Refusal to Baptize

  • Thread starter Thread starter Al_Masetti
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Alan, I don’t think you’re being provacative and inflammatory. I think we’re all just trying to get a better grasp on the situation. You raise valid points. The baby is the one suffering when a baptism is refused. I agree completely. The spiritual lives of those babies is of the highest importance. That’s why I’m wondering about the criteria for baptism–when was it established, some documentation. I’ll have to go look at the CCC and see if it says anything.

I wonder then why adults are required to go through a formation process in order to be baptized if it’s a “right.” Wouldn’t the same standards that apply to adult recipients of the sacrament then apply to the parents of the baby to be baptized? I honestly don’t know the answer and I’m not trying to be provacative either, I’m really curious. I was baptized at 8, so I don’t really remember all the details (I sure remember the event though–Holy Saturday 1986; it was amazing) and we don’t have children, so I’ve not been through that side of the process.
 
Ok, being honest I reviewed many of the posts, I did not read each and every post completely.

Did I miss some specific examples, not merley “many of my friends and relitives” where not allowed to baptise thier infants.

It makes it sound as if lines of people are being turned away.

Is it not more possible that at least in the one example, where the parents were not living as the church teaches, perhaps thier child is not Catholic because of the way the parents lived, not because he was baptised or not baptised a certain way.

And the number of people that come and join the church because they find its truth.

And as I do, perhaps it is not as much refusing to baptise, as it is the parents not willing to get the counciling and the help to correct the problems in thier life. A big part of the child being baptised is being raised into the faith. If there is no one to raise the child in faith, there is a true problems.

I first don’t beleive there are people being turned away, there are people being asked to clean up issues in thier life and return to the church. ( Jesus said to repent and be baptised) if you are standing iwth your child, can you do so without reprenting truely. So I feel those that feel they are turned away, are in reality the ones who turned away from the faith.
 
Thanks, Fr. Chuck, it’s good to get the perspective of a priest on this issue.
 
From what I understand (and I could be wrong) which I have gathered from extensive reading both in the CA home and EWTN, the reason that we don’t just go around indiscriminately baptizing babies, no matter what their parents say, or do, regarding the faith, is this:

Once a person is baptized a Catholic, that person is always and forever a Catholic.

As a Catholic, that person is held to a higher standard, even if s/he does not (or the parents or godparents) realize it.

Remember what the gospel says about “to whom much has been given, much will be expected?”

Now consider that, reasonably speaking, if a child’s family is not practicing the faith, that child is not likely to really learn about the faith. That child is much more likely to turn his back on the faith.

Even though there is likely some excuse from culpability due to ignorance, the fact remains that as Catholics we are expected, according to the Catechism, to make sure that we have received thorough instruction regarding the faith, that we have responsibilities to act as Catholic Christians, and that the responsibilities we have are much more encompassing and comprehensive than would be expected of non-Catholics.

You see, Baptism does not guarantee us salvation. Being baptized a Catholic does not give us an inside track.

In fact, being baptized a Catholic, yet failing to follow the faith, or worse yet, later abjuring the faith, is more likely to lead to damnation, not salvation.

THAT is why (again, according to what I have seen or heard) the clergy is trying to make sure, NOT that “the parents aren’t riffraff”, or “the undesirables are kept out”–first, we are NONE of us “worthy” and we are NONE of us “desirable”. . .BUT that the innocent child has the BEST OPPORTUNITY in being given not just a “shot” of Baptism and expected to sink or swim without any kind of help, support, or instruction.
 
Consider… we have parishes in which EVERYONE at Mass is “encouraged” i.e., coerced ] by the ushers ] to receive Holy Communion. (Although lately in some cases the ushers no longer “escort” the congregation up to the altar.]

We have parishes in which there is NO instruction at the homilies.

We have parishes in which abortion and artificial birth control is never mentioned.

We have parishes where, for example, there were no prayers for Terri Schiavo… presumably because she was a member of a different parish.

Am I being sarcastic? Perhaps… but then why such a rigorous demand for strict adherence to some standard that no one knows about… resulting in denial of baptism… this is a rejection of such a “core magnitude” that it could feel to the parents as if the adults have no place to go.

If the parents have no grounding in the Church’s teachings, then what are they to think, or believe, or feel.

Where are they supposed to turn?

Folks with little grounding are unlikely to have a book of canon law or a Catechism on their book shelf.

Where is the charity?
 
