Our Son refused by the priest.

[hannajomar]

Wow, I’ve just read this very looong thread, and I would like to point out something. **The Church will only baptize children who are represented by at least one Catholic parent or a legal permanent guardian who is Catholic. **If I have a foster child, I am the legal guardian, but not permanent guardian, so I could not bring this child to be Baptized in the Catholic Church. I’ve heard of couples who are foster parents in the process of adopting them. Even towards the end of the process when they are just waiting for the final paperwork to come through, the Church does not recognize the authority of the couple to bring in the child for Baptism until they are permanent legal guardians of the child in question. This is also true of grandparents or other blood family members who are guardians, but don’t have the “legal permanent guardian” statusrequired.

From what I can glean from the OP, the “acting father” should be considered a type of foster father. But it doesn’t appear he has adopted the boy, and chances are he is not even a legal guardian, just a guardian. So he has no legal authority over him, let alone permanent legal authority over him. He does have permanent legal authority over his daughter, so the priest agreed to baptize her.

The priest did not create this messy situation, 3 other adults did. He simply pointed out inconsistencies in this type of lifestyle. The boyfriend says he wants his kids Baptized Catholic because it’s his family’s tradition. If his family is Catholic, I imagine his they also has a tradition of people being married when they have children, which he appears willing to disregard because he disagrees with it. (It also sounds like the boyfriend just wants his way - no marriage, kids baptized Catholic. But the priest is the one who is expected to bend to make people happy.)

 

[maltmom]

I will pray for the OP and her family. I would venture to say that we have all made bad choices in our lives. Sometimes we don’t see them in that light until the situation is resolved one way or another. Hindsight is always 20/20. I feel for the children as they have no choice in the matter. Would I love to see her boyfriend marry her? Sure! I hate that at any moment he can just walk. Yes, he could walk if they were married, but more thought would go into it. Would I love for them to embrace the Church and all she has to offer? You betcha. I would love for her son to learn from a man how to be a Godly man, husband and father. I would love for the OP to have a relationship with a Godly man, husband and father to her children.

Time to pray, pray, pray.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I will pray for the OP and her family. I would venture to say that we have all made bad choices in our lives. Sometimes we don’t see them in that light until the situation is resolved one way or another. Hindsight is always 20/20. I feel for the children as they have no choice in the matter. Would I love to see her boyfriend marry her? Sure! I hate that at any moment he can just walk. Yes, he could walk if they were married, but more thought would go into it. Would I love for them to embrace the Church and all she has to offer? You betcha. I would love for her son to learn from a man how to be a Godly man, husband and father. I would love for the OP to have a relationship with a Godly man, husband and father to her children.

Time to pray, pray, pray.

Nicely said. Agree with all of this, and I would venture to say that everyone who has contributed to this thread feels the same way.

 

[jmcrae]

Deacons

Both of you have not commented on the fact that the OP and her Catholic Partner have a child of that relationship and they had asked to have both children baptised

The priest is willing to Baptise the girl but not the boy . Surely there is still the risk that the little girl may not be brought up in the faith should the relationship break down ?

She would still have visiting rights from her Catholic father. The boy would not.

 

[JillianRose]

Wow, I’ve just read this very looong thread, and I would like to point out something. The Church will only baptize children who are represented by at least one Catholic parent or a legal permanent guardian who is Catholic. If I have a foster child, I am the legal guardian, but not permanent guardian, so I could not bring this child to be Baptized in the Catholic Church. I’ve heard of couples who are foster parents in the process of adopting them. Even towards the end of the process when they are just waiting for the final paperwork to come through, the Church does not recognize the authority of the couple to bring in the child for Baptism until they are permanent legal guardians of the child in question. This is also true of grandparents or other blood family members who are guardians, but don’t have the “legal permanent guardian” statusrequired.

From what I can glean from the OP, the “acting father” should be considered a type of foster father. But it doesn’t appear he has adopted the boy, and chances are he is not even a legal guardian, just a guardian. So he has no legal authority over him, let alone permanent legal authority over him. He does have permanent legal authority over his daughter, so the priest agreed to baptize her.

The priest did not create this messy situation, 3 other adults did. He simply pointed out inconsistencies in this type of lifestyle. The boyfriend says he wants his kids Baptized Catholic because it’s his family’s tradition. If his family is Catholic, I imagine his they also has a tradition of people being married when they have children, which he appears willing to disregard because he disagrees with it. (It also sounds like the boyfriend just wants his way - no marriage, kids baptized Catholic. But the priest is the one who is expected to bend to make people happy.)

