To baptise or not?

[bookgirl]

I have actually had a fellow Catholic tell me that I should secretly baptise my non-denominational friend’s baby myself, that way at least she would be baptized. I’m very close to this friend, she’s like a sister to me and her baby calls me “Aunt”. But wouldn’t that be dishonest in itself? Isn’t there something to be said for respecting the wish of the parents who God gave the baby to, and trusting that God has His own plan for that baby?

 

[Magicsilence]

secretly baptizing?.

Just ask them “Hey Judy, since it wont make any difference to you, would you mind baptizing your baby? Its really important to me though you might not think so?”

Whats the worst that could happen?

Besides, I wasnt aware lay people could baptise unless incase of an emergency?

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[cameron_lansing]

bookgirl:

I have actually had a fellow Catholic tell me that I should secretly baptise my non-denominational friend’s baby myself, that way at least she would be baptized. I’m very close to this friend, she’s like a sister to me and her baby calls me “Aunt”. But wouldn’t that be dishonest in itself? Isn’t there something to be said for respecting the wish of the parents who God gave the baby to, and trusting that God has His own plan for that baby?

I believe your position would be correct.

Canon 868 would indicate that the wish and intention of the parents should prevail unless the child is in danger of death. I think you could see that in reading the canon. (The term “licit” below means legal according to Church law.)

§1. For the licit baptism of an infant it is necessary that: (1) the parents or at least one of them or the person who lawfully takes their place gives consent; (2) there be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such a hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be put off according to the prescriptions of particular law and the parents are to be informed of the reason.

§2. The infant of Catholic parents, in fact of non-Catholic parents also, who is in danger of death is licitly baptized even against the will of the parents.

 

[bookgirl]

cameron_lansing:

I believe your position would be correct.

Canon 868 would indicate that the wish and intention of the parents should prevail unless the child is in danger of death. I think you could see that in reading the canon. (The term “licit” below means legal according to Church law.)

§1. For the licit baptism of an infant it is necessary that: (1) the parents or at least one of them or the person who lawfully takes their place gives consent; (2) there be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such a hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be put off according to the prescriptions of particular law and the parents are to be informed of the reason.

§2. The infant of Catholic parents, in fact of non-Catholic parents also, who is in danger of death is licitly baptized even against the will of the parents.

Thanks very much! I had a hunch that was the case, but wasn’t sure. They hold a very anti-infant baptism point of view (not anti-Catholic, but strong evangelicals), and it would have to be in secret. I would love for her to be baptized, but I’ll go with Canon law on this one .