Tantum ergo:
In fact, being baptized a Catholic, yet failing to follow the faith, or worse yet, later abjuring the faith, is more likely to lead to damnation, not salvation.
Click to expand...
That’s interesting.

That means there must be a situation in which, all other things being equal, baptism could actually bring a curse rather than a blessing. Therefore, it is out of charity that we do not baptize a particular baby. :confused:

If I’m understanding this right it strikes me as very odd. Maybe I need to time to set with this concept before reacting… :hmmm:

Alan
 
Br. Rich SFO:
Originally Posted by gelsbern
*
Wow, all these posts and no one has mentioned baptism of desire.
Click to expand...
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?

No
Click to expand...
I think a better anwer is, perhaps. The church has not spoken definitively on the fate of infants in such a situation. Catecumens are covered by baptism of desire prior to Easter. It is not unreasonable that an infant in the exact same wituation might not also be considered a part of the church.
 
It is an act of charity to try to reach the parents for Christ as much as the child. Parents who are so stubborn that they would refuse to attend classes, mass or whatever else is required, are not nearly likely to be as open to converison as the parents who at least attend the required mass or class for the sake of the sacrament.

While most will go back to their usual routine after the baptism, some will understand the significance of their responsibility and undergo conversion, if only for the sake of the child at first.

Children are always welcomed into the church, as are the parents. But the church is just a place to get fire insurance against hell. That is the result of the Christian life, not the goal. The Church is about receicing the Body and Blood of Christ. It place of worship. It is our spiritual hospital. There are some very reasonable conditions on becoming a member. It is the parents, not the priest, who is putting the child in jeapordy.
 
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.
t.
Click to expand...
in canon law the sacraments may not be denied to Catholics who request them in good faith and are properly disposed. This includes baptism for their children. Canon law also requires that the priest (not the DRE, deacon, sister or anyone else) receive assurances that the child to be baptized will be raised as a Catholic. He may therefore delay (but not altogether deny) the sacrament until he receives such good faith assurance.

By baptizing their infant Catholic parents are making a full profession of faith in all the Catholic Church teaches, and a promise to obey the laws of God and of the Church. The priest cannot allow them to make such a drastic, binding lifetime promise if they give no evidence of understanding and accepting the importance and nature of that promise.

If the parents refuse to accept this, then it is they who reject the sacrament and reject the Church.
 
40.png
pnewton:
It is an act of charity to try to reach the parents for Christ as much as the child. Parents who are so stubborn that they would refuse to attend classes, mass or whatever else is required, are not nearly likely to be as open to converison as the parents who at least attend the required mass or class for the sake of the sacrament.

While most will go back to their usual routine after the baptism, some will understand the significance of their responsibility and undergo conversion, if only for the sake of the child at first.

Children are always welcomed into the church, as are the parents. But the church is just a place to get fire insurance against hell. That is the result of the Christian life, not the goal. The Church is about receicing the Body and Blood of Christ. It place of worship. It is our spiritual hospital. There are some very reasonable conditions on becoming a member. It is the parents, not the priest, who is putting the child in jeapordy.
Click to expand...
So you agree that it is an act of charity that a child NOT be baptized under these conditons?

The discussion keeps going back to “it’s the parents’ fault.”

I think we’ve clearly established that the parents’ slacking results in the Church not baptizing, and so it is entirely proper to say that the parents are “responsible.”

My question is, why does the Church take it out on the baby? The only current answer on the table right now is that in some cases we are actually condemning the child by baptism rather than blessing it. Of course we don’t know those conditions in advance. There is a major problem with this, though, in that one might think the CCC would be more caution than to blithely baptize, and thus possibly aid and abet that child’s damnation, such that it would not endorse baptism in all cases unless the chances of being raised Catholic is ALTOGETHER absent. I would think that if baptism could send a marginal Catholic to hell than we should not perform them until the age of consent.

The other problem is that turns baptism into a possible curse, and if that’s the case then let’s get this out on the table. “When is a sacraments a curse?” Of course, I’ve heard that consuming the Eucharist brings judgment against oneself but I never heard that about baptism. I’m not saying it isn’t true, but if it is true then let’s admit it. If it isn’t true, then the whole theory of why we refuse ANY baby baptism (regardless of whether there is a scapegoat for why we did so) is blown into pieces.

