Refusal to Baptize

[ncjohn]

pnewton:

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.

No,it doesn’t, but I’m not denying baptism to those children either. I will not personally be a party to, or support denying baptism to any child for whom it has been requested for any reason whatsoever short of some sort of actually proclaimed sacriledge.

pnewton:

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.

This is exactly my point–we need to remember why we’re baptizing infants. It is NOT to reform the parents. It is to bring the child into a state of grace and erase the effects of original sin, enabling them to enter the beatific vision.

If we want to use the opportunity to try to work with the parents situation also, that’s fine. I know that our local parish priest however doesn’t take this as a “delay” but just flat out refuses the baptisms.

I just personally can find no way to justify punishing the child for the sins of the parents; it is up to us to show the love of God to that innocent child regardless. None of us are “worthy” except by the grace of God.

 

[pnewton]

ncjohn:

No,it doesn’t, but I’m not denying baptism to those children either. I will not personally be a party to, or support denying baptism to any child for whom it has been requested for any reason whatsoever short of some sort of actually proclaimed sacriledge.

I wasn’t referring to you personally, but as a church, why we do not know do these extreme things. Unless you are a priest, you are not in a postition to being a party to denying baptism.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Al Masetti:

What would Jesus do?

As far as I can tell, it depends on which Gospel you read…

We have three Gospels covering this, so maybe it’s worth repeating. Let’s see if we can find an element common to all three Gospels:

Jesus:

Matt 19:14: Jesus said, “Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

Mark 10:14: When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Luke 18:15-16: People were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them, and when the disciples saw this, they rebuked them. Jesus, however, called the children to himself and said, "Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Alan

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

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.

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

Alan

Interesting thoughts. Perhaps someone informed can give an answer. It seems to be along the lines that some claim it is better not to preach the truth because one who never heard the truth could claim invincible ignorance which would lessen culpability.

 

[ncjohn]

pnewton:

I wasn’t referring to you personally, but as a church, why we do not know do these extreme things. Unless you are a priest, you are not in a postition to being a party to denying baptism.

I didn’t take what you said personally. And my answer was that I don’t think we as “Church”–the representatives of Christ on Earth–should be denying Him to anyone who asks, even if they don’t fully understand what they are asking. That being said, I don’t think we are called to force baptism on anyone who doesn’t request it. Jesus said He would come into our hearts if we open the door; but it is clear that opening the door is at our decision and that He will not force us. If He’s not forcing, I don’t see us being at will to do so. We did that with our Native American people with disastrous results that require healing even to this day.

As to me being a party, we are all parties when we stand by silently and implicitly condone what is going on. I did not, as I took the information to the head of our vicariate. I may not make the decision personally, but I’m going to object to that decision and do everything I can to not put any other souls at risk.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

fix:

Interesting thoughts. Perhaps someone informed can give an answer. It seems to be along the lines that some claim it is better not to preach the truth because one who never heard the truth could claim invincible ignorance which would lessen culpability.

I think my views could be construed to be saying this but I am not saying this.

My view is that we should not baptise anyone when we are not sure that they will hear the Gospel at all. Which is what I believe the Church is teaching in this matter.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

ncjohn:

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?

So simple one wonders why it need be said…

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.

This is the issue. If the baptism can do no harm but might do good, then why would any baby be given the right to a spiritual life, from the earliest possible time?

To refuse the baptism is to potentially drive them away forever.

Ahhh, here’s where your wording is stirring up feathers maybe.

We are not “driving” them away. They are being taken away by miscreant parents.

The fact that we had them under our noses and the parents weren’t actively preventing the baptism just means that we had the power to give them this introduction, so that they may have installed a beacon home.

So what I think we need to be questioning here, why is this not a sin of omission?

There are those who are tiptoeing around the idea that baptism can harm a child, but haven’t come out and admitted yet that is what they are suggesting. When we say it “burdens” the child to become Catholic … as if it removes their free will, then what does that say about Catholic children who are baptized before their age of consent.

Hang in there, John. One of these days somebody will hear what we are trying to say and translate it into common English, because apparently we’re throwing out red herrings based on the way we are getting answers to the secondary rather than primary questions.

