Parental consent for baptism and "danger of perversion"

[jbettin]

My husband and I teach baptism at our parish. In our course, we cover the fact that anyone can be an extraordinary minister of baptism in an emergency. In stressing that we ought not go crazy with this, we make a point that baptism without parental consent is illicit unless the child is in danger of death.

In researching this, we found that the Catholic Encyclopedia says “It is not licit to baptize children against the will of their Protestant parents; for their baptism would violate parental right, expose them to the danger of perversion, and be contrary to the practice of the Church.” All well and good, but what does it mean that it would “expose them to the danger of perversion”? I haven’t been able to find an explanation. Thanks for any help!

 

[FrDavid96]

First of all, let us all remember that the article was written at least 100 years ago, and so uses language that we would not likely use today.

The answer is that “danger of perversion” means that a baptised Catholic would be raised as a Protestant, based on the parents being Protestant.

That’s what it means.

Although we would certainly use different words today, the truth behind the words still applies.

 

[Allegra]

I think what it means is that the child would be responsible for living out the teachings of the Church by virtue of his or her Baptism, but would have a fairly poor chance of being able to do so because of being raised to believe things that go against what the Church teachers.

 

[Murmurs]

I think what it means is that the child would be responsible for living out the teachings of the Church by virtue of his or her Baptism, but would have a fairly poor chance of being able to do so because of being raised to believe things that go against what the Church teachers.

Curious question - would the child be responsible? If they were baptised as an infant but didn’t “know” about it, I don’t see how responsibility to live teachings can be imputed…

 

[Nelka]

I think what it means is that the child would be responsible for living out the teachings of the Church by virtue of his or her Baptism, but would have a fairly poor chance of being able to do so because of being raised to believe things that go against what the Church teachers.

Curious question - would the child be responsible? If they were baptised as an infant but didn’t “know” about it, I don’t see how responsibility to live teachings can be imputed…