Honestly consider this comparison: why, in the case of physical abortion do we wish to save every child, but in the spiritual case we are justified in sending the child on its way, having blamed its parents if it goes to hell? Seems to me the aborted child has a better chance of going to heaven than an unbaptized baby who will be raised by an unfit parent. If baptism could have helped the child, then we are still spiritually “aborting” the baby by not letting it be born into the Church. To me, arguing about whether the baby isn’t baptized because the Church doesn’t wish it to be baptized (born into the faith) or whether its hands are tied and it must not because of the sins of the father, is akin to an abortionist who is only operating on the command of the parents – the parents don’t want the kid physically born so by golly the abortionist is not at fault; he’s just doing his job.

So I ask again, are we ready to conclude that baptism can send children to hell? If I read Tantum Ergo’s post correctly, that’s what it really boils down to. If that is not correct and baptism can never cause harm (other things being equal) then I still stand in question of why any Church authority wouldrefuse a baptism of any baby.

Maybe we need to turn this up a notch. Do we give annointing of the sick to people who are questionably Catholic?

I’m relentless about refusing to believe we have the answer yet. I may give up finding the true answer, but in most other cases when something the Church did seemed strange, we were eventually able to dig out what’s going on, and at some point we realize the Church has it covered. So far we aren’t getting to that point, because we keep revolving around in the discussion to point fingers at the parents. Let’s not act like spiritual wimps; if we turn away a baby just because it is improperly presented or present by suspected future-unworthy parents, then WE have acted in CONCERT with the parents to prevent its baptism. I don’t care if you want to say 99% parents 1% Church, but she cannot escape the fact that she can and does “just say no” and so far we don’t have a reason why that appeals to a sense of love and Christian teachings.

If all that is the case, then in addition to the question “where is the charity” I also ask, “where is the faith?”

Alan
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
So you agree that it is an act of charity that a child NOT be baptized under these conditons?

The discussion keeps going back to “it’s the parents’ fault.”

I think we’ve clearly established that the parents’ slacking results in the Church not baptizing, and so it is entirely proper to say that the parents are “responsible.”

My question is, why does the Church take it out on the baby?
Click to expand...
Alan,
I think you are viewing this the wrong way.

I think the Church would be imposing a great burden upon the infant if it baptized them. There is a responsibility to be raised in the Faith. If this is not done then how can the baptized respond when the time comes for their being baptized and not knowing anything of the Faith. Afterall there comes a time when that infant will be an adult and I feel the responsibility to know the Faith for all baptized will fall upon them at such a time.

I am one such person. I was baptized and not raised with any Faith formation at all. It worked out for me but it has not for my younger brother.

I think this is just another case of wanting to feel good and make everyone happy rather than looking at what the Truth is in the matter as taught by the Church.
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
So you agree that it is an act of charity that a child NOT be baptized under these conditons?
Click to expand...
That is not what I said. The act of charity is directed at the parents, specifically, admonishing the sinner.
The discussion keeps going back to “it’s the parents’ fault.”

I think we’ve clearly established that the parents’ slacking results in the Church not baptizing, and so it is entirely proper to say that the parents are “responsible.”

My question is, why does the Church take it out on the baby?
Click to expand...
That is because the parents are the primary caretakers and responsible for their actions. It is not the Church that is taking anything out on the baby. This very sentence shows the problem. The parents want to shift their responsibility and blame the Church.

It is not that the Church does not want to take responsibility, but rather that it is our teaching that certain things belong to the parents. The priest can not stand in the role of the parent, no more than a layman has the authority to stand persona christi in Mass. He simply does not have that authority.
 
Not sure of the merits of suggesting that parents who have been denied baptism for their infant were sort of “acting in bad faith”.

The plain fact is that a lot of “cradle Catholics” live in a state of ignorance. They simply don’t know:
  1. what to believe; and,
  2. how to translate beliefs into daily life practices.
People seem to err in two ways: with superstition, and with disregard.

Superstition: they invoke the Name of God for silly, superfluous, inconsequential things. They don’t really mean to be profane; but they are doing so in an effort to, in some way, incorporate God and acknowledge God in their lives.

They bury statues of St. Joseph upside down in their yards to sell their house more quickly.

They act upset if they spill a drop of “HOLY WATER” but think nothing of defaming a neighbor.

Disregard: they fail to keep holy the Sabbath. Going to Mass AND refraining from servile work. Missing Mass on Holy Days.

They are bombarded with secular, humanistic, materialistic messages all day from all angles. And they just don’t recognize it.

