H
Hellisreal
Guest
Why do people even want sacraments in a Church and feel free to ignore the Church’s teachings but still demand the sacraments? 
refusing baptism to a child ...can that still be done???!!!
- Status
S
Stolen_Rutters
Guest
catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp
I think the delay is fine. Delay of the water baptism isn’t a death sentence for the child.
I think the delay is fine. Delay of the water baptism isn’t a death sentence for the child.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
The question is: What reasons do the parents have to seek baptism for their child? If the parents indicate *“We have no intention to teach this child the Faith, but we want her to be baptized anyway” *what does that say? In the baptism ritual the parents are going to be asked to raise the child in the Faith – Should the Church cooperate in the sacrilege of their lie? Or (should they answer honestly) baptize the child in spite of their denial?
What does it mean to seek baptism without the desire for Christ?
tee
C
christcnection1
Guest
I was baptized as an infant at the request of my grandparents. Unfortunately, I was the result of a “one night stand,” and was nearly aborted. I was never catechized growing up.
Twenty-four years later, unbeknownst to me, I was reunited to the Church through the Sacrament of Reconcilliation on the same day! (Baptized March 15, 1981 / Confession March 15, 2005.) I was blown away to discover I was reunited to the Church on the same day! My entire conversion to the Catholic Church was filled with miracle stories.
Anyhow, I am grateful that I was baptized, regardless of whether I was going to be raised in the Church or not. I believe that many graces were given to me as a result, in spite of my family’s lack of spritual discipline in raising me. Perhaps I’m an extraordinary case, but I thought this was worth mentioning.
Somtimes I wonder if I would be Catholic at all without the grace given to me at baptism? Mysteriously, I was drawn back to Mother Church, and I believe there is a correlation here. Only the good Lord knows.
Twenty-four years later, unbeknownst to me, I was reunited to the Church through the Sacrament of Reconcilliation on the same day! (Baptized March 15, 1981 / Confession March 15, 2005.) I was blown away to discover I was reunited to the Church on the same day! My entire conversion to the Catholic Church was filled with miracle stories.
Anyhow, I am grateful that I was baptized, regardless of whether I was going to be raised in the Church or not. I believe that many graces were given to me as a result, in spite of my family’s lack of spritual discipline in raising me. Perhaps I’m an extraordinary case, but I thought this was worth mentioning.
Somtimes I wonder if I would be Catholic at all without the grace given to me at baptism? Mysteriously, I was drawn back to Mother Church, and I believe there is a correlation here. Only the good Lord knows.
N
ncjohn
Guest
Maybe I missed something here, but I saw no such statement.
Simply—in my mind–yes.
Number one, we have no way to read the hearts of the parents, or to have any way of knowing how God is working, or plans to work in their lives. Thus we have no way of knowing that there is a “lie” at all. The parents themselves may not even truly know, whatever their intent. To me though, the very fact that they are seeking baptism says that God is calling at some level. I can tell you from personal experience that there was a time I stated my intent to never again darken the doorway of a church, yet here I stand today.
More importantly to me, the sacrament is not FOR the parents. It is to provide the keys to eternal life to the child through a sacrament the Church proclaims to be essential. How many of these parents, for whom their child’s baptism is “delayed”, are going to return later? I’m going to hazard a guess that a large percentage of those babies will never be baptized.
It’s very easy to point fingers and say “it’s the parents who are making the decision to deny baptism.” And I certainly don’t hold them blameless for their actions. But let’s get real! The child is the one whose eternal life is at risk due to bad actions of a third party over whom they have no control. No human judge would hold a person liable for actions of someone they could not control. Why would we think that God would want to hold a helpless baby accountable for the actions of someone else? Should we next tell a 7 year old they can’t receive communion because we think their parents are in a state of mortal sin?
What does it mean to seek any sacrament without the desire for Christ? Not as much as it should, but the Church proclaims that sacraments have intrinsic value of grace regardless.