Excellently put!! GREAT logical examples too!! Like my grandma use to say “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free”. This Priest is doing his job…

 

[Dhugz]

I am a protestant & my partner is a Catholic, he is step father to my son who is 4yrs old an has been since my son was 13months old! My son doesn’t see his Biological father, wouldn’t know him if he passed him in the street! We now have a daughter together & want them both christened, but the priest has refused to christen our son & only our daughter, he’s asked if me or bio dad was catholic, which we are not, and said no then… it’s not the catholic way and handed us a application form for our daughter! I’m really upset about it as its me & my partner who bring up our children not bio dad so does it matter who’s blood he has? Is it really acceptable to leave 1 child out? I thought we would have been welcomed, what has a child done to deserve to be left out. Thanx for reading, & sorry for the essay. X

If you want your son to be baptize in the Catholic Church, why not you yourself convert first to the Catholic Church? Its the same as you are giving a food to your son which you do not Like, as a good example to your son, embrace first the Catholic Faith.

 

[jmcrae]

If you want your son to be baptize in the Catholic Church, why not you yourself convert first to the Catholic Church? Its the same as you are giving a food to your son which you do not Like, as a good example to your son, embrace first the Catholic Faith.

Of course, in order for her to be received into the Church, her marriage would have to be regularized, and the family would have to attend Mass on Sundays. But this is the promise that we make to our children at baptism - that we will bring them every Sunday for Mass, train them up in the faith, give them their other Sacraments at the appointed times, and encourage them to live according to God’s law in their adult years.

 

[Lapey]

removed by me

 

[Lapey]

I thought that the baby should be baptized as soon as possible after birth according to church law. A child of Catholic parents, yes. Remember the very first law in the code of canon law states that the law is for Latin Rite Catholics…ONLY. The parents of this boy are protestant. Usually that means within a week if possible. And from this it would seem that all children under the age of reason should have this done. If Catholic parents request this it is normally done, if they do not then the children will not be baptized. In this case there are no Catholic parents of the boy requesting baptism.

Call the bishop’s office and have this checked out.
Usually they are online. Just send a message.

The bishop’s office will back up what the priest decided because he followed all guidelines as he is required. We do not know by any stretch of the imagination what pastoral means was used to attempt bring this family into the faith fully, the sacrament of baptism is not the bargaining chip; it is much bigger than that.

 

[Lapey]

The issue of the origianl poster and your question are unrelated. The origanal poster may not be Catholic, but there seems to be a willingness to raise her Catholic. She is making thast commitment with her daughter form this relationship.

But to play along, to answer your specific question no, with one exception, if the child was in danger of death.

If you say you would not baptize the child in the example above, then you agree with me that the OP’s son should not be baptized. This boy has two protestant parents. One protestant is asking for Catholic baptism, the boyfriend has no authority to ask.

We could look at the same exact situation with any sacrament; do you allow a person who presents them self for communion who is not Catholic and you know everything is fact like in this case? I would hope you and I would agree that we would direct the people to seek RCIA then come into the Church fully before receiving. Would you not instruct them to not receive until then?

What about marriage, would you not instruct a couple not to ask for marriage in the Church is there are impediments like a previous marriage?

In most of these types of situations we are the first ones who will speak the truth to them, if we choose not to we do more damage then ever before.

The pastoral and evangelical aspect is not the sacrament of baptism, it is the relationship which needs to be developed between us and the people who need us. In this case the OP and her family need us to be truthful, charitable and loving but truthful in that care.

I for one would love to talk with her to work on this. If she chooses she can PM me for contact info, I offered this options many pages ago.

 

[Lapey]

The Church doesn’t “need” anything -she already has it all. It’s these “fair weather friends” we need to be worried about.

I agree here, it is easy to stand for truth and right when everyone agrees…try standing up for truth when the majority is against that truth. It doesn’t change the truth, just the degree of persecution one will receive for speaking it.

Look at Jesus, He spoke all truth; see what He got for His truth? I’m ok with being in that company; I’ll continue speaking for truth, even when it is raining accommodations and untruths outside.

 

[Lapey]

But I’m not trying to pick a fight with you… I’m just trying to make sure you don’t think the Church could be harmed by lay Catholics who don’t commit to the Church… Since they are in effect separating themselves from the Church. So that doesn’t hurt the Church. Just them.

The bad reality is though; the Church is harmed by lay Catholics who speak against the Church’s true teachings. She is especially hurt when Her own clergy speak against Her.

We do real damage to the Body of Christ with our words and actions. Look at the teachings of Pope Paul VI’s Humana Vitea, most lay Catholics and Catholic clergy speak against it and practice outside of its true message. I think we can both agree the Church has been injured by this divide.

Cafeteria style Catholicism does real damage to the Body of Christ. We cannot say to the hand, “we do not need you…” or the foot, “you are not needed.” All parts of the Body are equally important!

 

[TEPO]

The bad reality is though; the Church is harmed by lay Catholics who speak against the Church’s true teachings. She is especially hurt when Her own clergy speak against Her.

