Where can I find official answers to my questions on infant baptism?

[PermanentMarker]

My cousin is trying to baptize her son, and she has run into a deacon that says she must first receive Holy Communion and Confirmation. I do not think that is accurate. Where can I find an official document to help clear things up. I live in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, btw.

 

[YADA]

My cousin is trying to baptize her son, and she has run into a deacon that says she must first receive Holy Communion and Confirmation. I do not think that is accurate. Where can I find an official document to help clear things up. I live in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, btw.

This seems to me one of those “there must be more to the story” moments …

Is your cousin “catholic”? … if so - only baptized ??? - why not fully initiated into the Church via all three Sacraments of Initiation??? = Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist?

If they are not fully initiated - Why? … in the Latin Rite - people usually receive first Holy Communion around the age of seven … Confirmation as a Sophomore … So whats up?:tsktsk:

Do they attend Mass? IE are they a ‘practicing - active’ Catholic? … If so …why would they not have sought Eucharist and Confirmation before … if not … then why Baptize the infant …In order to baptize an infant - the parent promises to raise and instruct the child in the faith they have - that they profess and practice … Can a non-practicing catholic do that - honestly …

My guess is that the Deacon is wanting your cousin to take their faith seriously - before they promise to take it seriously for their child …

Your post was rather short - short on specifics but enough to cause me to ask hard questions … can you imagine that a Deacon meeting with your cousin might be even more discerning?

 

[PermanentMarker]

My cousin was baptized as an infant herself, but that is about the extent of her connection with the Church. So your suspicions about her standing with the Church are correct. I also wish she were more committed and faithful, but as far as I have been able to determine, that does not at all prevent her son from being baptized. The Church has provided no obstacle for my cousin, so neither should this deacon. To the extent he does so, every Catholic should be outraged, even while we wish Catholics like my cousin lived their faith.

But here is the question I hope you guys can help me answer: where can the official rules governing infant baptism be found?

 

[YADA]

My cousin was baptized as an infant herself, but that is about the extent of her connection with the Church. So your suspicions about her standing with the Church are correct. I also wish she were more committed and faithful, but as far as I have been able to determine, that does not at all prevent her son from being baptized. The Church has provided no obstacle for my cousin, so neither should this deacon. To the extent he does so, every Catholic should be outraged, even while we wish Catholics like my cousin lived their faith.

But here is the question I hope you guys can help me answer: where can the official rules governing infant baptism be found?

Your cousin must promise to raise the child in the faith … if she is not practicing her own faith - how can she do this for her child? … those promises are part of the Rite itself - would you want her to come into Christ’s Church and make promises to Christ and before the faith community gathered there as witnesses - and lie.

Why is what is written in the Rite not written enough for you? What is it about the affirmative answer to rejecting Satan and all his works and professing belief in all that the Church teaches and holds to be revealed by God that is not written enough for you?

To what purpose - then - would this baptism be? … If the one and only time the parent and child are in attendance at Mass is the Baptism … then your cousin is making a mockery of the Rite, a mockery of the Church [the local chain store of Sacraments on Sale] …

And you seem to want to enable that… Why? … why would you not be encouraging you cousin to take her faith life seriously? Why would you not support the Church in this matter and counsel yoru cousin that Sacraments mean something - they are real and they impart a change upon the recipient that should not be taken flippently?

But since you acked - here is a link to a document by the By the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Infant Baptism:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINFAN.htm

here is a portion that addresses your question:

The Principles of This Pastoral Practice
28.** In the first place, it is important to recall that the Baptism of infants must be considered a serious duty**. The questions which it poses to pastors can be settled only by faithful attention to the teaching and constant practice of the Church.
Concretely, pastoral practice regarding infant Baptism must be governed by two great principles, the second of which is subordinate to the first.

1. Baptism, which is necessary for salvation, is the sign and the means of God’s prevenient love, which frees us from original sin and communicates to us a share in divine life. Considered in itself, the gift of these blessings to infants must not be delayed.
2. **Assurances must be given that the gift thus granted can grow by an authentic education in the faith and Christian life, in order to fulfill the true meaning of the sacrament.**37] As a rule, these assurances are to be given by the parents or close relatives, although various substitutions are possible within the Christian community. But if these assurances are not really serious there can be grounds for delaying the sacrament; and if they are certainly non-existent the sacrament should even be refused.

BOLDING MINE

 

[PaulfromIowa]

My cousin was baptized as an infant herself, but that is about the extent of her connection with the Church. So your suspicions about her standing with the Church are correct. I also wish she were more committed and faithful, but as far as I have been able to determine, that does not at all prevent her son from being baptized. The Church has provided no obstacle for my cousin, so neither should this deacon. To the extent he does so, every Catholic should be outraged, even while we wish Catholics like my cousin lived their faith.

The Church can only baptize infants if there is reason to believe that the child will be raised in the faith. You should ask your cousin why she wants to baptize her child if she is unconcerned about her own salvation.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

The Church can only baptize infants if there is reason to believe that the child will be raised in the faith. You should ask your cousin why she wants to baptize her child if she is unconcerned about her own salvation.

