Posted on 10/01/2009 6:29:50 AM PDT by NYer
Q: Our new next-door neighbors have a 14-month-old daughter. They’re Catholics, but I just found out that they still haven’t had their daughter baptized yet! When our own children were born over 30 years ago, we had them baptized when they were just a couple of weeks old. Aren’t you required to have your children baptized quickly like that any more? –Frances
A: The Church’s teaching on the necessity of baptism for salvation has not changed. Christ Himself, after His Resurrection, couldn’t have spoken more clearly about the need for baptism, when He commanded the Apostles to go forth and baptize all nations (Matt. 28: 19-20). As the Catechism teaches, “through baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God” (CCC 1213 ). It is only logical that Catholic parents should want to have their newborn children baptized as soon as possible, to free them from original sin and make them members of the Church.
As we have seen in this space so many times before, canon law follows theology. So it isn’t at all surprising to find that canon 867.1 states that parents are obliged to see that their infants are baptized within the first few weeks after birth. And the very next paragraph, canon 867.2 , adds that if the child is in danger of death, he is to be baptized immediately.
Thus it should be clear that waiting for months, or even years, to have one’s child baptized is not only not in keeping with the Church’s theological teaching, it is also contrary to canon law. It is difficult to imagine a legitimate reason why Catholic parents, who truly believe in basic tenets of our faith like original sin and God’s grace, would fail to arrange for their children to be baptized as soon as possible.
Ironically, it may be that the wonderful medical advances of the last several decades have inadvertently led many Catholic parents to lose the traditional sense of urgency about having their newborn children baptized. For centuries, the Church’s teaching about the importance of baptism for salvation dovetailed neatly with the fear of many parents that their newborn might not live very long, and so both supernatural and natural reasons tended to push parents to have their children baptized as quickly as they could. If you have ever read the biography of a medieval saint, or if done genealogical research on your own family members in centuries past, you might very well have come across an instance where someone was baptized the day after his birth, or even sooner. In fact, it isn’t necessary to dig so far back in the historical past to find examples of this: in 1927, Pope Benedict XVI himself was baptized the same day that he was born.
This practice was, of course, logically consistent with Catholic doctrine. Given the extraordinarily high rates of infant mortality in generations past, and the fear that an infant might die before original sin had been wiped from his soul, what Catholic parent wouldn’t rush a newborn child to the parish church for baptism as soon as possible?
While there still is always some risk that a child may not survive, nowadays the fear that a newborn infant might not make it is hardly so great as before, especially here in the US. At the same time, baptisms have become big family/social events, when relatives fly into town and there is often a big family get-together after the ceremony. Of course there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this; in fact, we do well to maintain our awareness of the importance of such an event by celebrating the occasion. But unfortunately, the desire to have all the family present at a child’s baptism can naturally lead to postponing the sacrament until everyone is able to make it. While parents are waiting for this or that relative to have a free weekend to travel, their new baby remains in original sin.
There are other factors which now sometimes lead parents to put off having their new child baptized. As we saw back in the June 21, 2007 column , it is standard practice these days in the US for parishes to require parents to attend an evening class (or series of classes) before their child is baptized. This is designed to ensure that the parents truly intend to raise their child in the Catholic faith—an intention that must be present if the priest is to agree to perform the baptism (c. 868.1 n. 2 ). Occasionally I have heard parents complain that they can’t have their new baby baptized until they attend this class, and that in their parish, the class is held only once a month. But in every single case, I have found that these complaining parents had made no effort whatsoever to inquire about the requirements for their infant’s baptism ahead of time. Since parents obviously are aware for months in advance that they will be having a baby, it is difficult to understand their failure to do this. Why not arrange to attend the class a month or two before the child’s expected birth-date, so that it will be possible to have the baptism soon afterwards?
Many parishes do an excellent job of publicizing the need for all parents to attend the baptism class, and class dates are announced well in advance. Others could probably do a better job of instructing their parishioners about the obligation of all parents to have their children baptized soon after birth. I have personally seen a disturbing pattern in many Catholic Hispanic communities, where children are routinely baptized when they are apparently two or three years old, if not older! If their parents had fallen away from the faith, and just recently returned to the Church, this of course would be an entirely understandable explanation for the delay. But if these families are regularly practicing Catholics, it appears that the pastor and parish catechists would do well to remind parents more forcefully and more often that by delaying their child’s baptism, they are leaving that child in original sin. If, God forbid, tragedy strikes and such a child suddenly dies, he leaves this world without the sacramental graces gained from baptism—and by his parents’ choice.