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.

Some would say here that since you aren’t in the position where you have to make that judgment, you don’t have to concern yourself with it. See no evil, ya know.

Of course it comes down to judgment; the Church is to judge the baby sheep to see if they’re of worthy stock so that they may have a spiritual birthday. If we think the parents will stray, we do not want it to escape having been baptized.

We’re totally dedicated to see that they have a physical birthday, but then it’s up to the parents after that to not only choose for their baby to have a spiritual birthday but to convince us they are sincere and Catholic enough. What is more important – their physical life or their eternal life? Why do we think their parents should even have a choice over the spiritual birthday unless we consider it less critical than a physical birthday.

Does anybody find “spiritual birthday” a faulty way to describe baptism? I will hear arguments that it is otherwise.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Interesting thoughts. Perhaps someone informed can give an answer. It seems to be along the lines that some claim it is better not to preach the truth because one who never heard the truth could claim invincible ignorance which would lessen culpability.

Exactly. Now if we can get that confirmed, this whole thing might be over.

Until then, it seems to be a difficult, but interesting thought exercise at least.

Alan

 

[fix]

ByzCath:

I think my views could be construed to be saying this but I am not saying this.

My view is that we should not baptise anyone when we are not sure that they will hear the Gospel at all. Which is what I believe the Church is teaching in this matter.

I think you are correct. This kinda reminds me of the case where the Pope raised some child whose parents were Jewish, because the maid baptized him when he was near death.

I am just not understanding the theology behind it all.

 

[pnewton]

I understand the good intentions and excellent points made by both sides. But why do we not bow to the wisdom of the Church in this, as we should in all things? We trust the Church to be the instrument of the Sacrament, but do not trust her on the teaching of when it should be administered?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

fix:

I think you are correct. This kinda reminds me of the case where the Pope raised some child whose parents were Jewish, because the maid baptized him when he was near death.

I am just not understanding the theology behind it all.

Same here. But when I do not understand something I defer to the Church.

 

[fix]

ByzCath:

Same here. But when I do not understand something I defer to the Church.

Oh, I agree. I just am trying to understand it. I agree with the priest in the OP.

 

[aurora77]

pnewton:

I understand the good intentions and excellent points made by both sides. But why do we not bow to the wisdom of the Church in this, as we should in all things? We trust the Church to be the instrument of the Sacrament, but do not trust her on the teaching of when it should be administered?

Thank you!! No one’s trying to pick on anyone or send a baby to Hell, but did those who are arguing for no parental responsibility stop to think why the Church does what it does? An unbaptised adult can’t just walk into a Catholic Church and say they want to be baptised and ten minutes later, they are. Why should it be any different for the parents of children. And, again, it’s not about denying baptism and kicking people out of the Church, it’s about delaying it until the time is more appropriate.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

aurora77:

Thank you!! No one’s trying to pick on anyone or send a baby to Hell, but did those who are arguing for no parental responsibility stop to think why the Church does what it does?

Actually I do stop to wonder, but I cannot fathom any argument that breaks down unless one interprets it relativistically. I’m desperately trying to get someone to explain to me why the Church does what she does when she refuses baptism for ANY reason.

An unbaptised adult can’t just walk into a Catholic Church and say they want to be baptised and ten minutes later, they are.

Sure they can. If they have just been fatally injured and are ten minutes from death, I think an adult can get absolution, baptism, and anointing of the sick, unless maybe the anointing is implied in baptism. If that’s not right please correct me.

Why should it be any different for the parents of children.

Because in one case we have a recipient of a sacrament that is of age to speak for himself.

In the other case the recipient cannot speak for himself…

And, again, it’s not about denying baptism and kicking people out of the Church, it’s about delaying it until the time is more appropriate.

No it isn’t. If we acted like the Good Shepherds and promised to meet with them once a week until they were prepared, through thick and thin and their entire faith journey, then as long as everybody involved lives long enough you are right. In fact, even evil greedy commercial business people know that people who are not already brand-loyal are not likely to come back once having been brushed off by one supplier. We have to be clever enough to know how people work, and not stick our head in the sand and say, “come back when you are more Catholic” and expect we have just done them some big kind act of telling them where to get off because evidently our favorite act of mercy is “admonish the sinner” which is even more important than baptizing babies.