Heaven knows that a large percentage of the kids I see in confirmation classes are there only under duress, and that a similarly large percentage are never seen again after confirmation. Should we then deny confirmation because the parent’s motives aren’t pure? How do we define that?
In the end, to me, we get into two issues. 1) Do we really believe, as the Church teaches, that there are objectively graces flowing from the sacraments to anyone who is properly disposed to receive them, even if they may not be as far in the journey as someone might like?
Or should we be making decisions to refuse people communion because they don’t look reverent enough or think they might be in sin? I was taught when beng trained as an EMHC that someone presenting themselves for communion is to be considered properly disposed absent some specific declaration from them that they are not. Why would the requirements for baptism be different? Unless someone tells me up front that that baby–NOT the parents–is not properly disposed, I cannot see a reason in the world to refuse it baptism.
I fully understand the desire to bring the parents along into the community of faith, and that is a laudable goal. But it is a totally separate issue from providing the baby with the sacrament of salvation.
- Are we going to start holding people accountable for the actions of others beyond their control as a criterion for receiving sacraments, especially one deemed essential to salvation?
But to abort the eternal life of a baby, and to hold it accountable for all eternity for actions of someone beyond their control, to me goes against everything the Church teaches. Jesus made it very clear that we were not to be obstacles keeping the children from coming to him. I for one will take him at his word.
Peace,
C
Cristiano
Guest
I would just like to point out that if the parents really wanted their child to be baptized they could have it done themselves using the proper trinitarian formula. The same is true for the grandparents that decided to leave the church. If they were concerned about the life of the child they could have done that or they could have just waited for the delay as suggested by the priest.
I firmly believe that this has nothing to do with a belief in salvation from the parents or grandparents side, but just out of a sense of “feel good” entitlement which they think they are owned by the Church.
I firmly believe that this has nothing to do with a belief in salvation from the parents or grandparents side, but just out of a sense of “feel good” entitlement which they think they are owned by the Church.
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
I think this first paragraph makes perfect sense. There seems to be something missing in the second though. Are you familliar with the format, questions, etc. included in a Catholic baptism? Parents are required to make certain promises. Some parents never intend to keep those promises yet they are comfortable standing up before God and essentially lying. A good priest has the authority to deny (delay) a sacrament and keep parents from lying in such a serious manner. This may be a tough thing for him to do but seems like the more (spiritually) pro-life course to take. Eternal life is important for babies and parents.The Church does not consider baptism to be merely a ritual, but necessary to salvation. Whether it has meaning to the person later on is up to the person, but that does not change the fact that according to the Church, the grace necessary for salvation is imparted through this “ritual”. As such, it objectively cannot be “empty” regardless of the state of the parents.
I personally find a great inconsistency present here. As Catholics we are rightfully “pro life” and consistently stand against the physical abortion of a person’s life. Yet in the next breath we are willing to risk aborting the child’s *eternal *life by “delaying” the baptism necessary to achieve that eternal life. To say that there may be some misplaced priorities here would be something of an understatement.
puzzleannie: Sometimes it takes me forever to finish a post once I’ve started it (kids, laundry,etc.) and many others post in the meantime. Sorry to get behind…
N
ncjohn
Guest
And as I said in one of my later posts, at one time I intended, and stated that intention, to never again darken the doorway of a Catholic Church. God apparently had other ideas.
We have no objective way of knowing whether the parents are lying, or of whether any intentions they may have at the moment may be overridden by God at some future time. Yet we are willing to make an eternal, life changing decision based on a temporary circumstance in which we have no certainty.
We also promise to do our best to sin no more when we go to confession, but every one of us knows we’re going to go out and sin again. Should we be denied absolution when we know we’re going to fail, and that the priest knows that we know that we’re not even really going to try out best not to?
The Church, in almost every other sacrament, makes a presumption of one being suitably disposed when presenting one’s self. Yet in the sacrament they proclaim essential for salvation, they start questioning the disposition of *someone separate *from the one for whom the sacrament is intended as a prerequisite.
