Refusal to Baptize

[Al_Masetti]

A large number of my friends and neighbors have been driven out of the Church by the rigidity with which some priests refuse to baptise their babies. These people have been scandalized for life. Totally repelled.

Instead of a “well-founded hope of being raised Catholic”, we now have a well-founded fact of life-time rejection of a whole extended family.

Where is the charity for the infant?

There seems to be a body of thought among some clergy that it is better to have smaller numbers of well-grounded Catholics rather than to have “masses” of people who are less motivated.

Any wonder that the numbers show declining Mass attendance?

When these folks were “partly participating” there was some hope that they might increase their participation. Now, with their abstaining totally from Church participation, there is very small hope.

This ranks right up there with priests refusing to teach from the pulpit.

 

[msproule]

I thoroughly understand and appreciate the symbolism of having Baptism take place at the Easter Vigil…it is truly a beautiful thing. However, Baptism is always a beautiful thing! However, I do not understand the logic of delaying this Sacrament. In my experience, this happens more often to “pad” the Easter Vigil than for mere catechetical reasons.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Al Masetti:

A large number of my friends and neighbors have been driven out of the Church by the rigidity with which some priests refuse to baptise their babies. These people have been scandalized for life. Totally repelled.

Instead of a “well-founded hope of being raised Catholic”, we now have a well-founded fact of life-time rejection of a whole extended family.

Where is the charity for the infant?

There seems to be a body of thought among some clergy that it is better to have smaller numbers of well-grounded Catholics rather than to have “masses” of people who are less motivated.

Any wonder that the numbers show declining Mass attendance?

When these folks were “partly participating” there was some hope that they might increase their participation. Now, with their abstaining totally from Church participation, there is very small hope.

Where is the charity for the infant by placeing the burden upon them with baptism knowing that their is no willingness in the parents to raise the child as a Catholic?

Just some entries from the CCC.

1231 Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here.

1255 For the grace of Baptism to unfold, the parents’ help is important. So too is the role of the godfather and godmother, who must be firm believers, able and ready to help the newly baptized - child or adult on the road of Christian life.55 Their task is a truly ecclesial function (officium).56 The whole ecclesial community bears some responsibility for the development and safeguarding of the grace given at Baptism

And now Canon Law.

Can. 868 §1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required:

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

2° 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.

§2 An infant of catholic parents, indeed even of non-catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptised even if the parents are opposed to it.

Canon Law is binding upon the priest, he must follow it. A bishop, as local ordinary may grant dispensations from this but a priest can not do so on his own.

This ranks right up there with priests refusing to teach from the pulpit.

Comparing apples to oranges. One of these, refusing to teach, is a call from the Church to do so. The other, not baptising when there is no hope that the child will be raised Catholic, is also a call from the Church.

So the correct statment would be that baptising a child whose parents will not raise it within the Faith is the same as refusing to teach from the pulpit. They are both ignoring what the Church Teaches.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

SMHW:

Might I inquire as to why you are so eager to have your baby baptized now rather than waiting until Easter?

I realize that this might sound like a silly question to some and I agree that baptism should not be needlessly delayed. But I am wondering if the only reason you want your baby baptized now is because you worry that the baby will die (sorry to be so blunt) or if there is some other reason. Do you believe that you are violating the will of God by delaying?

PMFJIH, but I can tell you why I would be eager to get something done sooner rather than later. We may not live that long, and during the meanwhile we are tied to an obligation we may not be able to see to fruition – the chances diminishing with every day longer it is delayed.

God gave us a parable of a foolish person who spent his time preparing for tomorrow, not knowing his life would be called that day. I find it interesting how easy it is for one person to tell another person to deal with roadblocks by being patient.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Al Masetti:

A large number of my friends and neighbors have been driven out of the Church by the rigidity with which some priests refuse to baptise their babies. These people have been scandalized for life. Totally repelled.

Instead of a “well-founded hope of being raised Catholic”, we now have a well-founded fact of life-time rejection of a whole extended family.

Where is the charity for the infant?

There seems to be a body of thought among some clergy that it is better to have smaller numbers of well-grounded Catholics rather than to have “masses” of people who are less motivated.

Any wonder that the numbers show declining Mass attendance?

When these folks were “partly participating” there was some hope that they might increase their participation. Now, with their abstaining totally from Church participation, there is very small hope.

This ranks right up there with priests refusing to teach from the pulpit.

If “well-founded” were better defined, we might not be in this mess. In the case under discussion, I know kids in Catholic school that likely stand less chance of “being raised Catholic” than the these.

