Refusal to Baptize

[AlanFromWichita]

ncjohn:

Would you put the fate of YOUR eternal soul in a position of being determined by how some other party behaves?? Of course you wouldn’t. Why should we be asking babies who have no voice at all to do so? They don’t get to choose their caretakers and shouldn’t be punished because they don’t get perfect ones.

Peace,

We give voice to the innocent before they are born.

After they are born they are at the mercy of worldly judgments of their parents based on outward observations and presumptions about the future.

Maybe this is in place to guarantee that original sin doesn’t fail to be passed on a generation.

Maybe we need to require parents to visit a fortune teller to see whether they have a Catholic child upbringing in store!

Alan

 

[Kielbasi]

The baptism is to be deferred, if the hope that the child will be brought up Catholic is truly lacking.

But I think the hope really needs to be truly lacking, for the baptism to be “deferred”.

Afterall, “deferred” actually means “denied” in this case, because very few will ever re-approach the church, particularly as there is no real mechanism in place to try and get the parents to reapply for baptism for their child after they are told to leave and come back later.

 

[Brendan]

Christ said that “to whom much is given, much will be asked”

What would be the point of giving a baby is given the gift of Baptism without having the support structure to complete the responsibilites that part of Baptism?

Having one’s child baptized in the Church is a promise that one would fulfill the obligations of a Catholic

Attending Mass on Sunday’s and Holy Days, and when the time comes, Fasting on designated days, Confessing one’s sins and recieveing the Eucharist at least once a year.

What is so wrong about verifing that the parents are not engaged in a deception to the Church when they make these promises.

Should the Sacraments be offered to those who decieve and lie to get them?

 

[Kielbasi]

What is so wrong about verifing that the parents are not engaged in a deception to the Church when they make these promises.

Really there is no way to verify if the parents are really going to raise their children Catholic or not.
That’s what the parents are promising, not that they personally are going to fulfill all of the regulations, mass attendance, confession, etc., of the Catholic church perfectly.

 

[pnewton]

Kielbasi:

Afterall, “deferred” actually means “denied” in this case, because very few will ever re-approach the church,

No, “deferred” means deferred. The church has denied nothing just because the parents through a tantrum at having to attend Mass or a class for a little while.

If I go to a restraunt and leave because the wait is long, I can not legitimately complain that they denied me a meal. I know, having tried it. My wife tells me not to throw tantrums and to quietly eat my Big Mac.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

pnewton:

Kielbasi:

Afterall, “deferred” actually means “denied” in this case, because very few will ever re-approach the church,

No, “deferred” means deferred. The church has denied nothing just because the parents through a tantrum at having to attend Mass or a class for a little while.

If I go to a restraunt and leave because the wait is long, I can not legitimately complain that they denied me a meal. I know, having tried it. My wife tells me not to throw tantrums and to quietly eat my Big Mac.

I see it this way. “Deferred” actually means “refused”.

That is what the Church has rightly deferred to a later time the parents’ have chosen to refuse it as anytime except for the time of their choosing.

It is not the Church that is denying the baptism. It is the parents who do not wish to conform to the Church. They would rather have the Church conform to them.

Those used to be called protestants but it seems that many within the Church today are the same.

 

[Kielbasi]

pnewton:

No, “deferred” means deferred. The church has denied nothing just because the parents through a tantrum at having to attend Mass or a class for a little while.

If I go to a restraunt and leave because the wait is long, I can not legitimately complain that they denied me a meal. I know, having tried it. My wife tells me not to throw tantrums and to quietly eat my Big Mac.

I don’t think its that accurate of an analogy, as when parents are deferred its for an indefinite period of time. in the restaurant, you can see how the line is moving, or if you want to try someplace else.

Sure its possible to make parents earn the right to have their children baptized in the church by getting slips of paper signed to verify they’ve attended so many years of classes, and so many masses. But I don’t know how much this forced attendance kind of thing helps anyone, particularly as the people have already been embarrassed to their friends and relatives because their child wasn’t baptized as an infant.

It just seems likely that when child number two comes along, they might not even ask for baptism. Folks just don’t take rejection that well.