No matter how hard I try I just cannot come to a conclusion that this is how Jesus would handle this situation. And I quite frankly find it somewhat disturbing that so many seem so unconcerned about the fate of that baby in place of worrying about the choices of those who are capable of making their own decisions about salvation.
I know far too many children of people who were able to present the proper appearances who not only got no Catholic upbringing, but were driven from the Church by the attitudes and actions of the parents.
Let God give the child the grace of the sacrament. With that grace the child at least stands a better chance, even with the same parents, than it does without the grace.
Peace,
K
KCT
Guest
If anyone is DENYING someone else, it’s the parents denying the child.
Why are they not willing to get their act together and give the child what they’d be promising at Baptism?
Why is everyone so quick to blame “the Church”? Don’t the parents have a responsibility here? —KCT
Why are they not willing to get their act together and give the child what they’d be promising at Baptism?
Why is everyone so quick to blame “the Church”? Don’t the parents have a responsibility here? —KCT
A
az_4_faith
Guest
In infant baptism, the child does not present him/herself for baptism. The parents do. If the parents have no desire for the faith outside of the baptismal ritual, they will be turned away until ready to do so. The child, on the other hand, when he/she reaches the age of reason, may request the proper instructions in the faith and the sacrament of baptism.
Somewhere along the line, someone must present and demonstrate the proper intentions. If they’re not there for the child as an infant, one must wait until the child can cooperate with their own free will.
Without this logic, the Church would be forcibly baptizing each and every human being worldwide.
Somewhere along the line, someone must present and demonstrate the proper intentions. If they’re not there for the child as an infant, one must wait until the child can cooperate with their own free will.
Without this logic, the Church would be forcibly baptizing each and every human being worldwide.
J
jmcrae
Guest
It is necessary for salvation, but which is worse? To have salvation and then (even unknowingly) throw it away by living a pagan lifestyle? Or to live as a pagan until such time as the Christian life becomes possible for you, and then make the promises before God that you will do so?
If the child were in danger of death, that would be a different story altogether - but that is not the situation with this child.
By the way, I have had a lot of people come to me for RCIA who were baptized into the Catholic Church as infants and then raised as pagans. They always ask me why they can’t be rebaptized, since it would be much more meaningful, now that they actually intend to live the Christian life.
This is why, in a case where the child is going to be raised as a pagan, I think it’s right that the Church refuse baptism, until such time as they are actually going to be living the Christian life, since not only will they have a much greater chance of keeping their Baptismal promises (and thus, their salvation) but it will also be so much more meaningful for them.
Baptism isn’t “magical” though. If the parents don’t raise the child in a Catholic home, then the child won’t be saved, no matter how much water is poured. The intent of the Sacrament also has to be present - otherwise, it’s just so much mumbo-jumbo.
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
I don’t know about this. It seems in cases where unmarried parents co-habitate or parents simply don’t attend Mass and have no intention to change, they make a clear statement about the importance of faith in their lives. Some things are more a matter of observation than judgement.
ncjohn, you raise some very good points and I think there are many Catholics who share your feelings on Baptism. You are obviously a compassionate person. I’m going to re-read your posts to try and understand your views better.
In the meantime, can anyone clearly state the Church’s teaching on the fate of infants or young children who die unbaptized? I know what it is but I feel someone else may articulate it better and ease some of ncjohn’s understandable fears.
N
ncjohn
Guest
I’m fully aware of the Church’s teaching on what happens to unbaptized infants, including the recent commission’s report.
What all of this says to me is that the Church doesn’t really believe that baptism brings with it a “mark” and the grace that causes us to seek faith, as is taught to be the case, and that all the arguing done with the Protestants over the efficacy of infant baptism was just a bunch of talk.
I sure hope that those who believe–as I do–that God has infinite mercy for those who die unbaptized through no fault of their own and provides an extra-sacramental means of salvation for them, are not hoping in vain.