We do real damage to the Body of Christ with our words and actions. Look at the teachings of Pope Paul VI’s Humana Vitea, most lay Catholics and Catholic clergy speak against it and practice outside of its true message. I think we can both agree the Church has been injured by this divide.

Cafeteria style Catholicism does real damage to the Body of Christ. We cannot say to the hand, “we do not need you…” or the foot, “you are not needed.” All parts of the Body are equally important!

Those who refuse the moral teachings of Humana Vitea, are separated from the Church by their actions. This includes most of the Church. But the truth is the worst part of it all -in that many will refuse to repent for these sins, therefore they will be condemned not so much for committing the sin, but for their failure to accept the Sacrament of reconciliation, and their refusal of the Grace that follows. Whether by pride or by the refusal to accept Catholic teachings, much of the very Church itself will perish. This is according to the Saints as I understand.

But my point here is that, the woman who started this thread was a non-Catholic. She has never been offered the Sacraments of reconciliation, Eucharist, Confirmation, Matrimony… So She has never been “Graced” in the ways that you and I have. What she does know about right or wrong only comes from her conciounce, which has never had a chance to be influenced by the Chirch. The things that she does hold in her conciounce to be “true” is what she has been taught by other people through her life experiences. This is all based on the idea that Grace comes from a relationship with Jesus through the Sacraments.

To think that non-Catholics should act Catholic is not truth. Its Charity without truth. This is assuming that the Church holds the keys to what is true and what is sin. To claim that one can posess a proper understanding of what the truth is without the sacraments is more of a Protestant position. It’s like saying that all we need to do is read the bible and that’s good enough. It is good to read the bible, but without the sacraments it’s just a “learned” Catholicism, void of a true Spiritual relationship with God… It’s incomplete.

My point is that non-Catholics should be handled differently than Catholics. The truth cannot be properly understood all at once… It’s a process that involves special graces

 

[TEPO]

Now I didn’t take as much time as I would have liked to before posting, so this ended up more like a summary of what I believe in relation to why I did what I did earlier on this thread. If something doesn’t make sense, maybe we can come to a different conclusion.

 

[Lapey]

But I’m not trying to pick a fight with you… I’m just trying to make sure you don’t think the Church could be harmed by lay Catholics who don’t commit to the Church… Since they are in effect separating themselves from the Church. So that doesn’t hurt the Church. Just them.

The bad reality is though; the Church is harmed by lay Catholics who speak against the Church’s true teachings. She is especially hurt when Her own clergy speak against Her.

We do real damage to the Body of Christ with our words and actions. Look at the teachings of Pope Paul VI’s Humana Vitea, most lay Catholics and Catholic clergy speak against it and practice outside of its true message. I think we can both agree the Church has been injured by this divide.

Cafeteria style Catholicism does real damage to the Body of Christ. We cannot say to the hand, “we do not need you…” or the foot, “you are not needed.” All parts of the Body are equally important!

Those who refuse the moral teachings of Humana Vitea, are separated from the Church by their actions. This includes most of the Church. But the truth is the worst part of it all -in that many will refuse to repent for these sins, therefore they will be condemned not so much for committing the sin, but for their failure to accept the Sacrament of reconciliation, and their refusal of the Grace that follows. Whether by pride or by the refusal to accept Catholic teachings, much of the very Church itself will perish. This is according to the Saints as I understand.

But my point here is that, the woman who started this thread was a non-Catholic. She has never been offered the Sacraments of reconciliation, Eucharist, Confirmation, Matrimony… So She has never been “Graced” in the ways that you and I have. What she does know about right or wrong only comes from her conciounce, which has never had a chance to be influenced by the Chirch. The things that she does hold in her conciounce to be “true” is what she has been taught by other people through her life experiences. This is all based on the idea that Grace comes from a relationship with Jesus through the Sacraments.

To think that non-Catholics should act Catholic is not truth. Its Charity without truth. This is assuming that the Church holds the keys to what is true and what is sin. To claim that one can posess a proper understanding of what the truth is without the sacraments is more of a Protestant position. It’s like saying that all we need to do is read the bible and that’s good enough. It is good to read the bible, but without the sacraments it’s just a “learned” Catholicism, void of a true Spiritual relationship with God… It’s incomplete.

My point is that non-Catholics should be handled differently than Catholics. The truth cannot be properly understood all at once… It’s a process that involves special graces

Well, just one simple comment, I am talking about your first post here. You say it doesn’t matter what lay Catholics do or say, I say it really does. When a Catholic is trying to teach a non-catholic truth of Church teachings and lay Catholics and even clergy in this thread come in and contradict the truth, it makes things very cloudy for the recipient of the information. I was not talking about the OP, I was talking about the dissenting voices who contradicted what I and many others were saying.

