carlos@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (Carlos Carrion) (07/31/89)
We'd like to get some of your thoughts on baptism. Both my wife and
I are catholic ( at least we were brought up as catholic...), and we'd like
to baptize our baby girl who is about 2 weeks old. Since my wife is
divorced, the catholic church will probably give us a hard time ( or so
says my wife ) on this and my wife does not want to go through any questions
or comments that she might feel uncomfortable with.
I have not had any dealings with the church in these matters, so I
don't have much to go on. All I know is that I don't want my wife to be made
out as some kind of a 'sinner' because of her divorce.
What would you do in our case? Are there any 'progressive' catholic
churches or priests that might help us? We live in southern california.
Thanks.
carlos.
"May the Good Lord take a liking to you and blow you up real soon!"
...cit-vax!elroy!jpl-devvax!beowulf!carlos
...cit-vax!elroy!jpl-devvax!pituco!carlos
[I would be very surprised if a Catholic church would withhold baptism
from your child because of something you did. However there are
others on this list in a better position than I to provide details.
My understanding of the Catholic position is that they want to see
every child baptized, and even authorize non-Catholic laymen to
baptize in emergency situations. Thus I would expect that for a
Catholic, baptizing your child would be a separate issue from any
problems you might have in paticipating in the life of the church.
I have some problems with this personally. I do not want to see
baptism turned into a superstition, an act that is done even by people
who have no intention of participating in the church, because of some
remaining fear that somehow their child will be better off. The
Presbyterian view on this issue is that baptism is intended to
indicate the entry of a child into the church, and that it should only
be done if the parents intend to be a part of the church. Thus we
would not encourage you to baptize your child if there was some reason
that prevents you from participating in the church. I would encourage
you to think not just about baptism, but about creating a Christian
home for your child. You may well be able to do this within the
Catholic church. A lot will depend upon the individual priest. But
if your situation is going to cause you to stay away from the church
after the baptism, I encourage you to try to find some Christian
community in which you can participate. ---clh]sysprg@zeus.unl.edu (Craig B. Walter) (08/02/89)
> We'd like to get some of your thoughts on baptism. Both my wife and >I are catholic ( at least we were brought up as catholic...), and we'd like >to baptize our baby girl who is about 2 weeks old. Since my wife is >divorced, the catholic church will probably give us a hard time ( or so >says my wife ) on this and my wife does not want to go through any questions >or comments that she might feel uncomfortable with. Well, you shouldn't be baptizing your baby anyway. Baptism is a personal statement by a believer to publicly identify them with Christ. So what is the point of baptizing a child that has not made a decision for Christ? I realize that this is contrary to the Catholic belief, but I am not Catholic. But surely anyone that sits down and logically thinks about what baptism is, can realize the uselessness of infant baptism. I challenge you to study up on the real meaning of baptism, and do it yourself! Read the scriptures for yourself, and then make a decision.
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) (08/02/89)
In article <Jul.30.22.35.17.1989.1063@geneva.rutgers.edu> carlos@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (Carlos Carrion) writes: > We'd like to get some of your thoughts on baptism. Both my wife and >I are catholic ( at least we were brought up as catholic...), and we'd like >to baptize our baby girl who is about 2 weeks old. Since my wife is >divorced, the catholic church will probably give us a hard time ( or so >says my wife ) on this and my wife does not want to go through any questions >or comments that she might feel uncomfortable with. "Instruction on Infant Baptism" is from "Pastoralis Actio", a document issued from the Vatican by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated October 20, 1980. It's rather long, and reviews much history and detail about infant baptism and its general desirability. However, there is one section which might be interesting considering your position, if only to get an "official" Vatican reading. I do not think you should get a "hard time" about your situation, although I think that the pastor will rightfully be concerned about your child's upbringing insofaras it relates to her future spiritual development. I think your general status as inactive Catholics will be more important that the fact that your wife is divorced and remarried--after all, we're talking about the child here, not your wife. Anyway, here's the excerpt from the Vatican document: It sometimes happens that pastors are approached by parents who have little faith and practise their religion only occasionally, or even by non-Christian parents who request baptism for their children for reasons that deserve consideration. In this case, the pastor will endeavour by means of a clear- sighted and understanding dialogue to arouse the parents' interest in the sacrament they are requesting and make them aware of the responsibility they are assuming. In fact, the Church can only accede to the desire of these parents if they give an assurance that, once the child is baptized, it will be given the benefit of the Christian upbringing required by the sacrament. The Church must have a well-founded hope that the baptism will bear fruit. If the assurances given--for example, the choice of godparents who will take sincere care of the child, or the support of the community of the faithful--are sufficient, the priest cannot refuse to celebrate the sacrament without delay, as in the case of children of Christian families. If on the other hand they are insufficient, it will be prudent to delay baptism. However, the pastors should keep in contact with the parents so as to secure, if possible, the conditions required on their part for the celebration of the sacrament. If even this solution fails, it can be suggested, as a last recourse, that the child be enrolled in a catechumenate to be given when the child reaches school age. These rules have already been made and are already in force, but they require some clarification. In the first place, it must be clear that the refusal of baptism is not a means of exercising pressure. Nor can one speak of refusal, still less of discrimination, but rather of educational delay, according to individual cases, aimed at helping the family to grow in faith or to become more aware of its responsibilities. With regard to the assurances, any pledge giving a well-founded hope for the Christian upbringing of the children deserves to be considered as sufficient. Enrollment for a future catechumenate should not be accompanied by a specially created rite which would easily be taken as an equivalent of the sacrament itself. It should also be clear that this enrollment is not admittance to the catechumenate and that the infants enrolled cannot be considered catechumens with all the prerogatives attached to being such. They must be presented later on for a catechumenate suited to their age. In this regard, it must be stated clearly that the existence in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults of a Rite of Initiation for Children of Catechetical Age in no way means that the Church considers it preferable or normal to delay baptism until that age.
