Refusal to Baptize

  • Thread starter Thread starter Al_Masetti
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
.
Click to expand...
Sure , you got a point. 2 of my nephews were refused baptism in the Catholic Church, because of their parents lack of religious observance.

They are teenagers now, there doesn’t seem to be much chance they’ll ever become Catholic now. Their old man did see that they were baptized , but as Presbyterians and has faithfully seen that they attended Presbyterian Sunday school.

Maybe the priest will agree to baptize the child now on its way, since my sister in law attends more often nowadays and they’ve shown they take baptismal promises fairly seriously.

I don’t know really how it benefits the church or even society to have mixed religion families, where the parents are one faith, the kids another. It seems to almost breed religious indifference.
 
I wonder, Al Massetti, are these friends of yours parishoners where they want their children baptized? Are they regular Mass attendees? Or, as is sometimes the case, do they want their kids baptized and they won’t be back in the church for years? I appreciate that the babies are being harmed in this case, but if the parents aren’t going to Mass regularly (which is about the only standard we can apply to who is a practicing Catholic, unless a person is homebound), then it is the parents’ fault that their children aren’t baptized, not the priest. I guess what I’m asking for is clarification on what you’re trying to say. What situation are your friends in?
 
What is a worse situation:
  1. a baptized baby that ends up not being raised Catholic, or
  2. a non-baptized baby that ends up not being raised Catholic?
Alan
 
40.png
aurora77:
I wonder, Al Massetti, are these friends of yours parishoners where they want their children baptized? Are they regular Mass attendees? Or, as is sometimes the case, do they want their kids baptized and they won’t be back in the church for years? I appreciate that the babies are being harmed in this case, but if the parents aren’t going to Mass regularly (which is about the only standard we can apply to who is a practicing Catholic, unless a person is homebound), then it is the parents’ fault that their children aren’t baptized, not the priest. I guess what I’m asking for is clarification on what you’re trying to say. What situation are your friends in?
Click to expand...
Probably irregular Mass attendees, at best. But they were baptized and confirmed and then got lax.

A&P Catholics, or Christmas & Easter Catholics are reachable, if only a couple of times a year… but there is potential and hope.

But now having been totally alienated, they are beyond lax… they are adamantly anti-Catholic.

Nothing like creating your own enemies…
 
Now I understand that there are unfortunate situations, but, Al, your friends need to take some responsibility here.

Did the Church “shut them out” or did they “shut the Church out”?

Seriously.

Actions have consequences. People have responsibilities. Some people (I am not speaking of your particular case) appear to think that “being baptized” means they get to dress baby up cute, take lots of pictures, have a big old get together–and that’s that. No regular Mass attendence, no instruction in the faith, even sometimes outright disagreement and/or defiance of key teachings. . .but they want to be able to claim, "I and my family are ". They don’t want to have to DO anything to be Catholic.

I must question the real faith of anyone who would turn his or her back on the Church teachings–which are not just “social justice” or “cultural traditions” but are literally our guide to eternal life in Christ–because, “the church wouldn’t baptize our baby because we didn’t want to do anything with the church except have a party (Baptism) or whatever we particularly felt like”, or “somebody in the church SAID something which made me FEEL BAD”.

Granted, there is no excuse for gratuitously maliciously hurting a person–but truth is truth, whether it makes someone “feel bad” or not. No matter how lovingly I might state to somebody that, “because we love you so much, we are going to insist that you follow the rules of our church, taught by Christ and the Spirit, because your salvation depends on your obedience to God in this”, that person might “feel bad”. So what happens then? Is truth to be held hostage to the tantrums and foot stampings of somebody who wants what HE wants when he wants it, and will storm out breathing anathemas if people do not accommodate him? (Again, please, I am not talking of your family personally here).
 
When sheep stray, the Good Shepherd leaves the flock and goes to find them.

The Good Shepherd does not judge and blame the sheep and tell them “good riddance.”

It really doesn’t matter whose fault it is that there are lax Catholics. The point is that we should be looking to welcome these people at every chance we get, not judge them.

Yes, the Church did shut them out at their time at which they would have committed to obvious ties. Whether she was bound to by her own rules or not, this cannot be denied. One could argue that had the Church not shut them out they would not have been more active, but that is quite an irrelevant argument because we never saw how they would have reacted to a welcoming Church.

When do we start living the lessons Christ taught us? When do we welcome the marginal Catholic? Make room in the hospital bed to the sick can all get in the door?

Catholics who think the Church is better off because a marginal Catholic has left her, would scatter the flock and prevent the Church from carrying on the mission to “feed Christ’s sheep.”

We must change our mindsets if we want Catholicism to thrive. One way to start is to use our own product. That is, actually adopt the attitudes and behaviors Christ taught us to have rather than turn ourselves into the exact monsters that Christ came to get rid of and blocking the blessings that Christ intended us to receive.

