This is not about excommunication. The pope excommunicated mobsters who refuse to give up a life a violence. Use that as your baseline.What does the Church teach for a Catholic who doesn’t baptize their child? I assume it’s a mortal sin, but is this also one of those offenses that incurs automatic ex-communication? What if the parent decides to repent later, but their now older child refuses to be baptized? Are they required to force the child to be baptized in order to be right with the Church again? What if the child is now an adult?
Yes it is a serious obligation:What does the Church teach for a Catholic who doesn’t baptize their child? I assume it’s a mortal sin, but is this also one of those offenses that incurs automatic ex-communication? What if the parent decides to repent later, but their now older child refuses to be baptized? Are they required to force the child to be baptized in order to be right with the Church again? What if the child is now an adult?
I was wondering what happens to people who aren’t practicing Catholics, don’t baptize their children, and then later in life decide to come back to the Church.Yes it is a serious obligation:
Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their
No it is not among the delicts which incur automatic excommunication.
Once they reach the age of reason, the child must request baptism. The church does not force people to be baptized. That seems an odd question, perhaps you’d like to share what is prompting this question.
Once the kids are age 7 they are considered adults as far as baptism is concerned, so the parent couldn’t baptize them even if they wanted to. The kids would have to choose for themselves and go through RCIA.I was wondering what happens to people who aren’t practicing Catholics, don’t baptize their children, and then later in life decide to come back to the Church.
I was especially curious what was required if the children were still minors but of the age of reason and didn’t want to be baptized.
It isn’t a personal question; I don’t have children.
That doesn’t sound right.Once the kids are age 7 they are considered adults as far as baptism is concerned, so the parent couldn’t baptize them even if they wanted to. The kids would have to choose for themselves and go through RCIA.
I guess that I imagine all the 7 year olds in our kids RCIA CLASS.That doesn’t sound right.
I think this link can help you understand the issue more fully and the canon law involved is linked through the article.That doesn’t sound right.
Actually, you are slightly off in what you are contending.Once the kids are age 7 they are considered adults as far as baptism is concerned, so the parent couldn’t baptize them even if they wanted to. The kids would have to choose for themselves and go through RCIA.
Thanks for the more detailed answer.Actually, you are slightly off in what you are contending.
RCIA specifically stands for the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults. A seven year old would not and could not go through the RCIA program; it would present an absurd situation.
The child theoretically could go through the RCIC (the Rite of Christian Initiation for Children) if such has been established in her parish (which is rare as an existing program) or, more likely, a program would be specially devised for her, probably using elements of an existing religious education program. All this has to take into account the age and maturity of the child and also the particular law governing the administration of Confirmation in the jurisdiction where the child resides.
It is true that Canon 852 §1 defines that one who has attained the age of reason is not to be treated as an infant, canonically speaking, and to judiciously apply the norms of the canons for adult baptism.
This means in practice, however, that the priest who has the cura animarum for this child has to ascertain if the seven year old has attained the age of reason. If the answer is positive, then he would need to ascertain the child’s understanding and her consent regarding the sacrament. That is to say, the child cannot be baptised against her will. She must positively consent and also demonstrate some level of knowledge and understanding…however attenuated…according to the mind of the legislator in Canon 865. This standard is going to be much different than someone older, however, and care would have to be used in the canon’s application from a pastoral perspective. There are also more factors to take into account relative to religious education and its normal progression for someone of that age.
On the other hand from the judicious application of the adult norms for baptism, it is also true that the child has not reached her majority nor is she emancipated. As defined by Canon 97, our theoretical seven year old is a minor. The same canon tells us when she will attain her majority in terms of canon law.
Therefore, our scenario of applying the norms of adult baptism does not work in the other direction. In other words, if the parents bring a child to me to be baptised and I speak with her and she indeed wishes to receive the sacrament…we may proceed. If she is brought to me and she does not want to be baptised after explaining the rite, or attempting to explain, we may not proceed. (This is an application of the adult norms.) If, however, she comes to me wanting baptism but the parents are opposed, we may not proceed…barring danger of imminent death and the situation envisioned in Canon 868 §2. This is because she is a minor from the perspective of both canon law and civil law.
As a parent myself (with another expected in may) this is something that is very close to my heart. However, I don’t like to look at this as penalties to myself. Let me explain.What does the Church teach for a Catholic who doesn’t baptize their child? I assume it’s a mortal sin, but is this also one of those offenses that incurs automatic ex-communication? What if the parent decides to repent later, but their now older child refuses to be baptized? Are they required to force the child to be baptized in order to be right with the Church again? What if the child is now an adult?