Thank you for your concern and consideration Good Daughter.
J
jmcrae
Guest
It is efficacious, but it is not magical. The reason babies can be baptized is not because of some magic in the Sacrament itself, but because the parents supply the proper intent for the child.
But if the parents don’t have the proper intent, then although the Sacrament is conferred (and cannot be repeated), no graces are actually given.
N
ncjohn
Guest
Source please?
I have never heard any such thing, and that goes contrary to everything I have ever heard on baptism.
1272 Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.83 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.
1279 The fruit of Baptism, or baptismal grace, is a rich reality that includes forgiveness of original sin and all personal sins, birth into the new life by which man becomes an adoptive son of the Father, a member of Christ and a temple of the Holy Spirit. By this very fact the person baptized is incorporated into the Church, the Body of Christ, and made a sharer in the priesthood of Christ.
I can find nothing that indicates the dispostion of the parents to have any effect whatsoever on the graces bestowed. In fact this would be contrary to the idea then that one could baptize the infant in case of danger of death. If the disposition of the parents is a requirement, there would be no purpose in this.
I believe I will be done with this thread. It is taking away my inner peace and I need to just go find a place to rebuild that.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
To Baptise the child where there is no faith, is to reduce the sacrament to nothing more than a social event.
We also don’t have all the details of the story.
Often, what is said to a priest in private we will never know, and the real reasons for a priest refusal will never be known.
Jim
We also don’t have all the details of the story.
Often, what is said to a priest in private we will never know, and the real reasons for a priest refusal will never be known.
Jim
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Baptism is a sacrament of faith. For an infant, it is the faith of the parents, who make the Baptismal promises and raise the child in the faith. If the parents are not living the faith, it is right for the Church to withhold Baptism, until the situation changes, either the parents receive faith, or the child reaches the age of reason and through faith, desires to be Baptised.
Jim
J
jmcrae
Guest
It is the disposition of the person presenting the child for baptism that is required. In the case of an emergency baptism, the person presenting the child for baptism would be a person of faith - not necessarily the parents.
In danger of death, anyone can present the child for baptism, but under normal circumstances, it has to be the parents or else the people who will be taking care of the child from day to day (permanent custody), if that’s not his parents.
As Jim pointed out, it is a Sacrament of faith.
G
Good_Daughter
Guest
Sorry, I just wanted to make sure you had the right information regarding Church teaching in this area. I’m not surprised you were already aware.
I could hardly give you anything but consideration. Your sentiments regarding Baptism are identical to the sentiments of many people who are dear to me (most of my extended family).
Thanks for the honesty you showed in discussing your concerns. God bless, I hope your peace is restored soon.
S
Sarabande
Guest
Something similar occurred in my family although the parents were married. Both were raised Catholic, but were no longer practicing Catholics. The parents were living outside of the US due to the father’s job, but they came home to give birth. The mother wanted the child baptized, but the priest had to delay the baptism. This was due to because the father didn’t want to have to agree to raise the child Catholic and because the godparents nor other practicing Catholics in the family would not have been part of the child’s life since they lived on another continent. The father caused a huge uproar about it and stormed out of the rectory. My grandmother was there in the meantime and was so upset by this because she was worried for her grandson’s soul should he pass away. The priest assured her that the baby was innocent and also explained the reasonings behind not agreeing to baptize the child then. He told her to pray for her grandson and the parents. He said it would not make since if neither parent were practicing and said that the grandson could always come into the church when he got older. Well, 20 years later (the family has since moved back to the states), the child has never been to a mass and who knows what his spiritual life is like. He’s a good kid and was raised very well, but that part of his life is lacking, which is a shame. We’ll never know if things would have been different had he been baptized, but I doubt it since they lived too far away from anyone close enough who could have provided spiritual nourishment and I find that people who aren’t really practicing tend to not choose the proper godparents.
- Status