You may not agree the priest handled things perfectly, but he stayed inside the parameters that Mother Church has laid out. The problem comes in where Catholics argue that the Catholic is wrong, when he is not, to the non-Catholic. That is where the confusion comes in. When we choose to speak in one voice, whether we agree with the Church or not, that is when people will say, maybe there is something to this truth.

As of today, it is a mixed message at best.

 

[Lapey]

Now I didn’t take as much time as I would have liked to before posting, so this ended up more like a summary of what I believe in relation to why I did what I did earlier on this thread. If something doesn’t make sense, maybe we can come to a different conclusion.

I think we are on the same page for the most part. And I understand the emotions you explained earlier and I can appreciate them.

I can promise you one thing, this was not emphasized in formation to the diaconate, that it is some of the hardest things to do sometimes; to tell people exactly what the truth is when they don’t believe you nor do they want the message.

I’ve been reported once since ordination to the bishop’s office, it was by a Catholic mother of a 22 year old Catholic young lady who is a publically proclaimed lesbian and publically announced her conversion to the Episcopalian community so she could be in a same sex relationship without the guilt on her heart, still on her souls mind you.

Well I explained to the daughter how wrong she was for taking this action simply to fit her own will, the daughter told the mother, the mother wrote and called the bishop’s office, then the head of the Permanent Diaconate for our diocese called me in to his office. Now they had my exact words because the conversation was on private messaging on Face Book and the mother printed it all out. Want to know what he told me? Deacon D I’ll call him said, “Bishop told me to tell you good job. Keep up the good work!”

This is a young lady whom I have known and been working with on this issue for years. Truth is very hard to accept sometimes, but it is still truth. If we change it for “pastoral” reasons, we do an injustice to the recipient of the information and the Church. Another aspect of this we don’t see is that the culpability of the improper action can transfer to me if I do not teach truth. I cannot and will not accept that.

She ended up leaving the truth, for now, but she left by her own choice knowing the truth. The “Rich young Man” left also, but he left knowing the truth from the mouth of Jesus Himself!

 

[FAB]

I think we are on the same page for the most part. And I understand the emotions you explained earlier and I can appreciate them.

I can promise you one thing, this was not emphasized in formation to the diaconate, that it is some of the hardest things to do sometimes; to tell people exactly what the truth is when they don’t believe you nor do they want the message.

I’ve been reported once since ordination to the bishop’s office, it was by a Catholic mother of a 22 year old Catholic young lady who is a publically proclaimed lesbian and publically announced her conversion to the Episcopalian community so she could be in a same sex relationship without the guilt on her heart, still on her souls mind you.

Well I explained to the daughter how wrong she was for taking this action simply to fit her own will, the daughter told the mother, the mother wrote and called the bishop’s office, then the head of the Permanent Diaconate for our diocese called me in to his office. Now they had my exact words because the conversation was on private messaging on Face Book and the mother printed it all out. Want to know what he told me? Deacon D I’ll call him said, “Bishop told me to tell you good job. Keep up the good work!”

This is a young lady whom I have known and been working with on this issue for years. Truth is very hard to accept sometimes, but it is still truth. If we change it for “pastoral” reasons, we do an injustice to the recipient of the information and the Church. Another aspect of this we don’t see is that the culpability of the improper action can transfer to me if I do not teach truth. I cannot and will not accept that.

She ended up leaving the truth, for now, but she left by her own choice knowing the truth. The “Rich young Man” left also, but he left knowing the truth from the mouth of Jesus Himself!

A few years ago there was a braclet, WWJD What would Jesus do, I look at these situations and say How would Jesus Love.
He comanded us to baptise in His name. He didn’t say baptise in my name as long as all these previous conditions are met. He wants all to share in His Kingdom.
When it comes to the women you spoke of, How would Jesus have loved this women and her daughter? In rightousness, was it really worth loosing two of Christ sheep?

 

[Lapey]

A few years ago there was a braclet, WWJD What would Jesus do, I look at these situations and say How would Jesus Love.
He comanded us to baptise in His name. He didn’t say baptise in my name as long as all these previous conditions are met. He wants all to share in His Kingdom.
When it comes to the women you spoke of, How would Jesus have loved this women and her daughter? In rightousness, was it really worth loosing two of Christ sheep?

I’m not sure how to respond…

mixed emotions…

 

[maryjk]

A few years ago there was a braclet, WWJD What would Jesus do, I look at these situations and say How would Jesus Love.
He comanded us to baptise in His name. He didn’t say baptise in my name as long as all these previous conditions are met. He wants all to share in His Kingdom.
When it comes to the women you spoke of, How would Jesus have loved this women and her daughter? In rightousness, was it really worth loosing two of Christ sheep?

So is there anyone that you wouldn’t baptize?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

So is there anyone that you wouldn’t baptize?

Or tell that they were living outside the Truth?