Alan
 
Tantum ergo:
Granted, there is no excuse for gratuitously maliciously hurting a person–but truth is truth, whether it makes someone “feel bad” or not. No matter how lovingly I might state to somebody that, “because we love you so much, we are going to insist that you follow the rules of our church, taught by Christ and the Spirit, because your salvation depends on your obedience to God in this”, that person might “feel bad”. So what happens then? Is truth to be held hostage to the tantrums and foot stampings of somebody who wants what HE wants when he wants it, and will storm out breathing anathemas if people do not accommodate him? (Again, please, I am not talking of your family personally here).
Click to expand...
When the Truth involves personal judgment of another’s Catholicity, then I suppose that is one aspect of the Truth that may be withheld, or do we not agree that Christ told us not to judge? Does anybody actually take that teaching “not judge” to heart?
Catholicity prayer II:
Dear Lord,

I am truly sorry for the state of Your Church. People are refusing to obey you. I am your obedient servant and have done your will by making sure that nobody is in Your Church unless they measure up to at least a minimum standard of excellence. Thank you for giving me your blessings, and I promise I will personally prevent those I feel are unworthy to approach you. I grieve with you over the lost ones, and I pray for them that they may find, well, whatever they find because we aren’t letting them in here until they shape up. I do not ask for praise, as this is the service I am bound to do. It’s difficult work, and I am very pleased to do it for you. Amen.
Click to expand...
Alan
 
Wow, all these posts and no one has mentioned baptism of desire.

It would be a good question for the apolgists because I don’t know if I could even answer it. But if an unbaptised baby dies before the parents can get it baptised and they did want the baby to get baptised, would that cover baptism of desire?
 
40.png
gelsbern:
Wow, all these posts and no one has mentioned baptism of desire.

It would be a good question for the apolgists because I don’t know if I could even answer it. But if an unbaptised baby dies before the parents can get it baptised and they did want the baby to get baptised, would that cover baptism of desire?
Click to expand...
No
 
Tantum ergo:
Now I understand that there are unfortunate situations, but, Al, your friends need to take some responsibility here.

Did the Church “shut them out” or did they “shut the Church out”?

Seriously.

Actions have consequences. People have responsibilities. Some people (I am not speaking of your particular case) appear to think that “being baptized” means they get to dress baby up cute, take lots of pictures, have a big old get together–and that’s that. No regular Mass attendence, no instruction in the faith, even sometimes outright disagreement and/or defiance of key teachings. . .but they want to be able to claim, "I and my family are ". They don’t want to have to DO anything to be Catholic.

I must question the real faith of anyone who would turn his or her back on the Church teachings–which are not just “social justice” or “cultural traditions” but are literally our guide to eternal life in Christ–because, “the church wouldn’t baptize our baby because we didn’t want to do anything with the church except have a party (Baptism) or whatever we particularly felt like”, or “somebody in the church SAID something which made me FEEL BAD”.

Granted, there is no excuse for gratuitously maliciously hurting a person–but truth is truth, whether it makes someone “feel bad” or not. No matter how lovingly I might state to somebody that, “because we love you so much, we are going to insist that you follow the rules of our church, taught by Christ and the Spirit, because your salvation depends on your obedience to God in this”, that person might “feel bad”. So what happens then? Is truth to be held hostage to the tantrums and foot stampings of somebody who wants what HE wants when he wants it, and will storm out breathing anathemas if people do not accommodate him? (Again, please, I am not talking of your family personally here).
Click to expand...
If someone’s training in the Church’s teachings consisted mostly of coloring and making banners, but as a result doesn’t know anything and can’t explain anything, then how culpable are they?

Vincible or invincible ignorance?

Deserving of being driven out of the Church?
 
Al Masetti:
If someone’s training in the Church’s teachings consisted mostly of coloring and making banners, but as a result doesn’t know anything and can’t explain anything, then how culpable are they?

Vincible or invincible ignorance?

Deserving of being driven out of the Church?
Click to expand...
I went to Catholic grade school for eight years and that’s practically all we learned in religion. We read stories like Jonah, but never in the whole time opened a Bible. We were not taught ANY Church teachings except those needed for rituals and behavior during school and Mass, and First Communion and Confirmation. I’d say that when I was confirmed, I was not even taught what all the sacraments were. There are entire generations of people out there like this. If we expect them to come back on their own, or to come back despite us turning our nose up at them, then we have no learned even as much as the world’s corporations know and frankly, we have nothing to say about how powerful Protestants are if we harbor this attitude. There are Christians who will welcome these people, and if they aren’t Catholic, then at least they are doing Christ’s work – and Christ Himself said these people will NOT lose their reward.

Besides, Christ was a heretic and blasphemer according to Church authorities. When we wish someone out of Church because we have judged them, we do it to Christ Himself. We replay the part of the builders who reject a stone that becomes the capstone. This is so simple it boggles my mind that people go around telling everybody else the THEIR immortal soul is in danger – all the while providing an example that is exactly what Christ warned not to do.

Alan
 
Al Masetti:
If someone’s training in the Church’s teachings consisted mostly of coloring and making banners, but as a result doesn’t know anything and can’t explain anything, then how culpable are they?

Vincible or invincible ignorance?