So, baptism is necessary for us to be able to enter heaven. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t really care what the punishment is to me…I just want to make sure that my child has the ability to enter into heaven with Jesus. That is the point after all. We are supposed to help our children and our spouse to get to heaven. In my opinion, I would fail my child if I, knowing that Jesus has required baptism, don’t have him/her baptized. And, failing my child, and my mission as a parent, makes me far more worried than the possibility of excommunication (which I don’t think is the case anyway).Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
The church teaches 3 forms of baptism.As a parent myself (with another expected in may) this is something that is very close to my heart. However, I don’t like to look at this as penalties to myself. Let me explain.
Jesus himself tied salvation to baptism. In John 3:5, we see:
So, baptism is necessary for us to be able to enter heaven. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t really care what the punishment is to me…I just want to make sure that my child has the ability to enter into heaven with Jesus. That is the point after all. We are supposed to help our children and our spouse to get to heaven. In my opinion, I would fail my child if I, knowing that Jesus has required baptism, don’t have him/her baptized. And, failing my child, and my mission as a parent, makes me far more worried than the possibility of excommunication (which I don’t think is the case anyway).
Now, just as a side note: Jesus did require baptism as the normal way one would enter to eternal life. However, God is not bound by the sacraments. Meaning, we know he is merciful and loving, and if he choose to, he could let someone enter heaven who wasn’t baptized. But, we have to trust his love and mercy. So, we trust him with the soul of a child who dies before being baptized and trust that he will be merciful. But, I want to make sure that my children are baptized and that I have followed the request of my savior.
I absolutely agree with the 3 forms of baptism. I don’t think we are talking about illicit baptisms here. I was referring to parents who chose not to (like protestants).The church teaches 3 forms of baptism.
Baptism by water
Baptism by blood
Baptism by desire
It is without question that a child under age 7 falls under baptism by desire in the case of a parent who intends to baptize but for whatever reason has not yet or perhaps cannot (such as a country where Christianity is illegal, or a parent whose spouse objects).
I do not believe it prudent to advise people to do illicit baptisms. There is a reason that church law speaks on these things.
While I don’t believe it incurs ex communication it is a form of sacrilege or failure to be bound to the church.
I do not believe God ever desires us to commit sin, but the act of baptizing illicitly would seem to presume that God would prefer someone sin.
Such a position, I tend to see as superstitious, as if baptism is some sort of incantation against hell. It places us above God and is self serving under the guise of selflessness.
It basically says, “I do not trust in Gods mercy so I will handle it myself”.
.
So, what I see is that, the church teaches that we can hope. It is not a guarantee. We trust God to be merciful with those children, but its not a guarantee. This is because of what baptism does.1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
I would hate to deny my child “the priceless grace of becoming a child of God” by not having them baptized. Not to mention all the graces I would deprive them of to help them live a holy life.1250 Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.
This makes much more sense.Actually, you are slightly off in what you are contending.
RCIA specifically stands for the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults. A seven year old would not and could not go through the RCIA program; it would present an absurd situation.
The child theoretically could go through the RCIC (the Rite of Christian Initiation for Children) if such has been established in her parish (which is rare as an existing program) or, more likely, a program would be specially devised for her, probably using elements of an existing religious education program. All this has to take into account the age and maturity of the child and also the particular law governing the administration of Confirmation in the jurisdiction where the child resides.
It is true that Canon 852 §1 defines that one who has attained the age of reason is not to be treated as an infant, canonically speaking, and to judiciously apply the norms of the canons for adult baptism.
This means in practice, however, that the priest who has the cura animarum for this child has to ascertain if the seven year old has attained the age of reason. If the answer is positive, then he would need to ascertain the child’s understanding and her consent regarding the sacrament. That is to say, the child cannot be baptised against her will. She must positively consent and also demonstrate some level of knowledge and understanding…however attenuated…according to the mind of the legislator in Canon 865. This standard is going to be much different than someone older, however, and care would have to be used in the canon’s application from a pastoral perspective. There are also more factors to take into account relative to religious education and its normal progression for someone of that age.
On the other hand from the judicious application of the adult norms for baptism, it is also true that the child has not reached her majority nor is she emancipated. As defined by Canon 97, our theoretical seven year old is a minor. The same canon tells us when she will attain her majority in terms of canon law.
Therefore, our scenario of applying the norms of adult baptism does not work in the other direction. In other words, if the parents bring a child to me to be baptised and I speak with her and she indeed wishes to receive the sacrament…we may proceed. If she is brought to me and she does not want to be baptised after explaining the rite, or attempting to explain, we may not proceed. (This is an application of the adult norms.) If, however, she comes to me wanting baptism but the parents are opposed, we may not proceed…barring danger of imminent death and the situation envisioned in Canon 868 §2. This is because she is a minor from the perspective of both canon law and civil law.
RCIA is for adults and 7 year old children do not participate in RCIA.Once the kids are age 7 they are considered adults as far as baptism is concerned, so the parent couldn’t baptize them even if they wanted to. The kids would have to choose for themselves and go through RCIA.