However, since the law states, “unless it is truly lacking” it would seem that one could go on circumstantial evidence. It also sound like the error is to be in favor of baptising, not deferring it.

Alan

 

[puzzleannie]

sabrinaofmn:

My husband and I are in the process of converting. We are both baptised Christians only married to each other seeking to convert, but we are told that we must go through RCIA, so that is what we will do. I read the Catechism, and it states that a baby must only receive baptism if there is a well-founded hope of being raised Catholic. I have received the sacrament of reconciliation from this priest, so he knows that I am serious. However, he won’t baptise my baby until Easter. He stated that we sometimes want things before we can have them; ?

it is the usual parents, when parents enter the Church through RCIA, for the children to be initiated at the same time, so your priest is following the usual practice. Please take your guidance from him, because luckily it is the priest in your parish who leads RCIA, not a lay person, and he sounds devout and orthodox in other ways. RCIA is synonymous with patience, that is why your priest gives this counsel. If illness or something comes up that makes immedate baptism advisable contact him immediately of course. Otherwise, stick with the plan, your family will be the richer for it.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

sabrinaofmn:

My husband and I are in the process of converting. We are both baptised Christians only married to each other seeking to convert, but we are told that we must go through RCIA, so that is what we will do. I read the Catechism, and it states that a baby must only receive baptism if there is a well-founded hope of being raised Catholic. I have received the sacrament of reconciliation from this priest, so he knows that I am serious. However, he won’t baptise my baby until Easter. He stated that we sometimes want things before we can have them; specifically, his parents wanted confirmation and had to wait until their annulment came through. He wants us to wait on infant baptism until our confirmation. Moreover, this priest, although very sincere and seemingly pious, doesn’t return phone calls or e-mails. What do I do next?

The focus of Easter Vigil is ADULT Baptisms not infant or small children. In this case Easter is only a few weeks away. Learn how to validly Baptize your own child if necessary before Easter in case of an emergency. Otherwise I suggest waiting for the Easter Vigil.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

In the unfortunate event something happens to that baby between now and then, I have no doubt the baby will not suffer a negative judgment. The more I think about it, the more I wonder how important it really is whether the baby is intended to be baptized, or is actually baptized with water – in a practical sense where it mattered, that is.

For most of us, what difference does it make to us that we are baptized? Because that’s the ticket to other sacraments? Because it is the ticket to heaven? These questions come up when we are using calendars to determine how far into the future we can extrapolate this operation.

Alan

 

[puzzleannie]

Br. Rich SFO:

The focus of Easter Vigil is ADULT Baptisms not infant or small children. In.

as I said, it is common practice to baptize infants at Easter if their parents are entering the Church at the same time as well as the older children in the family, and it is quite in order to baptize other infants at Easter if there are no RCIA candidates, for the sign value to the community.

there is no need for the parents to baptize themselves, they are placing themselves under the guidance of the Church and pastor by undertaking RCIA and they should do so, and refrain from taking outside advice. The infant, like the catechumens, falls under the protection of the status of catechumen. If he should die before Easter and formal baptism he is already considered a member of the Church. This began in the age of the persecutions when catechumens were likely to be arrested and executed along with the rest of the community.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

AlanFromWichita:

In the unfortunate event something happens to that baby between now and then, I have no doubt the baby will not suffer a negative judgment. The more I think about it, the more I wonder how important it really is whether the baby is intended to be baptized, or is actually baptized with water – in a practical sense where it mattered, that is.

For most of us, what difference does it make to us that we are baptized? Because that’s the ticket to other sacraments? Because it is the ticket to heaven? These questions come up when we are using calendars to determine how far into the future we can extrapolate this operation.

Alan

The difference is between certainty and un-certainty and may even be the difference between Heaven and Hell!

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

puzzleannie:

as I said, it is common practice to baptize infants at Easter if their parents are entering the Church at the same time as well as the older children in the family, and it is quite in order to baptize other infants at Easter if there are no RCIA candidates, for the sign value to the community.

there is no need for the parents to baptize themselves, they are placing themselves under the guidance of the Church and pastor by undertaking RCIA and they should do so, and refrain from taking outside advice. The infant, like the catechumens, falls under the protection of the status of catechumen. If he should die before Easter and formal baptism he is already considered a member of the Church. This began in the age of the persecutions when catechumens were likely to be arrested and executed along with the rest of the community.

