Refusal to Baptize

[AlanFromWichita]

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.

If they aren’t members, then even the chance they will show up in church under those circumstances goes down.

Maybe we need to ask the question this way: how many times must one say “no” to a chance to do good, before it becomes our responsibility when it doesn’t return?

Maybe we need to ask it this way: which is better for the child, regardless of parents?

Nobody yet has come close to touching my analogy of Catholics who are zealous about the child having a mortal birthday to even human being, but we play games delaying their spiritual birthday until their parents dance to our tune.

For the upteenth-plex time, why do we play the child as leverage against parental behavior? If the reason for harming the child is that we need to teach the parents a lesson and therefore we will harm the child to show them how important their compliance is, then we are treating the child as a spiritual sacrifice. We already had one child as a spiritual sacrifice; we don’t need to go around creating others.

Alan

 

[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.

It seems to me that words such as “members” and “membership” are not really actually part of the Catholic lexicon.

Seems to me that Protestants talk about “joining a church” or “becoming members of a church” or “belonging to a church”.

Catholics simply “are Catholics”.

A non-Catholic friend told me once that his non-Catholic son had moved to a new city (job change) and had “joined a Catholic church”.

Well, that’s not the way Catholics do stuff.

 

[Al_Masetti]

AlanFromWichita:

If they aren’t members, then even the chance they will show up in church under those circumstances goes down.

Maybe we need to ask the question this way: how many times must one say “no” to a chance to do good, before it becomes our responsibility when it doesn’t return?

Maybe we need to ask it this way: which is better for the child, regardless of parents?

Nobody yet has come close to touching my analogy of Catholics who are zealous about the child having a mortal birthday to even human being, but we play games delaying their spiritual birthday until their parents dance to our tune.

For the upteenth-plex time, why do we play the child as leverage against parental behavior? If the reason for harming the child is that we need to teach the parents a lesson and therefore we will harm the child to show them how important their compliance is, then we are treating the child as a spiritual sacrifice. We already had one child as a spiritual sacrifice; we don’t need to go around creating others.

Alan

Alan has written some really excellent posts on this thread, it seems to me.

Are we supposed to use Baptism as a club to force parents into line?

What if “we” are unhappy with the amount of money that a particular set of parents contribute to the church? Would “we” deny them and their children the Sacraments?

If somebody has been away from the Church for 30 years would “we” get a megaphone and say “this guy is a really big sinner!!”… or would “we” say, “Welcome back!!!” and give him a penance of sitting before the Tabernacle and just saying “Glad to be back. Happy I came to confession. Thank you!”…

If Jesus said we are supposed to forgive seventy times seventy (meaning a LOT], then do we deny infants the sacrament of Baptism because of the sin of their parents?

What if the parents aren’t married?

What if the mother comes in and says she is a single mom, not married, no father in the picture, but she is Catholic and would like to have her baby baptized?

Would “we” demand she leave at once? Sew a Scarlet Letter on her coat? Or would “we” say “we” would be happy to baptize her baby (either right now or with ceremony on “baptism day” - her choice), but we are also even more concerned about her… can she get to Mass? [or is she working three jobs?] Would she like to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, right now… just say the Act of Contrition and she’s back in…

How often did Jesus forgive people their sins… even without their formally asking to be forgiven…

 

[pnewton]

Al Masetti:

Are we supposed to use Baptism as a club to force parents into line?

You would have a point if half the things you said were true. Instead you have built a straw man of the church’s teachings to fight. specifically:

Baptism is not a club
Contribution level is not a requirement
There is no megaphone, instead discretion is emphasized
The Church does offer penance as a Sacrament (with no limit on numbers)
No letters are sewn on people, firguratively or in reality.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

AlanFromWichita:

For the upteenth-plex time, why do we play the child as leverage against parental behavior?

I’ve seen it mentioned on the thread before, but it seems to be something you simply refuse to believe: the baptism is delayed until the parents provide reasonable expectation that the child will be raised in the faith because the baptism will create an *obligation *for the child to practice the faith.

You are looking at the short view of “what if the infant dies?” I think the Church is looking at the long view of “supposing the infant lives?” One could baptize the baby and hope against hope that despite the parents’ fraudulent notion of themselves as Catholics in good standing the child will act upon the grace he has received. That’s your model. Or one could tell the parents that the baby will be baptized when they show they intend to raise the child in the faith, and if they refuse to do so then the child will not be raised with a counterfeit model of the Catholicism and will perhaps come to the Church but at least will not be bound by obligations he is being (implicitly) taught to break.