If we are not going to leave the flock, then let’s not let the sheep out in the first place. Don’t we want our stray sheep to at least have our “brand” or “homing device” on them? If not, then why not? That is, and this is yet for anyone to bring up authoritatively, the baby is worse off in some cases for having been baptized.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

Oh, I agree. I just am trying to understand it. I agree with the priest in the OP.

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? To me, the very fact they brought their baby to the Church gives some hope, unless there is some perceived worldly market value in having their kids be baptized. If they are only here under pressure of friends and relatives, then still that gives me hope that those same friends and relatives will continue to help the parents make good decisions for their children later.

For all intents and purposes, there is hope for every child to eventually be raised Catholic. Maybe not “well-founded” hope.

The way this is written there is a logical twilight zone, somewhere between “truly hopeless” and “well-founded hope” where there is room for interpretation. One has to go on the spirit of the rule, which the way I read it errs in favor of baptism unless it is a very clear situation.

Still, I ask, why is the law like this? Canon laws are subject to revision based on practices, aren’t they? Why can’t we question why there has go be such hope?

I’m thinking maybe all Catholic hospitals should baptize babies right after birth. Then maybe people whose infants die in the first few hours – like a CA poster just announced the other day – will know for certain their babies had a valid baptism? Maybe they could include the service with every baby delivered, and if parents don’t want the service you have to sign a waver. People would say, of course, that is ridiculous … I ask why? What is the harm in baptizing these babies?

Alan

 

[aurora77]

AlanFromWichita:

Sure they can. If they have just been fatally injured and are ten minutes from death, I think an adult can get absolution, baptism, and anointing of the sick, unless maybe the anointing is implied in baptism. If that’s not right please correct me.

Sorry, I must have misunderstood the thread. I thought we were talking about healthy babies who have every expectation of living long lives, not about a baby who’s about to die.

OK, I’ll rephrase. The Church won’t just instantly baptise a healthy adult who seeks to be baptised. They have to go through a formation process, is that true? If that is true, why not the same standards for parents who wish to have their children baptised?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You know, looking back at the title of this thread, I think it cuts right to the heart of why there is so much discussion.

The OP spoke of the Church’s “refusal to baptize”. I think that we all would agree that the Church “refusing”, categorically, to baptize an infant would be wrong.

But I truly do not see that it is the CHURCH which is refusing the sacrament in the majority of the cases referenced.

What does the code of canon law say?

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.

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

What would then logically be the reason to defer? To help the parents realize the need for the child to be brought up Catholic. IOW, for the parents to do what they need to do–which is to make sure that they understand, and WILL COMPLY, with what needs to be done to have the child brought up Catholic.

If the parents do NOT choose to do this, it is not the Church refusing to baptize the child–the church is indeed willing to do so as soon as canonically possible.

BTW, I see I phrased an earlier post poorly. I said that Baptism does not guarantee salvation–what I meant was, that a baptized person may still sin mortally and thus not be saved. However, I stand with the church’s teaching that Baptism is NECESSARY for salvation (thhough it may be through baptism of desire or baptism of blood).

Now, it is possible that some parents are ignorant of the teachings. It is possible that they do not understand the priest correctly. This is a tragedy. This is yet another reason to my mind to stress education for ALL AGES.

But, just as we do not abrogate penalities for murder because they “hurt” murderers, just as we do not repeal church law on divorce because they “hurt” people who divorce, we cannot do away with church teaching on the canon above just because that teaching “hurts” those who for whatever reason choose to deny it.

The murderer can repent and be saved. The divorced can seek decree of nullity, can reconcile, or can confess, live continent and chastely, and be saved. Those who die without Baptism CAN BE SAVED, through the mercy of God.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

aurora77:

Sorry, I must have misunderstood the thread. I thought we were talking about healthy babies who have every expectation of living long lives, not about a baby who’s about to die.

OK, I’ll rephrase. The Church won’t just instantly baptise a healthy adult who seeks to be baptised. They have to go through a formation process, is that true? If that is true, why not the same standards for parents who wish to have their children baptised?