Or perhaps the question is, if she sees that being part of the Catholic Church is important for her son, then doesn’t she also want that same gift for herself? I know of one non-practicing couple who were asked this question when they wanted to have their daughter baptized. They came to understand that this was what they wanted for their daughter but yes, this was also what they wanted for themselves. And the whole family returned to the Church. That perfect scenario may not happen often, but it does happen.

You might want to talk with her about why she wants to have her son baptized. What does it mean to her to have him baptized? What obligations come with baptism?

 

[PermanentMarker]

Hello, everyone. As I said in the third comment to this thread, I tend to agree that my cousin should first seek full communion with the Church so that she could be a good Catholic parent to her child. However, the Church has determined her own stipulations for this, no matter what I or any of you think. And as far as I am aware, there is NO stipulation that one or both of the parents must be fully initiated into the sacraments.

As much as I may agree with the general sentiment of your comment, Yada, the only question that matters is this: where in the Code of Canon Law or in any other ecclesiastical document does it stipulate that one or both of the parents must be fully initiated into the sacraments? As far as I am aware, the only stipulation is that there be a well founded hope that the child be raised Catholic. Perhaps no such hope exists, but the deacon who advised my cousin is still wrong.

 

[PJM]

=PermanentMarker;10092347]My cousin is trying to baptize her son, and she has run into a deacon that says she must first receive Holy Communion and Confirmation. I do not think that is accurate. Where can I find an official document to help clear things up. I live in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, btw.

The Deacon is strangly wrong; IF this is his position?

W/O Baptism NO other sacrament can be received!

Catechism of the Catholic Church http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

1213 **Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. **Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: “Therefore . . . we are members one of another.” Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: “For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”

TALK to you PASTOR.

If you correctly understood the deacon; this is a most serious matter.

Don’t accuse: be brief, factiual and chaititable BUT DO IT ASAP!

God Bless,
pat /PJM

I’m a Certified Marian Catecheist

 

[frizzgrig]

Hello, everyone. As I said in the third comment to this thread, I tend to agree that my cousin should first seek full communion with the Church so that she could be a good Catholic parent to her child. However, the Church has determined her own stipulations for this, no matter what I or any of you think. And as far as I am aware, there is NO stipulation that one or both of the parents must be fully initiated into the sacraments.

As much as I may agree with the general sentiment of your comment, Yada, the only question that matters is this: where in the Code of Canon Law or in any other ecclesiastical document does it stipulate that one or both of the parents must be fully initiated into the sacraments? As far as I am aware, the only stipulation is that there be a well founded hope that the child be raised Catholic. Perhaps no such hope exists, but the deacon who advised my cousin is still wrong.

You are correct there is no Canon that states the child can not be baptized. As for the objection that there is no “well founded hope the child will be raised in the faith,” the mother has brought the child to the Church. This alone is evidence she wants her child to be raised in the faith. The provisions of Canon law provide at least one of the sponsors (godparents) must be a fully initiated Catholic and a sponsor can not be the child’s parent (Canon 874).

Many a wandering adult has been brought back home to the Church through the baptism of their child.

 

[Phemie]

The Deacon is strangly wrong; IF this is his position?

W/O Baptism NO other sacrament can be received!

---

I think you misunderstood the OP’s statement.

The Deacon says that his cousin must be Confirmed and receive Communion before her son can be baptized.

Canon 868 says:

Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:
1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;
2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.
§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

While saying that she had to be Confirmed and receive Communion was perhaps not the best way to put it, unless he explained and she didn’t share that explanation, I think it’s pretty clear that the Deacon feels that if she can’t be bothered to complete her own Christian initiation it’s hard to have a founded hope that she’ll do her duty by her child.

It’s quite possible that the Deacon is not the best communicator and that’s the reason for the confusion.

 

[Phemie]

You are correct there is no Canon that states the child can not be baptized. As for the objection that there is no “well founded hope the child will be raised in the faith,” the mother has brought the child to the Church. This alone is evidence she wants her child to be raised in the faith. The provisions of Canon law provide at least one of the sponsors (godparents) must be a fully initiated Catholic and a sponsor can not be the child’s parent (Canon 874).

Many a wandering adult has been brought back home to the Church through the baptism of their child.

We follow that premise when we prepare parents for the baptism of their children but reality has a way of slapping you in the face.

I do a walk-through with parents the day before the Baptism. When I come to the renunciation of sins I could cry because most of the couples are unmarried and they’ll joke about that during this part of the rite. I know that most likely we won’t see them again because this is not a serious thing they are doing for their child, it’s simply a ritual they are doing because their family expects them to.

Not one non-practicing couple that weve prepared since Ive been on the team has ever come back to the Church. In 100% of the cases we’ve not seen them again, except perhaps at Christmas, until the grandmother started to bug them to have the child make his/her First Communion. In many cases it’s the grandmother who puts the kid’s name on the First Communion list because the parents couldn’t care less. If they do receive their First Communion we know that 99% of them will not return for Confirmation and they will probably never be brought to church again.