paulk@caen.engin.umich.edu (Usenet @ CAEN) (08/04/89)
OFM writes: > [I would be very surprised if a Catholic church would withhold baptism > from your child because of something you did. Baptism may be withheld in certain circumstances, but for another reason. When baptized, a person makes a vow to "renounce Satan in all his pomps." Implicit in this vow is the promise to study and practice the Catholic Faith, and be a member of the Catholic community. Adult converts can make this promise for themselves. With infant baptisms, another person makes this promise for them, and assumes the responsibility of instructing and raising the child as a practicing Catholic. If, in the opinion of the priest, the parents are incapable of raising the child properly, the priest is not obliged to perform the baptism. Infants of notorious public sinners who show no sign of repentence can be refused baptism. A person cannot be baptized into a life of sin. The parent is then responsible for any spiritual damage incurred by the child as a result of no baptism. At first glance, it does not seem fair for an infant to suffer, but sin is never fair. The children unfortunately suffer the consequences of the parents' sins. In danger of death the infant would be baptized, though. The immediate concern then would be dying in the grace of God more than living and practicing the Catholic Faith. > The Presbyterian view on this issue is that baptism is intended to > indicate the entry of a child into the church, and that it should only > be done if the parents intend to be a part of the church. Thus we > would not encourage you to baptize your child if there was some reason > that prevents you from participating in the church. I would encourage > you to think not just about baptism, but about creating a Christian > home for your child. Good advice, and also very similar to the Catholic view. Paul Kominsky
dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) (08/04/89)
In article <Jul.30.22.35.17.1989.1063@geneva.rutgers.edu> carlos@beowulf.JPL.NASA.GOV (Carlos Carrion) writes: > We'd like to get some of your thoughts on baptism. Both my wife and >I are catholic ( at least we were brought up as catholic...), and we'd like >to baptize our baby girl who is about 2 weeks old. Since my wife is >divorced, the catholic church will probably give us a hard time ( or so >says my wife ) on this and my wife does not want to go through any questions >or comments that she might feel uncomfortable with. "Instruction on Infant Baptism" is from "Pastoralis Actio", a document issued from the Vatican by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, dated October 20, 1980. It's rather long, and reviews much history and detail about infant baptism and its general desirability. However, there is one section which might be interesting considering your position, if only to get an "official" Vatican reading. I do not think you should get a "hard time" about your situation, although I think that the pastor will rightfully be concerned about your child's upbringing insofaras it relates to her future spiritual development. I think your general status as inactive Catholics will be more important that the fact that your wife is divorced and remarried--after all, we're talking about the child here, not your wife. Anyway, here's the excerpt from the Vatican document: It sometimes happens that pastors are approached by parents who have little faith and practise their religion only occasionally, or even by non-Christian parents who request baptism for their children for reasons that deserve consideration. In this case, the pastor will endeavour by means of a clear- sighted and understanding dialogue to arouse the parents' interest in the sacrament they are requesting and make them aware of the responsibility they are assuming. In fact, the Church can only accede to the desire of these parents if they give an assurance that, once the child is baptized, it will be given the benefit of the Christian upbringing required by the sacrament. The Church must have a well-founded hope that the baptism will bear fruit. If the assurances given--for example, the choice of godparents who will take sincere care of the child, or the support of the community of the faithful--are sufficient, the priest cannot refuse to celebrate the sacrament without delay, as in the case of children of Christian families. If on the other hand they are insufficient, it will be prudent to delay baptism. However, the pastors should keep in contact with the parents so as to secure, if possible, the conditions required on their part for the celebration of the sacrament. If even this solution fails, it can be suggested, as a last recourse, that the child be enrolled in a catechumenate to be given when the child reaches school age. These rules have already been made and are already in force, but they require some clarification. In the first place, it must be clear that the refusal of baptism is not a means of exercising pressure. Nor can one speak of refusal, still less of discrimination, but rather of educational delay, according to individual