"The infant, like the catechumens, falls under the protection of the status of catechumen. If he should die before Easter and formal baptism he is already considered a member of the Church.

Ah NO! One is not a Catechumen unless they have participated in the Rite of Acceptance. Infant Baptism and the Catechumenate leading to adult Baptism are viewed totally different by the Church.

“there is no need for the parents to baptize themselves, they are placing themselves under the guidance of the Church and pastor by undertaking RCIA and they should do so, and refrain from taking outside advice.”

Are you really advising these parents not to bother learning how to Baptize in case of an emergency, as I suggested? Are you actually saying that if the child is being taken to the emergency room with a serious condition that they not even bother considering Baptizing the child! Bad advise!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Br. Rich SFO:

The difference is between certainty and un-certainty and may even be the difference between Heaven and Hell!

Technically this is true.

In my heart, I cannot believe that God punishes infants in hell. If that is the case, then hell is advertised all wrong. It seems that our ideas about God sending people to hell are much more abitrary than based on merit or character. Very arbitrary indeed, is that God will punish a totally innocent soul in hell because the particulars of how others on the planet behaved. If God plays dice with letting people go to hell, then I figure the game’s up and I might just as well quit worrying about it entirely.

I realize the remifications of my doubt are to press the issue, “is baptism even necessary?”

In these ambiguous situations I cannot understand why the advantage should be clearly toward the child in question. We go to abortion clinics and protest all over the place because kids’ physical lives are being taken, but we just “take our chances” with their spiritual lives? I’m not impressed with this attitude, and I think that unless a priest has good reason to believe that the child will not play Catholic but delays without good cause, then if there actually is an uncertainty, that child may go to hell because of the decision of the priest. That is a very big onus for the priest to take on, so either the priest is indifferent toward his own performance, or simply doesn’t believe that sacramental baptism is important. Either that or he hasn’t thought it through in which case his decisions are entirely arbitrary.

If a baby’s eternal soul is determined by baptism, then I am very disturbed over the whole concept that the parents have to be willing, and measure up to any standards in particular. What is the risk? Is the Church going to collapse if she baptizes an infant and later turns out not be brought up Catholic? Is the baby, if not brought up Catholic, more likely hellbound for the sake of the baptism? I doubt it because if so the canon law would be written so that the baptism is only given if there is ample evidence the child will be – and that’s not how it’s written.

Alan

 

[rwoehmke]

How did we get from the OP’s rant to the ins and outs of RCIA programs. It seems that there are non-practicing Catholics out there who don’t darken the door of a Catholic Church and yet want Baptism, Weddings, and Funerals in the church. Strange. Is it nostalgia, superstition, what? It is like my grandchild. Her aunt was teaching her the days of the week. She got them all but Sunday, so auntie says,“What day do you go to church?” Granddaughter answers,“Oh, Yeah. Christmas and Easter.” It was funny in a tragic sort of way because my son no longer practices and when he goes, goes to his wife’s church where they don’t baptize till 18 or older.

 

[Jason_Hurd]

AlanFromWichita:

Technically this is true.

In my heart, I cannot believe that God punishes infants in hell. If that is the case, then hell is advertised all wrong. It seems that our ideas about God sending people to hell are much more abitrary than based on merit or character. Very arbitrary indeed, is that God will punish a totally innocent soul in hell because the particulars of how others on the planet behaved. If God plays dice with letting people go to hell, then I figure the game’s up and I might just as well quit worrying about it entirely.

You may not believe that unbaptised infants go to Hell, but why take the chance? God’s ways are unfathomable to man, and may involve choices and actions that seem nonsensical to us here, but would become clearer if we had the God’s-eye view. In particular, the sacraments are not to be taken lightly. There are reasons for all of them. Also, remember that an infant is not a “totally innocent soul”. The baby has not been in danger of actively committing sin as it has not yet reached the age of reason, but it was still born with the stain of Original Sin on its soul, and thus technically is not innocent and is in dire need of Christ’s redeeming sacrifice, as well as the sacrament of baptism. The cleansing waters of baptism wash away the stain of sin, and the infant then is innocent and worthy of the Beatific Vision, but not before.

 

[Brendan]

puzzleannie:

as I said, it is common practice to baptize infants at Easter if their parents are entering the Church at the same time as well as the older children in the family,

Only if Easter is just a few weeks away.

Parents have an obligation under Canon Law to have their children baptized within a few weeks of birth.

Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

To the OP

For a priest to request a postponement of Baptism the well founded hope that the child would be raised Catholic must be “altogether absent”

( Canon 868-2)

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.

