Patents don't want child baptized(ok to baptize in secret?)

[Kaninchen]

Of course. Because no one would ever leave Judaism for Catholicism of their own choice.

That’s a singularly inapt/inept statement - had he left Judaism as an adult there would be nothing to discuss; we’re talking about a child physically stolen from his parents and brought up by the kidnappers.

 

[Seminarian_X]

That’s a singularly inapt/inept statement - had he left Judaism as an adult there would be nothing to discuss; we’re talking about a child physically stolen from his parents and brought up by the kidnappers.

We’re talking about an adult who, judging by the Wiki article, was very happy and content in his vocation as a Catholic priest. And who could doubt Wiki? He could’ve become a Jew again easily, if he so chose. That he didn’t speaks for itself.

 

[Kaninchen]

We’re talking about an adult who, judging by the Wiki article, was very happy and content in his vocation as a Catholic priest. And who could doubt Wiki? He could’ve become a Jew again easily, if he so chose. That he didn’t speaks for itself.

As I said, Stockholm syndrome - even more so in the case of a kidnapped child.

I suppose that the fact that many of the kidnapped Christian children who were turned into Janissaries to fight for the Sultan and Allah were eventually happy and settled in their roles would make the kidnapping of Christian children an appropriate thing to have happened?

Or is it only the kidnapping of non-Christian children you approve of?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

What I find interesting with this thread is that it is the almost exact opposite of this one:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=100581

In this old exchange, Catholic parents who want to have their children baptized are sometimes refused if they are not devout enough.

Not really because they both pivot on one issue. What will guarantee that the child will be raised properly in the Catholic faith and practice? Both cases show that there is most likely no possibility for this to happen.

 

[Seminarian_X]

As I said, Stockholm syndrome - even more so in the case of a kidnapped child.

I suppose that the fact that many of the kidnapped Christian children who were turned into Janissaries to fight for the Sultan and Allah were eventually happy and settled in their roles would make the kidnapping of Christian children an appropriate thing to have happened?

Or is it only the kidnapping of non-Christian children you approve of?

What I would approve of is if people with an agenda would cease combing through history in an attempt to point fingers at my Church. What I would approve of is if, instead of the Church apologizing constantly for real and perceived mistakes, some other religions would begin to apologize to the Church.

How about we hear some apologies from Jews, Muslims and Protestants for the horrible crimes committed by them against the Catholic Church through the centuries? sound of crickets chirping No, it seems to be a one way street. Well, I’m done. I’m not going to go around beating my breast for the supposed historical crimes of my Church. I didn’t burn anyone at the stake, kidnap any children or start any pogroms. Those who did can deal with God. It’s not my responsiblity and I refuse to take any blame for it.

 

[Kaninchen]

What I would approve of is if people with an agenda would cease combing through history in an attempt to point fingers at my Church. What I would approve of is if, instead of the Church apologizing constantly for real and perceived mistakes, some other religions would begin to apologize to the Church.

How about we hear some apologies from Jews, Muslims and Protestants for the horrible crimes committed by them against the Catholic Church through the centuries? sound of crickets chirping No, it seems to be a one way street. Well, I’m done. I’m not going to go around beating my breast for the supposed historical crimes of my Church. I didn’t burn anyone at the stake, kidnap any children or start any pogroms. Those who did can deal with God. It’s not my responsiblity and I refuse to take any blame for it.

All that just so you don’t have to admit that kidnapping the child was a bad thing!

Wow!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

We’re talking about an adult who, judging by the Wiki article, was very happy and content in his vocation as a Catholic priest. And who could doubt Wiki? He could’ve become a Jew again easily, if he so chose. That he didn’t speaks for itself.

He knew no other life at that point. Also, what about his parents? Do you suppose they were happy for his vocation?

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Seminarian

you’re attempting to defend the sins of the church, by pointing at the sins of others.

Until you can look at the wrongs the Church has committed in past, and accept that they in fact happened, you’ll never be able to preach the good news of Jesus Christ, with any sort of credibility. Its such attitudes that allowed sexual abuse by the clergy to go on and on behind closed doors, which the the Church is paying for today. Defense of the Church in place of standing for justice, will never serve the Church. It will only cause harm.

Wrong is wrong, regardless of who committed it.

Jim

 

[Genesis315]

St. Thomas Aquinas explains well why we cannot Baptize against the will of the parents–if someone can find it, that would help a lot.

 

[Seminarian_X]

Seminarian

you’re attempting to defend the sins of the church, by pointing at the sins of others.

Until you can look at the wrongs the Church has committed in past, and accept that they in fact happened, you’ll never be able to preach the good news of Jesus Christ, with any sort of credibility. Its such attitudes that allowed sexual abuse by the clergy to go on and on behind closed doors, which the the Church is paying for today. Defense of the Church in place of standing for justice, will never serve the Church. It will only cause harm.

Wrong is wrong, regardless of who committed it.

Jim

And I’d sure like to hear a Protestant, Jew or Moslem admit they were wrong. Just once. How 'bout it, Brother Abe Foxman?

I’m not defending any sins. A sin is a sin. But I’m not responsible for them. We don’t pass the sins of the father on to the children. Some religions do. Not us.