Because the parents aren’t the recipients of the sacrament. The child is under no expectation of being formed, as the adult is in your example.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Tantum ergo:

If the parents do NOT choose to do this, it is not the Church refusing to baptize the child–the church is indeed willing to do so as soon as canonically possible.

The Church has authority to change the canon laws, does she not? If that is the case, then the Church simply “following her own laws” is not a separate entity from the Church, as if she were obeying an outside (e.g. civil) authority. She claims to hold the keys to the kingdom, so she must stand on her own authority.

One cannot say “the Church’s hands are tied and therefore the child cannot be baptized” unless the Church consents to her hands being tied. If she were concerned with what I call “spiritual birthday” for a baby in the same way as the physical birthday (eternal salvation v. worldly life) then she would not hesitate to baptize, in whatever way possible, every baby she is able to regardless of what we may wish to guess about the child’s future.

Now, it is possible that some parents are ignorant of the teachings. It is possible that they do not understand the priest correctly. This is a tragedy. This is yet another reason to my mind to stress education for ALL AGES.

This is a terrible tragedy, but is an entirely separate issue from why we cannot baptize all babies.

But, just as we do not abrogate penalities for murder because they “hurt” murderers, just as we do not repeal church law on divorce because they “hurt” people who divorce, we cannot do away with church teaching on the canon above just because that teaching “hurts” those who for whatever reason choose to deny it.

Please carefully reconsider this assertion. The baby hasn’t denied anything. The baby did not choose the action that the Church is claiming is her excuse to possibly deny that baby its eternal salvation. The parents make a choice, the baby loses out. That dangerously resembles pro-choice mentality.

However, I stand with the church’s teaching that Baptism is NECESSARY for salvation (thhough it may be through baptism of desire or baptism of blood).

…

The murderer can repent and be saved. The divorced can seek decree of nullity, can reconcile, or can confess, live continent and chastely, and be saved. Those who die without Baptism CAN BE SAVED, through the mercy of God.

I’m not sure what you mean. Since my theology is weak, I don’t know the difference is between being “saved” and experiencing “salvation.” What makes one possible without baptism but not the other?

Alan

 

[ncjohn]

Tantum ergo:

But, just as we do not abrogate penalities for murder because they “hurt” murderers, just as we do not repeal church law on divorce because they “hurt” people who divorce, we cannot do away with church teaching on the canon above just because that teaching “hurts” those who for whatever reason choose to deny it.

This to me is the crux of the discussion here.

In my mind, all of these examples are irrelvant as they apply to the parents and not the innocent third party who is committing no crime but is being doubly punished. It is being punished first for the sins of Adam and Eve over which it had no control and because of which the baptism is necessary. Then it is being punished for “potential” sins of the parents because someone wants to speculate about what the parent’s future actions will be based on their current actions, as if people don’t ever change. :whacky:

We don’t even define what “being brought up Catholic” requires! Minimal church attendance seems to be the overwhelming opinion since that seems to imply being a “practicing Catholic”, though what taking up space in a pew contributes to “upbringing” if there is nothing else is beyond me. Lord knows we have pews full of people that fit exactly that description now, yet nobody denied them baptism!

The real danger I see here is the Church using the comparable “exception” to the “rape and incest” exception used to justify abortion. In the rape and incest exception, people justify the abortion by saying that the mother shouldn’t have to give birth to the baby because of the bad behavior of the father, although the Church rightly recognizes that the baby is innocent of that behavior and deserves its right to live. Yet then the Church appears to be turning around and potentially denying the baby its right to ETERNAL LIFE based on the bad behavior of the parents. This is sheer lunacy in my humble opinion, and indefensible in light of the Church’s other teachings. This is using an evil means of extortion, using the baby as the wedge, to attempt to achieve a good end of bringing the parents back into the worshipping (and contributing!) community.

Don’t kid yourself that this is only used to “delay” baptisms since priests are using this as a wedge to attempt to force compliance, with the practical result that the baptism is in fact being denied to an innocent party because of the inabillity, unwillingness or stupidity of the parents to accept this coercion.

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,