 

[pnewton]

Kielbasi:

Sure its possible to make parents earn the right to have their children baptized in the church by getting slips of paper signed to verify they’ve attended so many years of classes,

No where in the catechism do you find that one must earn the right for any sacrament. Grace by it’s very nature is unearned. What you do find is definitions of the sacraments and their requirements.

For baptism, you can not have an infant baptism without a profession of faith on the part of at least one parent (or legal custodian), Faking this profession is not allowed, as is substituting some one else for the parent. Priest are bound to follow this form. They can no more change it than any other sacrament requirement.

 

[pnewton]

Kielbasi:

I don’t think its that accurate of an analogy, as when parents are deferred its for an indefinite period of time. in the restaurant, you can see how the line is moving, or if you want to try someplace else.

I do not think it is invalid, at least it shouldn’t be. At my parish, the requirements are well known (and we don’t keep lists). The first time a parent returns to the church for baptism after being away years, everything is laid out as to the time frame and what needs to be done to satisfy the Church’s regulations. Does anyone here have a priest that defers the baptism and keeps the reason a secret, or fails to explain what is needed?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

pnewton:

No where in the catechism do you find that one must earn the right for any sacrament. Grace by it’s very nature is unearned. What you do find is definitions of the sacraments and their requirements.

For baptism, you can not have an infant baptism without a profession of faith on the part of at least one parent (or legal custodian), Faking this profession is not allowed, as is substituting some one else for the parent. Priest are bound to follow this form. They can no more change it than any other sacrament requirement.

Nowhere in the Catechism must the baby earn the right to the sacrament.

Again, it’s the baby whose right is either earned or lost by its parents. We do not wish to be using up valuable baptisms on people who may not be raised Catholic, because it somehow degrades us. :ehh:

Alan

edit>> image comes to mind of a parent at a game booth at a carnival; watch this, hon, if I hit the target I get to baptize Jeffy!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

pnewton:

I do not think it is invalid, at least it shouldn’t be. At my parish, the requirements are well known (and we don’t keep lists). The first time a parent returns to the church for baptism after being away years, everything is laid out as to the time frame and what needs to be done to satisfy the Church’s regulations. Does anyone here have a priest that defers the baptism and keeps the reason a secret, or fails to explain what is needed?

I don’t think anybody is questioning the Church’s authority to decide whom to baptize, and under what conditions. The Church can make rules as arbitrary as she pleases, and only one man on the planet can make a final decision on it.

The question is, why does the Church behave in this peculiar way? One would be better off an orphan than to be of parents who do not live up to our measures of faith.

For the umpteenth time, it is not about the baby being measured or tested or put on trial or even being found to be prepared to receive the sacrament. It is not about the child being prepared for the sacrament at all, because they child is not even cognizant of the sacrament.

It’s about the baby being played as a spiritual leverage in an authority struggle between the Church and the parents. If the baptism is good for the baby who knows nothing of its parents other than how to nurse from them, then that baby deserves to be born into spiritual life just because the child was created by God.

Again, why do we care that babies, once conceived, are born regardless of their parents’ faith, but once their born we take a hands off position and say, “whoa, if you want that baby baptized, you will jump through hoops to prove we should give it this sacrament.”

Alan

 

[pnewton]

AlanFromWichita:

The Church can make rules as arbitrary as she pleases, and only one man on the planet can make a final decision on it.

This raises a good question, although I think to call it arbitrary is inaccurate. Since there is a reason for the rule, it is not arbrirary, even if the reason is in dispute. A better question is whether the requirement of parental involvement in the baptism objectively necessary or a discipline. The use of water is objective, for example. It is a necessity for valid baptism.

 

[ncjohn]

pnewton:

This raises a good question, although I think to call it arbitrary is inaccurate. Since there is a reason for the rule, it is not arbrirary, even if the reason is in dispute. A better question is whether the requirement of parental involvement in the baptism objectively necessary or a discipline. The use of water is objective, for example. It is a necessity for valid baptism.

Actually from what I read of the requirements, parental involvement is not a requirement beyond having consent of one parent. The only other requirement is whether a "well founded expectation that the child will be raised Catholic is truly lacking.