Deserving of being driven out of the Church?
Click to expand...
I agree with you that the priest should always err on the side of caution and get these babies baptized. But, your friends are driving themselves out of the Church–they are fully culpable. They’re adults (I’m assuming) and fully capable of attending Mass and to their spiritual needs. At some point we all are accountable for our actions. By your standards, no one catechized after, say, 1970 is culpable for anything.

Maybe your friends could learn from this experience, find another parish and get their children baptized? Life’s about making mistakes, owning up to our faults and those mistakes, and learning from them.
 
Maybe your friends could learn from this experience, find another parish and get their children baptized?
Click to expand...
Very few people will go through the hassle of moving for this purpose, particularly as there is still a possibility that the next parish priest is just as likely to honor the decision of the first priest , which would be a double slap in the face to him.

I guess it would depend on how much toleration the individual has for rejection.
 
Gosh, now just WHO is judging WHOM here?

Personally I would be delighted to see more people baptized into the Church.

I am not attempting in any way to cast UNFAIR blame on any person.

HOWEVER: If a person makes a deliberate choice to reject something, that person bears SOME culpability if it is the wrong choice. This is not me JUDGING them, it is simply stating a fact. And I DID mention unfortunate situations and that it was never right to deliberately hurt anyone. . .so to all those attempting to cast me for the role of First Pharisee–you might want to be VERY sure that YOU don’t make those same “judgmental” errors of which you accuse others.

Thanks, Aurora, for noting charitably that no matter how SORRY and SYMPATHETIC we are to individuals, that does not excuse them from consequences. May God bring their hearts and souls to HIM. I don’t judge them and their relationship to Him, and never will.
 
What difference does it make whose fault it is that a baby is not baptized? The baby isn’t baptized, and if we could have done something to make that different, then we are as culpable from inaction as action.

Honestly. Arguing about whose fault it is. Why do we care? Are we in the business of feeding sheep or judging them? I suppose if we judge them enough to thin their numbers some it will be cheaper to buy premium food for those who are left, so this is where the “quality not quantity” comes in.

Why don’t we baptize every baby we get a chance to? Why do we expect the parents to meet qualification criteria? As I asked before, how does it harm the Church or a baby to be baptized? If the baby cannot be harmed by the baptism itself, and might benefit from it, then the only kind option is to baptize.

I don’t think God will judge our performance at the excellent way we shun sinners. I think He will judge us as Catholics at how much we welcome any and all to come to Him, and forgiving them seventy times seven and still welcoming them.

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
What difference does it make whose fault it is that a baby is not baptized? The baby isn’t baptized, and if we could have done something to make that different, then we are as culpable from inaction as action.
Click to expand...
I agree with you completely. I just felt I had to chime in when the OP basically blamed the priest (i.e. the Church) without any acknowledgment of the parents’ culpability. He was acting like these poor, helpless parents were being picked on by the big bad priest. That’s where I take issue. Any time we lose a chance to increase the Body of Christ through baptism, we all suffer.

You ask a good question–“Why do we expect the parents to meet qualification criteria?” Does anyone know the answer? I’m sure the Church has a good reason for doing so, I’d be interested to know what that is. As long as there are qualifications, those need to be met and if they can’t be, don’t blame the Church! Perhaps you parents who’ve been through the process can help the rest of us out?
 
OK, I googled “baptism preparation catholic” and here are a couple of link that seem to explain things. They come from two different parishes.

auburncatholic.org/childbaptism.htm
members.aol.com/spfldcath/bpolicy.html

It sounds like in both cases, the parishes involved want to make sure that the parents realize that the seriousness of what they are undertaking. It all sounds very reasonable, after all, why would someone not living in the way described really want their children baptized? Do they truly understand what they are asking for? Hope this helps.
 
I’m sure the Church has a good reason for doing so, I’d be interested to know what that is.
Click to expand...
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.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Can you prove that? I guess this is a new thing, then, can you help show us when these rules were enacted (not being snarky, I really want to know)? We have criteria for participation in all of the sacraments, why should it be different for baptism?
 
40.png
aurora77:
We have criteria for participation in all of the sacraments, why should it be different for baptism?
Click to expand...
One reason I think baptism is different is that, when done as an infant, it is done without any knowledge or expectations whatsoever on the recipient of the sacrament. The baby could be there soiling its drawers for all any of us care, and it will still get the sacrament.
It’s kind of like, if the parents aren’t in line, the baby doesn’t get the sacrament. Why should it even matter if the parents truly want the baby baptized for that matter, unless there are civil laws against such a practice? In an emergency others rather than the parents can baptize. It just seems like from any given baby’s point of view it is completely arbitrary.

Is a baptism a kind of a spiritual “birth?” If so, why don’t all babies deserve this sacrament as a right – kind of a spiritual “right to life?” We go to clinics and protest over babies who are prevented a physical birth, even though they might have satan worshippers as parents. We wish to save the baby’s physical life regarless of the parents, but we only baptize them based on parental performance. :whacky:

I’m trying to be provocative but not inflammatory with this comparison. If you think it’s too strong, then please explain to me how my analogy is flawed, or if not flawed how their spiritual lives aren’t at least as important as their physical lives.

Alan
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top