 

[PermanentMarker]

Thank you for the comments, everyone I have some news…

It’s quite possible that the Deacon is not the best communicator and that’s the reason for the confusion.

Now that I have had the chance to speak with the parish priest, I think my cousin misunderstood the deacon. As she was explaining the advise of the deacon, it sounded like he was inventing a stipulation that did not exist in the Code of Canon Law. And as much as I wish my cousin had a more lived faith, I was upset that the local church would unnecessarily delay the infant’s baptism over a made-up rule.

However, it became clear in my conversation with the priest that my cousin had misunderstood what was said. The deacon was merely explaining that since she had not been fully initiated as a Christian and could hardly call herself “Catholic,” there was no hope that the child be raised Catholic. The deacon encouraged her to first become fully initiated so that she could be a good Catholic parent to her son. And so, the deacon was not fabricating a rule, he was invoking an existing one.

My cousin, God bless her, could not understand all of this less, so I worry that she will react with hostility. That being said, the Church made the right call.

 

[PermanentMarker]

Not one non-practicing couple that weve prepared since Ive been on the team has ever come back to the Church. In 100% of the cases we’ve not seen them again, except perhaps at Christmas, until the grandmother started to bug them to have the child make his/her First Communion. In many cases it’s the grandmother who puts the kid’s name on the First Communion list because the parents couldn’t care less. If they do receive their First Communion we know that 99% of them will not return for Confirmation and they will probably never be brought to church again.

That makes me sad, Phemie. What makes me even sadder, though, is that there seems to be no real effort to reverse the trend you describe. Where is the leadership and vision? Nowhere to be found. I have a few ideas, but how can I implement them with no power?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

That makes me sad, Phemie. What makes me even sadder, though, is that there seems to be no real effort to reverse the trend you describe. Where is the leadership and vision? Nowhere to be found. I have a few ideas, but how can I implement them with no power?

PermanentMarker, you ask “where is the leadership?”.
Well in my experience, “the leadership” is totally burned out trying to to do the “right thing”, because it seems that no matter what a priest or deacon does, someone is always unhappy. :sad_yes:

Not to “pick” on you, but your original post is a perfect example.
Your initial question was vague, and it seems to me, that you were trying to “catch” the deacon doing something wrong, when in reality, you were not gettting the correct information, or the whole story.

Think about it, if you were a priest or deacon, and tried hard to “do the right thing” and were constantly met with questoning and doubt, and had someone go over your head, or to an internet forum to complain about how “mean” you were and how you tried to make your own rules, how long would you beat your head against the wall?

All the more reason we need to pray for our priests & deacons, and for vocations, and do our part in helping to teach the faith!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think you misunderstood the OP’s statement.

The Deacon says that his cousin must be Confirmed and receive Communion before her son can be baptized.

Canon 868 says:
While saying that she had to be Confirmed and receive Communion was perhaps not the best way to put it, unless he explained and she didn’t share that explanation, I think it’s pretty clear that the Deacon feels that if she can’t be bothered to complete her own Christian initiation it’s hard to have a founded hope that she’ll do her duty by her child.

It’s quite possible that the Deacon is not the best communicator and that’s the reason for the confusion.

I think the greater possibility is that we are not getting the true story.

We have a cousin of the OP approaching the Church for baptism. Obviously the deacon has some concerns that the child will not be raised in the faith. Just her showing up and asking for baptism is not evidence of that in any way.

Rather than thinking the deacon got something wrong I am going to do the “controversial” think and side and with deacon and in charity assume that he told her what she needed to do to show that she would raise her child in the faith, that was finish her own sacrament.

Now this cousin gets an answer she doesn’t like and runs to the OP and tells him a story that in all likelihood is distorted. We can not know what took place between this woman and the deacon and really her cousin the OP has no standing in the matter at question.

It is treads like this that make me look at my upcoming deacon ordination with trepidation.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thank you for the comments, everyone I have some news…

Now that I have had the chance to speak with the parish priest, I think my cousin misunderstood the deacon. As she was explaining the advise of the deacon, it sounded like he was inventing a stipulation that did not exist in the Code of Canon Law. And as much as I wish my cousin had a more lived faith, I was upset that the local church would unnecessarily delay the infant’s baptism over a made-up rule.

However, it became clear in my conversation with the priest that my cousin had misunderstood what was said. The deacon was merely explaining that since she had not been fully initiated as a Christian and could hardly call herself “Catholic,” there was no hope that the child be raised Catholic. The deacon encouraged her to first become fully initiated so that she could be a good Catholic parent to her son. And so, the deacon was not fabricating a rule, he was invoking an existing one.

My cousin, God bless her, could not understand all of this less, so I worry that she will react with hostility. That being said, the Church made the right call.

Thank you for following this up and sharing with us but I have to wonder about confidentiality.

Your a cousin, you really have no standing in this issue. I do not think the priest should have discussed this issue with you.

Maybe that is something I need to reflect on.