby of non-christians will offend the parents when you SHOULD be concerned about the salvation of the dying child.

What if the parents are Wiccan? Should you, as a Catholic Priest, be performing a Wiccan Ceremony because that is what the parents would want? You, as a priest, would be responsible for saving souls. If you want to deny that Priests, no, all Catholics are responsible for the salvation of souls, then you’ve got more issues than can be addressed on a discussion board. But if you would choose your JOB at a hospital over the spiritual well-being of a dying child, you truly do sicken me.

You come across as quick to judge based on surface appearances and hypothetical responses to contrived scenarios.

It seems you take delight in “trapping” others in academic arguments. Perhaps a tone of gentle instruction would suffice to get your point across. As it is, your writing is so confused and contorted, I can’t actually tell what your direct answer to the scenario is.

Also, the question was about a hospital chaplain, not about a priest. Most employers aren’t like the Catholic Church and they will not put up with garbage that individual employees perform. If you become a priest, I suppose we have seen that priests can do many things contrary to the instruction of the Church and get away with it. It doesn’t operate that way in the “real world.” If I do something to lose my job as a chaplain, then what good am I to any patient?

If you are sickened, then perhaps you need to get a better grip on the teachings of Christ about judging each other based on surface observations. I think you might find an antidote there.

BTW, I do not wish to judge you, and I am not sickened by you. I am stating what I see from here. If you forgive me for not knowing everything you know and having every insight that you have, then rest assured I have forgiven you for the same.

Alan

 

[Sir_Knight]

Thank you for the information on baptism, though. I was not aware that the Church taught that it’s OK to baptize a child against the parents’ wishes. For some reason, in the baptisms I’ve been involved with, the Church has given me the illusion that parental consent is important and even necessary. I suppose that’s just a surface observation; I do not know canon law.

Alan, both scripture and church law teach that baptism is a sacrament of faith. The Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby.

TimOliv seems to be of the opinion that he has a better understanding of God than the official church – doesn’t sound very “Catholic” to me.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Was that hip-shot intended to be sarcasm?

If you had any idea whatsoever of my circumstances and what has happened to me and my family in the last five years, you would never DARE make a reference about me choosing a career over righteousness.

Thank you for the information on baptism, though. I was not aware that the Church taught that it’s OK to baptize a child against the parents’ wishes. For some reason, in the baptisms I’ve been involved with, the Church has given me the illusion that parental consent is important and even necessary. I suppose that’s just a surface observation; I do not know canon law.

TimOliv asked for an opinion, and I gave my personal opinion – in ignorance of Church teachings to be sure. Plus I didn’t see the relevance to the topic at hand, as I wasn’t sure what abstraction TimOliv was using to construct the scenario. I gave it my best shot and I guess I sent a baby to hell in the process…

Alan

Oh for crying out loud. At the time I wrote this, I didn’t even notice that you were the same person who wrote the scenario. I’m sorry about that. I didn’t see the connection to the topic at hand (and I still don’t) but was trying to play along. It’s too late for me to edit the post.

Perhaps now you can explain better what you were trying to convey in terms of removing a poster, and how it relates to the salvation of a child.

Do yourself one favor; never, EVER, judge another poster on this board as caring more about money than the salvation of a child unless you know pretty darn well that you have full rights and knowledge to make such a judgment.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Alan, both scripture and church law teach that baptism is a sacrament of faith. The Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ. For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby.

TimOliv seems to be of the opinion that he has a better understanding of God than the official church – doesn’t sound very “Catholic” to me.

Thank you for the support. When I don’t know a teaching, I speak from the heart. That way, if I’m wrong, I know what I need to fix in my heart, and it becomes a better guide. Church teachings are not intended to be adminstered without love, for in themselves they constituted the law of sin and death, and are not sufficient for salvation. At least this “uninformed” observer sees it this way. :yup:

A person can call me an ignorant fool and I’m OK with that. Call me “disobedient” or “relativistic” or otherwise judge my heart and they will have a lot of explaining to do, because I’ve been around enough to hear the “real” messages through the noise in most cases. :tsktsk:

Alan

 

[redactorab]

Error has no rights.

Oh, to be that certain.

 

[redactorab]

True freedom does not allow for the choice against what is good.

Where’s that leave Free Will?

 

[redactorab]

No, it has nothing to do with what one thinks is right but what is objectively true. The point you cite has no effect because it is false. What I said in my previous posts is that “error has no rights” but truth does.