Your model creates an obligation for the Church to baptize every single baby in the entire world, regardless of family religion. Are you willing to follow your reasoning to that natural conclusion?

 

[quiet52]

from: Al Masetti:

What if the parents aren’t married?

What if the mother comes in and says she is a single mom, not married, no father in the picture, but she is Catholic and would like to have her baby baptized?

Would “we” demand she leave at once? Sew a Scarlet Letter on her coat? Or would “we” say “we” would be happy to baptize her baby (either right now or with ceremony on “baptism day” - her choice), but we are also even more concerned about her… can she get to Mass? [or is she working three jobs?] Would she like to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation, right now… just say the Act of Contrition and she’s back in…

How often did Jesus forgive people their sins… even without their formally asking to be forgiven

ALL PEOPLE – worldwide – are invited to attend Mass, whether they are Catholic or not. Not all are invited to participate in the sacraments. The norm is that one must be prepared and predisposed to receive them (yes, there are exceptions – such as being in danger of death, or being an infant).

Catholics DO formally ask to be forgiven. This single mom would not be denied the sacrament of Reconciliation if she requests it. However, if she is cohabitating and has no intention of stopping her sin, she would not receive absolution. Jesus, through the priest, will forgive if she is truly contrite and intends to end her sin. Being a single mom in itself is not being in a state of mortal sin (if she’s confessed having engaged in sexual relations outside of marriage).

In the case of this single mom, if she is striving to live according to the faith (such as: not having sex outside of marriage, attending Mass regularly, etc.), then she is most likely predisposed to raise her child in the faith, and her pastor would most likely not have any reason to delay her infant’s Baptism.

 

[quiet52]

from Kielbasi:
The reason is that some of the leadership in the church want to get rid of the “riffraff”, with the idea that everyone in the church ought to meet certain criteria or be shown the door.

Personally, I don’t think this is a good idea but I ain’t in charge.

This is a huge distortion.

Christ and His Church desire all to be ONE in His Church – not to be separated. The doors are open to all. The sacraments have meaning, however, and those receiving them again must be prepared and predisposed to receive them. Our pastors have a responsibility to ensure this.

 

[quiet52]

Since when is a pastor’s decision to delay baptizing an infant to be considered to be a decision on the Church’s part to “drive someone out” of the Church?

This mentality reminds me of something one of my friends, a former-Catholic, says in bitterness about the Church: “The Church wouldn’t marry my niece, so why should she have any respect for the Church or bother being Catholic any more?” Her niece practices contraception, rarely attends Mass, and doesn’t believe in much of what the Church teaches, yet has a sense of entitlement about what she thinks the Church “owes” her.

No one is entitled to receive any of the sacraments without condition. A pastor has a responsibility to discern a person’s readiness to receive the sacraments. He also has a responsibility to discern whether an infant’s parent(s) are likely to raise their child in the faith. Parents who don’t believe in what the Church teaches cannot be honest during the bapsim of their babies, when they promise to raise their children in the faith.

from AlanfromWichita:
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.”

We are called to actively care about every single human life from conception to death, whether they will be raised in the Church or not. We are to do what we can for their welfare. We are to fight against society’s acceptance of abortion, or any other societal injustice which infringes upon the welfare or demeans the dignity of any person.

As baptized Christians, we have an additional responsibility – as members of Christ’s body, we’re to be lights of our Lord’s love to everyone and care about their spiritual well-being. Yes, this means evangelizing to all – whether someone’s an active or inactive Catholic, non-Catholic Christian, or non-Christian. This is participating in the central mission of the Church. That being said, we are not personally responsible for a person’s acceptance or rejection of God’s truths. We are not personally responsible for a Catholic parent’s refusal to fully embrace Christ’s truths and to raise their children in the faith. We are culpable only to the extent of our apathy.

 

[quiet52]

from 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.

Actually, after the age of reason and until he/she attains legal adulthood, a child cannot be baptized without the consent of a parent. This is in the Rite itself.

 

[ForMary]

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.

If the OP was a rant, this qualifies as a flame.

Keeping people interested in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church at least brings hope that one day they will return. Attitudes that are less than welcoming when these people do attend Mass are just reasons to stay away.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed. Thank you all.