cases, aimed at helping the family to grow in faith or to become more aware of its responsibilities. With regard to the assurances, any pledge giving a well-founded hope for the Christian upbringing of the children deserves to be considered as sufficient. Enrollment for a future catechumenate should not be accompanied by a specially created rite which would easily be taken as an equivalent of the sacrament itself. It should also be clear that this enrollment is not admittance to the catechumenate and that the infants enrolled cannot be considered catechumens with all the prerogatives attached to being such. They must be presented later on for a catechumenate suited to their age. In this regard, it must be stated clearly that the existence in the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults of a Rite of Initiation for Children of Catechetical Age in no way means that the Church considers it preferable or normal to delay baptism until that age. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu
jac@cbnmva.att.com (Jeffrey A Curran) (08/04/89)
[This is another reply to Carlos Carrion's question about baptizing his child. It refers to Craig Walter's response, which indicated that the whole practice of infant baptism is useless. I have some questions about the appropriateness of responses of this kind. Please see my comments below. --clh] I agree with Craig completely. Since I have become a Christian, I now realize that baptism shortly after birth is really useless and is only done for tradition. There is scripture to back up the fact that baptism is something that God likes us to do because it is an outward symbol that we have made a personal decision to follow Christ. A 2-week old baby cannot make this decision. Acts 8:12 talks about new converts being baptised only after they have believed and decided to receive Christ. Acts 8:36-38 portrays a story of a eunuck (African?) being baptised by Phillip after the eunuck decided to receive Christ. Therefore, scripture says that this dilemma of the initial party is a decision for the child to make when she matures. Jeff Curran, Tim McDaniel [This is a good example of the complain that some people have made about the contentiousness of this group. Almost any practical question can become the grounds for a doctrinal objection. Almost any question about Catholic practice can elict a Protestant objection that Catholic practice is idolatrous. Almost any question about Protestant practice could elict a Catholic response that the whole issue is irrelevant since their church isn't a real one anyway. So it becomes impossible to have any discussion about Christian practice, because it is immediately drowned out by the doctrinal implications. This particular case is particularly distressing, because there are issues here that even a baptist should surely believe are more important than the ones they brought up. This family has obviously been staying away from the church because they are afraid that the wife's divorce will cause them to be rejected. Surely the most important thing to do here is to encourage them to find some way to regain Christian fellowship. This must surely be more important to their child's future than whether he is baptized, even if you think that infant baptism is not appropriate. The question which I as moderator have to consider is whether I should try to enforce any rules in this area. I have a feeling that this group would be a lot more useful for many of us if I enforced a rule that practical questions should not be answered by doctrinal objections. Surely we must have something constructive to say to each other, other than that everybody else should adopt our opinions on everything. I have no objection to doctrinal discussion. In fact I find it rather interesting. But we have to find a way to avoid turning everything into a doctrinal issue. I've even wondered whether I should create two subgroups. What do people think? --clh]
dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) (08/05/89)
In article <Aug.3.21.44.00.1989.27077@athos.rutgers.edu> paulk@caen.engin.umich.edu (Usenet @ CAEN) writes: >Baptism may be withheld in certain circumstances, but for another reason. >When baptized, a person makes a vow to "renounce Satan in all his pomps." >Implicit in this vow is the promise to study and practice the Catholic ^^^^^^^^ >Faith, and be a member of the Catholic community... With infant baptisms, ^^^^^^^^ >another person makes this promise for them, and assumes the responsibility >of instructing and raising the child as a practicing Catholic. ^^^^^^^^ The Vatican documents I've seen seem quite deliberate in using the word "Christian" where "Catholic" would ordinarily be expected. I would be surprised if an infant in a Christian family in good standing would be denied the sacrament of baptism by a priest, although it would seem to be a little irregular for non-Catholic Christians to request that their child be baptised by a Catholic priest if they had recourse to their own ministry. -- Steve Dyer dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer dyer@arktouros.mit.edu