Heh, you’re confusing your own convictions about it with objective truth. True believers of each and every stripe are convinced of the objectivity of their convictions. That’s why separation of C/S is actually a pretty good idea.

No sharia here, thank you. Leave the poster up. Exercise your free choice not to look at it, not to shop where it’s hanging, and to dissuade your children about its message.

 

[redactorab]

True freedom is the freedom to choose the good.

And the bad.

Free will includes the option of choosing evil. Otherwise, you’re just playing with words. A “free choice” between chocolate and vanilla wouldn’t mean much if you were only allowed to choose the vanilla. The value of our free wills depends on our ability to choose either good or bad–i.e., that’s what makes our choice of the good mean something.

The Catechism, section 1853, shows that free will includes the ability to choose sin:

“The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man.” But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

And the bad.

Free will includes the option of choosing evil. Otherwise, you’re just playing with words. A “free choice” between chocolate and vanilla wouldn’t mean much if you were only allowed to choose the vanilla. The value of our free wills depends on our ability to choose either good or bad–i.e., that’s what makes our choice of the good mean something.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Perhaps now you can explain better what you were trying to convey in terms of removing a poster, and how it relates to the salvation of a child.

Do yourself one favor; never, EVER, judge another poster on this board as caring more about money than the salvation of a child unless you know pretty darn well that you have full rights and knowledge to make such a judgment.

When he found fault with folks for doing what the church and scriptures teach, he shot a big hole in his creditability.

 

[TimOliv]

When he found fault with folks for doing what the church and scriptures teach, he shot a big hole in his creditability.

Well, gentlemen (Alan and Sir Knight) I direct you both (once more) to the canon of the Catholic Church.

Can. 867 ß1 Parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptized 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.

**ß2 If the infant is in danger of death, it is to be baptized without any delay.
**
Can. 868 ß1 For an infant to be baptized lawfully it is required:

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

2ƒ 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.

**ß2 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. **

So how exactly do you figure what I said runs contrary to the church?

By the way, since I said you were newly ordained and working as a hospital chaplain, the (incorrect) assumption I had made was that you would identify the ordained person as being a priest (or deacon), as talking about being a Protestant Minister would do little good in a discussion on a Catholic Forum.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Can. 868 ß1 For an infant to be baptized lawfully it is required: 1ƒ that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;

ß2 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.

“May” be baptized. Not “should” or “must” but “may” be baptized.

And, nowhere in scripture was anyone ever baptized against their will or the consent of their parents.

If you do a search on this forum, you will find (unless it was lost during the crash) a thread about a parish priest who refused to baptize the child of parents who weren’t practising Catholics and his bishop support that position.

Further more, the CCC states in 1253 that “Baptism is the sacrament of faith.” If the child is an infant, then there is no faith there and if there is no faith on the part of the parents, where is the faith in this sacrament?

 

[TimOliv]

“May” be baptized. Not “should” or “must” but “may” be baptized.

And, nowhere in scripture was anyone ever baptized against their will or the consent of their parents.

If you do a search on this forum, you will find (unless it was lost during the crash) a thread about a parish priest who refused to baptize the child of parents who weren’t practising Catholics and his bishop support that position.

Further more, the CCC states that “Baptism is the sacrament of faith.” If the child is an infant, then there is no faith there and if there is no faith on the part of the parents, where is the faith in this sacrament?

Apples and oranges, my friend. This would be a child who is dying. In which case the faith of the parents has absolutely no bearing on any of this. The child is about to die, and we know what the church teaches with regards to the salvation of unbaptized children…

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

The scenario you are describing is a matter of a typical baptism, while this would be atypical situation in which the child is going to die. You really have no reason to withold the sacrament from that child.

 

[Sir_Knight]

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

And do you doubt the infinite mercy of God? Do you think that God can not save anyone that He wishes?

And I ask again, the CCC tells us that “Baptism is the sacrament of faith.” If the parents object, where is the faith? Where has anyone in scripture ever been baptized without first professing faith?

 

[TimOliv]

And do you doubt the infinite mercy of God? Do you think that God can not save anyone that He wishes?

And I ask again, the CCC tells us that “Baptism is the sacrament of faith.” If the parents object, where is the faith? Where has anyone in scripture ever been baptized without first professing faith?

This is a good discussion here but it is off topic, I may bring this to its own thread. I am intrigued by the scenario at this point.