When is the last time you heard someone critique in detail “The DaVinci Code”, for example. With all its errors and mis-statements. Yet the book is quite popular. Yes, you can buy the “DaVinci Hoax”, but who has time. Who even knows about the “hoax” book.

People will respond when accurately informed… look at all the folks who FLOCKED to see Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of The Christ”, after it was panned by the secular media.

Look at all the people who tithe when told that they should.

People just don’t know which way to turn… AND THEN THEY ARE DENIED BAPTISM FOR THEIR INFANT.

They feel that their infant is being condemned to Hell … and they don’t know what to do about it.

So they totally and perhaps permanently reject the church (small “c”).

Without baptism, there is no grace.

With grace, things are possible.

Without grace, it is an uphill battle.
This past weekend, we read from Psalm 103

The refrain was “The Lord is kind and merciful.”
 
Al Masetti:
Not sure of the merits of suggesting that parents who have been denied baptism for their infant were sort of “acting in bad faith”.

The plain fact is that a lot of “cradle Catholics” live in a state of ignorance. They simply don’t know:
  1. what to believe; and,
  2. how to translate beliefs into daily life practices.
    People just don’t know which way to turn… AND THEN THEY ARE DENIED BAPTISM FOR THEIR INFANT.
They feel that their infant is being condemned to Hell … and they don’t know what to do about it.

So they totally and perhaps permanently reject the church (small “c”).

Without baptism, there is no grace.

With grace, things are possible.

Without grace, it is an uphill battle.

."
Click to expand...
quite right, what you say is absolutely true.

and it is the duty, under canon law, of the priest to assure that parents understand at least the basics of what they are promising for their infant, and the faith they are handing on to the child. That is the reason for the very minimal requirments of pre-baptismal classes, to help remedy that very illness you speak of. the priest wishes to give them assurance and pathway to that grace, and remove those misconceptions and errors. Some parents still wish to persist in this ignorance despite all the desire of the Church to help them.

That is the reason the priest may DELAY, NOT DENY the sacrament of baptism for parents who evince no regard for the faith, no desire to learn the faith, and no assurance they will raise the child in the faith. He may not deny it because of refusal to take classes, not being married in the church or other specifics, but he is bound by law to delay the baptism if there is grounds to believe that child will be denied the chance to learn and live the faith. The evidence he requires is nothing more than good faith assurance.
 
I have not read all of the posts here, but feel I have to make a few comments.

First off, I left the Church for nearly 20 years because none of the “Catholics” I went to church with really practiced Christianity that I could see beyond showing up on Sunday and the hypocracy of the whole thing just told me I was wasting my time. Like Ghandi, I would have been thrilled with Christianity if it weren’t for the people claiming to follow it.

When I did return, it was by coercion from my wife so the kids would have a “good example” by my taking up space in a pew. It was only after being there for a while and seeing some people actually joyfully living the gospel that I finally got “hooked” and fell in love with this awesome God.

The point is though, by the judment of many here, I should not have even been allowed back in, much less to have my kids baptized since I wasn’t being a “good boy” and wasn’t doing the “right Catholic stuff”.

If the sacrament of baptism is truly to give the child the grace to walk in the light and to remove the stain of original sin, by what logical reason would we deny it to ANY child? If we truly believe that the child’s immortal soul might actually be in danger if it is NOT baptized, again by what logical reason would we deny it to ANY child? What sense does it make to punish the child for the behavior of the parents?

To me, the parent’s good behavior, or lack thereof, is totally irrelevant. By exposing the child to baptism and the Christian community, we are giving it the grace to walk in the light and preparing it to be part of the Catholic community. Just having those parents show up and have that baby baptized gives the community a chance to show its love and potentially take the child or the parents under its wing. To refuse the baptism is to potentially drive them away forever.

If we truly believe that child’s soul to be in danger through lack of baptism, then if we refuse to baptize it for ANY reason whatsoever, in my opinion we have taken responsibility for sending that child to whatever place short of the beatific vision it ultimately ends up. And Jesus was very clear about what should happen to anyone who leads one of those little ones astray.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t want the fate of that baby’s soul on my hands because I think I’m good enough to judge the parent’s current or potential future behavior.
 