So the priest should already have advised you of the reason he holds the the required hope is not present.

If the priest has not done so, I would recommend that you print off the above Canon’s and request a meeting to find out the reason. Further clarification might provide the priest with the necessary understanding of your intentions.

But do be prepared to accept his decision.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Al Masetti:

A large number of my friends and neighbors have been driven out of the Church by the rigidity with which some priests refuse to baptise their babies. These people have been scandalized for life. Totally repelled.

Instead of a “well-founded hope of being raised Catholic”, we now have a well-founded fact of life-time rejection of a whole extended family.

Where is the charity for the infant?

There seems to be a body of thought among some clergy that it is better to have smaller numbers of well-grounded Catholics rather than to have “masses” of people who are less motivated.

Any wonder that the numbers show declining Mass attendance?

When these folks were “partly participating” there was some hope that they might increase their participation. Now, with their abstaining totally from Church participation, there is very small hope.

This ranks right up there with priests refusing to teach from the pulpit.

“There seems to be a body of thought among some clergy that it is better to have smaller numbers of well-grounded Catholics rather than to have “masses” of people who are less motivated.”

I might agree with that. Mass numbers are declining because people just seem not to care that much about the practice of their faith. I think it best to focus support on participating Catholics and less on “partly participating”. Not totally abandoning them however. If you don’t like the speed limit, you can’t just go out there in the middle of the night and change the sign to what you like. We are required to conform to certain minimum expectations if we want to use the name Catholic.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Al Masetti:

There seems to be a body of thought among some clergy that it is better to have smaller numbers of well-grounded Catholics rather than to have “masses” of people who are less motivated.

Any wonder that the numbers show declining Mass attendance?

When these folks were “partly participating” there was some hope that they might increase their participation. Now, with their abstaining totally from Church participation, there is very small hope.

This ranks right up there with priests refusing to teach from the pulpit.

Al,

If I separate this part of your post from the issue of baptism, I think it stands on its own as an important issue.

There seems to be a growing trend among parishes to formally “grade” certain parishioners in their catholicity. This comes directly out of improper attempts at incorporating stewarship into a parish or diocese. Typically in these cases, parents of school children are singled out and evaluated for their “catholicity” based on the votes of lay committees who may or may not have final authority given to them by the pastor. According to stewardship theory, everybody is to be treated exactly the same, and stewardship manuals warn against having different criteria for school parents as they do for the rest of adults, but the practice is widespread.

When did Jesus change His mind about the Church being a hospital for sinners? Are sinners the ones we want to keep closest to, like Christ Himself did? Aren’t these the sheep we wish to bring back into the fold? The ones that a Good Shepherd will leave the rest of the flock to go find – rather than issue them a “good riddance?”

No, in today’s Church we have a “shape up or ship out” mentality, as if the more Catholic you are the more you deserve the Sacraments. Luckily, I seem to be in good standing. I think if I were to pray based on this mentality, it would go something like this:
Catholicity prayer:

Lord, thank you for making me an active Catholic, not like those “marginal” ones who don’t even show up every week. Thank you for making me better than them, more deserving of the Sacraments, and more able to claim Heaven as my home.

Note now, this does NOT mean I am against being a devout Catholic. I am seriously against, however, Catholics who rate each other as to their Catholicity in order to determine which ones will get what parish and sacramental benefits and which won’t. It happens every day, and I’m sure the Blessed Mother weeps over the divisions in her children.

As you asked, “where is the love?”

Alan

 

[puzzleannie]

"Are you really advising these parents not to bother learning how to Baptize in case of an emergency, as I suggested? Are you actually saying that if the child is being taken to the emergency room with a serious condition that they not even bother considering Baptizing the child! Bad advise!

what I advised in a previous post was that in such a case they contact a priest immediately for baptism. this thread seems to have been combined with another one, so I am having trouble navigating here.

 

[puzzleannie]

rwoehmke:

How did we get from the OP’s rant to the ins and outs of RCIA programs. Itr.

it appears that two threads on baptism have been combined, the question I responded to originally was from parents in RCIA, not the same situation as OP in this thread.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

puzzleannie:

what I advised in a previous post was that in such a case they contact a priest immediately for baptism. this thread seems to have been combined with another one, so I am having trouble navigating here.

Ok I agree that they could contact the pastor and ask again for the Baptism of their child. If refused again they should just wait until Easter Vigil but be aware of how to Baptize in case of emergency and a priest is not available.