Under that rule, my own children should not have been baptized, and I know many, many others in the same boat since it is totally normal for young people in their child rearing years to be less than attentive to “religion”, even though they will still identify with the church of their upbringing. Quite frankly, any attempt to determine this “truly lacking” characteristic is a total exercise in fortune telling since nobody on this earth has the ability to tell how anybody is going to change tomorrow much less years from now. It is also stupid for the same reason in the other direction in that there is no way to guarantee that someone who is in church today will be there tomorrow, or that anyone who is in church and stays in church will actually do anything to instruct their children in the faith.

Regardless, as I said previously, that is really all irrelevant. Baptism is not about upbringing–it is about giving the child the grace–the free gift from God–to walk in the light of God. As a beloved child of God, that child is entitled to the grace bestowed by baptism and to not be potentially cut off from its right to eternal life by the bad behavior of a third party, just as it is entitled to not have its natural life cut off by the bad behavior of a third party.

Alan is entirely right in my opinion that to say that we’re worried about protecting its physical life at all costs, but are only conditionally worrried about its eternal spiritual life is totally inconsistent with Church teachings since the Church’s entire purpose in existing is to bring people to the eternal beatific vision.

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

So if you agree with canon law that hope for being raised Catholic is “truly lacking” then how much evidence does it need for one’s hope to be “not” truly lacking?

Alan

Yes, I agree with the canon. What I am seeking is the reasoning behind that canon. I have not read what it is and I am very interested so that I may understand it better.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Yes, I agree with the canon. What I am seeking is the reasoning behind that canon. I have not read what it is and I am very interested so that I may understand it better.

Today I just talked to canon lawyer Father Hotze at our diocese office about this, and I’m still not sure I understood it exactly.

He would not come out and say that baptism is detrimental in some cases, but reiterated that the baptism is given with an assumption of being raised at least Christian, if not Catholic.

I wish I had a tape recorder because somehow when he said it, it seemed like there was nothing wrong. He seemed to understand my questions, though, and he probably answered them – I just couldn’t grasp it maybe because it went by too fast.

It almost sounded like we weren’t doing the baby any harm, but no good either. That still doesn’t quite make sense as to why we’d ever not opt to baptize an infant in any case, so it’s still fuzzy for me.

Alan

 

[Chris_Jacobsen]

The only reason that a priest can refuse to baptise a baby is that he believes that the child will not be raised a Catholic. In that case, the child, at the age of seven, can request baptism and enter the Catholic Church the same way as an adult convert.

Any other of the ridiculous reasons that a priest might state are in violation of the teachings of the Catholic Church. A child should be baptised as soon as possible after birth.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Brendan:

What is so wrong about verifing that the parents are not engaged in a deception to the Church when they make these promises.

Should the Sacraments be offered to those who decieve and lie to get them?

The idea of “a deception” escapes me.

What is the purpose of creating “a deception” or “deceive and lie”?

I can understand about being somewhat vigilant when distributing Holy Communion so that a communicant doesn’t “palm” the Host to be taken from the church and used in a Black Mass or other satanic ritual. [Although I have no idea what a priest or eucharistic minister would actually do in a case like that.]

But what would be the “ulterior motive” in having a child baptized? Obtaining a fraudulent baptismal certificate for use as future false identification? I have no idea …

 

[Ignatius]

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.

They have refused to commit to raising their children in the Church already. Those parents make their decision and are responsible for turning their back on the Church and failing to raise their children in The Faith.

God’s charity is always there calling them to return to The Church and The Church is always waiting with open arms to receive them back home.

Grace and peace be to you.

 

[Kielbasi]

Ignatius:

God’s charity is always there calling them to return to The Church and The Church is always waiting with open arms to receive them back home.
.

But if their kids aren’t members, because they weren’t baptized into the faith, its a lot less like that they will return as individuals to a more active membership.

It becomes a lot more likely that the next time they will actually be in a Catholic church is when they are carried in by 6 of their friends.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Kielbasi:

But if their kids aren’t members, because they weren’t baptized into the faith, its a lot less like that they will return as individuals to a more active membership.

It becomes a lot more likely that the next time they will actually be in a Catholic church is when they are carried in by 6 of their friends.

I have actually heard of a situation in which a devout Catholic, but a non-parishioner [person had moved away] was denied a Catholic funeral!!

[Another Catholic parish came through in the end.]