40.png
puzzleannie:
quite right, what you say is absolutely true.

and it is the duty, under canon law, of the priest to assure that parents understand at least the basics of what they are promising for their infant, and the faith they are handing on to the child. That is the reason for the very minimal requirments of pre-baptismal classes, to help remedy that very illness you speak of. the priest wishes to give them assurance and pathway to that grace, and remove those misconceptions and errors. Some parents still wish to persist in this ignorance despite all the desire of the Church to help them.

That is the reason the priest may DELAY, NOT DENY the sacrament of baptism for parents who evince no regard for the faith, no desire to learn the faith, and no assurance they will raise the child in the faith. He may not deny it because of refusal to take classes, not being married in the church or other specifics, but he is bound by law to delay the baptism if there is grounds to believe that child will be denied the chance to learn and live the faith. The evidence he requires is nothing more than good faith assurance.
Click to expand...
What would Jesus do?
 
Al Masetti:
Without baptism, there is no grace.

With grace, things are possible.

Without grace, it is an uphill battle.
Click to expand...
The first statement is not necessarily true. The Church has never been certain of the fate of unbaptized infants and grace may still be available oustside of the sacraments, which are the normal avenue of grace.

The problem lies in your last statement. Without the grace of the Sacraments, it is surely an uphill battle, just like it is an uphill battle for a child whose parents ignore the church from baptism forward.
 
Al Masetti:
What would Jesus do?
Click to expand...
What would Jesus do? Exactly what His Church says to do. Delay baptism until it (the Church as represented by the priest) has a “well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion”. Just as Canon 868 says.

After all, we are talking about the Church Jesus founded.
 
Al Masetti:
Not sure of the merits of suggesting that parents who have been denied baptism for their infant were sort of “acting in bad faith”.

The plain fact is that a lot of “cradle Catholics” live in a state of ignorance. They simply don’t know:
  1. what to believe; and,
  2. how to translate beliefs into daily life practices.
People seem to err in two ways: with superstition, and with disregard.

Superstition: they invoke the Name of God for silly, superfluous, inconsequential things. They don’t really mean to be profane; but they are doing so in an effort to, in some way, incorporate God and acknowledge God in their lives.

They bury statues of St. Joseph upside down in their yards to sell their house more quickly.

They act upset if they spill a drop of “HOLY WATER” but think nothing of defaming a neighbor.

Disregard: they fail to keep holy the Sabbath. Going to Mass AND refraining from servile work. Missing Mass on Holy Days.

They are bombarded with secular, humanistic, materialistic messages all day from all angles. And they just don’t recognize it.

When is the last time you heard someone critique in detail “The DaVinci Code”, for example. With all its errors and mis-statements. Yet the book is quite popular. Yes, you can buy the “DaVinci Hoax”, but who has time. Who even knows about the “hoax” book.

People will respond when accurately informed… look at all the folks who FLOCKED to see Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of The Christ”, after it was panned by the secular media.

Look at all the people who tithe when told that they should.

People just don’t know which way to turn… AND THEN THEY ARE DENIED BAPTISM FOR THEIR INFANT.

They feel that their infant is being condemned to Hell … and they don’t know what to do about it.

So they totally and perhaps permanently reject the church (small “c”).

Without baptism, there is no grace.

With grace, things are possible.

Without grace, it is an uphill battle.
This past weekend, we read from Psalm 103

The refrain was “The Lord is kind and merciful.”
Click to expand...
Just as those who are not practicing Catholics and will not raise their children Catholic yet they want a Catholic baptism for them.

They have done just what you are talking about. They are turning towards baptism beacuase of some superstition that baptism is something “magical”.

Its no different than all you list here.
 
40.png
ncjohn:
I don’t know about anyone else, but I don’t want the fate of that baby’s soul on my hands because I think I’m good enough to judge the parent’s current or potential future behavior.
Click to expand...
But could not the same points you make justify, going to the hospital and baptizing all the babies and children, wherever you find them? Or how about raising money to baptize all the non-Christian children in other countries, indiscriminately and against the wishes of all involved. After all, why let their fate depend on the parents will? Why punish them for the parent being a Muslim, Jew or Buddhist? The point is failing to baptize all the babies and children you meet on the street does not put their fate in your hands, any more that it is in the hands of the Church to raise a child a Christian.

I think we need to remember why we baptize infants and do not wait until they are old enough to make their own decisions. This practice is the Christian version of circumcision, in which the child is brought into the faith of the parent, even while they are ignorant of that faith. In light of this, it seems perfectly reasonable to delay baptism while attempting to bring the parents back into the faith they have left.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top