A wise history teacher once taught me that the worst mistake we can make is to judge historical actions by the standards of today. We assume we are the most enlightened, tolerant, progressive people to ever live. That’s hubris. I think I’ll defer to the opinion of Blessed Pius IX on this issue, who was actually living in Rome in the 19th century rather than a bunch of keyboard apologists feigning outrage.

Looking down our noses at our fathers in Faith doesn’t do much for our credibility, now does it? Credibility still intact, Jimbo. But thanks for your concern. :tiphat:

 

[Titus]

Is it a sin to baptise a baby against the wishes of the parents? If you truly wanted to ensure it had the graces of the sacrament ie you had good intentions?

 

[kristie_m]

well, regardless of what has happened in the past, if someone decided to do this to my kid I’d be pretty mad. I know of someone, in fact, that did this behind the mother’s back and I’m still pretty upset about it. Not that I don’t want to see the kids baptised, mind you, but because if the child isn’t old enough to decide for himself, and he’s not in grave danger of dying, then it is the PARENTS’ decision whether or not to baptise and raise that child in their chosen faith.

I would say that the best thing we can do for them is pray pray pray that they come to understand the importance of baptism and seek it for their children.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Seminarian X

And I’d sure like to hear a Protestant, Jew or Moslem admit they were wrong. Just once. How 'bout it, Brother Abe Foxman?

Each is responsible for their own sins, not the sins of others. Besides, pointing out other religions is outside the context of this thread…

I’m not defending any sins. A sin is a sin. But I’m not responsible for them. We don’t pass the sins of the father on to the children. Some religions do. Not us.

Actually our sins harm the Church, which is why we must be reconciled to the Church, through confession. We’re paying for the sins of our forefathers, just as our children will pay for our sins, today.

A wise history teacher once taught me that the worst mistake we can make is to judge historical actions by the standards of today.

This is very true, but didn’t you make this mistake, when you brought up the sins of Protestants, Jews and Muslims, which are of the past?

Looking down our noses at our fathers in Faith doesn’t do much for our credibility, now does it? Credibility still intact, Jimbo. But thanks for your concern.

I’m not looking down my nose at the fathers of the Church, but I’m not going to attempt to gloss over the errors they made. Truth is more powerful than deception.

BTW, my name isn’t Jimbo.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Baptism is a sacrament of faith.

Indeed Baptism is “the sacrament of faith”

CCC 1236

and

ccc1253 Baptism is the sacrament of faith.54 But faith needs the community of believers. It is only within the faith of the Church that each of the faithful can believe.

No faith, no Baptism. When we Baptize infants, it is through the faith of the parents, not the child, for the child has no faith, at this point in their life. Through the parents instruction, the child has a chance at faith, but its not necessary so that the child will accept the faith.

CCC 1257 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament

In other words, the child of parents who do not want their child Baptized, can not be Baptized by others, even in the case of death.

Jim

 

[Phemie]

In other words, the child of parents who do not want their child Baptized, can not be Baptized by others, even in the case of death.

Jim

Not according to Canon Law which says:

Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

 

[down_under]

For parents who are against christianity and don’t want their children baptized. It is ok for a layperson to baptize the child in secret? I heard about someone who did this in RCIA because she thought she was helping the child.

I dont know if you realize this or not but forceing baptism on a person has always been forbidden when discovered in large scale. weather we are talking about conversion by the sword, or the events that happened to the jews in spain that lead to the, often misunderstood, events known as the spanish inquisition. I cannot imagine that it could be good to force baptism on a baby and not tell anyone about it. perticularly seeings how one of the requirements of a baptism is the promise of the parents to raise the child catholic.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Ok, I know the original question was about infants, but what about a child past the age of reason (say a 10 year old) who wants to be baptized, but his parents won’t allow it (say they’re atheists, for example)? Can he approach a priest and ask for instruction and baptism against his parents’ wishes? What does the Church teach about cases like that?

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[down_under]

All that just so you don’t have to admit that kidnapping the child was a bad thing!

Wow!

on the face of it you are right, but he is also right you picked you fight rather carefully there. You may not have intended it to be that way, but he probably hears from a lot of people who do intend it that way and who often go out of there way to start a fight with the Catholic Church. give him a break. you are right though kidnapping is wrong no matter whos religion does it.

 

[Kaninchen]

on the face of it you are right, but he is also right you picked you fight rather carefully there. You may not have intended it to be that way, but he probably hears from a lot of people who do intend it that way and who often go out of there way to start a fight with the Catholic Church. give him a break. you are right though kidnapping is wrong no matter whos religion does it.

Well, I did give an example of Christian children being kidnapped, didn’t I?

Quite why he chose ‘uproar’ as a defense, I don’t know. It sort of works as a diversion, I guess.

 

[kristie_m]

Ok, I know the original question was about infants, but what about a child past the age of reason (say a 10 year old) who wants to be baptized, but his parents won’t allow it (say they’re atheists, for example)? Can he approach a priest and ask for instruction and baptism against his parents’ wishes? What does the Church teach about cases like that?

In Christ,

Ellen

VERY good question. I’m pretty sure that the child can request baptism, and it will be honored without the parents consent assuming the child is of the age of reason. Haven’t found it anywhere in writing yet, though.