Another, more abstract factor that may cause some new parents to wrongly conclude that there is no need to rush to baptize their child, is the fallout from the fairly recent theological statement from the Vatican concerning Limbo . In 2007, many media outlets wrongly declared that Pope Benedict XVI had “done away with Limbo.” Even the most sincere journalist could perhaps be forgiven for being confused about what the statement actually meant! In its 2000-year existence, the Catholic Church has never made a definitive, authoritative statement explaining exactly what happens to infants who died before being baptized. Since they themselves are completely innocent, it seems absurd to conclude that God damns them to hell; although no less a theologian than St. Augustine really did reach this conclusion 1600 years ago, it was, understandably, not a position subsequently embraced officially by the entire Church. At the same time, the Church teaches that baptism is necessary to enter Heaven, since we must first be wiped clean of original sin and made children of God before we can be with Him there. It is thus a quandary with which theologians long have had to grapple, and the conclusion that there must be some third place (dubbed “Limbo”) was reached as a result. In Limbo, they said, the souls of unbaptized children enjoy some degree of happiness, but they are deprived of the Beatific Vision of God because they are still in original sin. This is not a teaching that can be found anywhere in revelation; rather, it is a logical conclusion of the Church’s teaching on baptism.
In the mid-2000’s, the International Theological Commission (ITC)—a team of theologians chosen from all over the world by the Pope to serve together as a joint committee of experts—was tasked with studying the issue of what happens to infants who die without the grace of baptism. The issue was not merely a theoretical, academic one: questions have been raised repeatedly about the fate of those millions upon millions of children who are killed by abortion. And what about those embryos which are created through in-vitro fertilization, and later discarded in the lab as superfluous? The Church needed to examine the issue more closely.
In their report—which was approved by the Pope—the ITC provided no magic answer to this difficult theological question. It reiterated traditional Catholic teaching when it asserted that “the necessity of the sacrament of Baptism is proclaimed and professed as integral to the Christian faith understanding” (66 ), and it did a beautiful job of tracing the historical development of the belief in Limbo, the existence of which “is not a dogmatic definition” (38 ). The ITC emphasized that there is no need for such a place necessarily to exist at all, since “God can therefore give the grace of Baptism without the sacrament being conferred” (82 ) if He so wishes. In other words, God is not bound by the sacraments; He can, if He so wishes, freely allow the soul of an unbaptized infant into His presence in Heaven. Thus the ITC stressed the need for hope and trust in the mercy of God, since “the point of departure for considering the destiny of these children should be the salvific will of God” (41 ).
This report could too easily be misinterpreted as saying that there is no need to baptize our children, since God will allow them into Heaven anyway. But the report definitely does not exonerate parents whose children die without baptism, when the parents have not made an effort to have the baby baptized promptly. Thus it cannot be used as an excuse for failing to have a newborn infant baptized as quickly as the parents reasonably can.
True, there are tragic situations where a newborn dies unexpectedly in the first few hours or days of his birth; if the parents had been planning to have him baptized soon, it is certainly difficult to fault them for not being fast enough! But it is a very different matter when a child of several months, or even years, dies without having been baptized, solely through the negligence of his parents. New parents need to keep in mind—and to be reminded—of the incredible spiritual responsibility they bear toward their newborn children, who must depend on their parents to ensure that they are relieved of the burden of original sin so that they may someday see God face to face.
It never ceases to amaze me how many parents wait such a long time, even years! Last year, I attended the Baptism of two sisters, aged 10 and 12, whose parents had decided to leave the decision up to the kids. They brought the girls to classes all throughout the year. They made their First Penance and First Communion and then they were gone. The parents felt they had fulfilled their obligation. The girls are too young to drive themselves to Church on Sunday. It is simply heartbreaking, especially after seeing the joy on their faces when they celebrated the sacraments.
When was the thief on the cross baptized?
not being catholic, i won’t attack your beliefs. but as i was raised to believe, the decision should be that of the individual upon reaching an age of accountability- the age when they are old enough to know what baptism means, the reasons, the symbolism, etc. and that baptism is a confirmation of your personal choice to accept Christ, not a requirement to gain access to heaven.
Isn’t Baptism a Sacrament that can be performed by anybody? I recall that discussion from the good Sisters and all the enthusiasm only 4th grade boys possess.
This is an issue in our Spanish-speaking congregation. One reason is that many of the families did not have regular access to a priest and parish before settling in our community. We've had baptisms of whole families of children, from infants to teenagers!
Our deacon has discussed the problem in his homilies, encouraging everyone to have Baptisms held promptly. He does instruction after Mass on the second Sunday each month, and does baptisms after Mass on the last Sunday each month.
The thief on the cross, sometimes referred to as “Dismas”, was possibly Jewish, therefore he held to the Old Covenant and was circumscised at 8 days old. However, his true belief in Jesus came to light when he asked to be remembered when Jesus entered his kingdom. This faith alone was enough at that time to ensure his salvation.
Yes. A Baptism performed in the correct way, with clean water and the words, "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," is valid no matter who does it.
It’s not the parents’ decision. The “child” decides when he wants to be baptized following his salvation. Baptism is a profession the church, community, etc., of one’s acceptance of Christ as personal Savior. Since a baby cannot accept Christ, he shouldn’t be baptized. It doesn’t get someone closer to Heaven.
In the Bible, a baby is NEVER baptized. Baptism occurred only after a person’s salvation. When in doubt, people should read the Bible and give it the same respect for accuracy that they give the Constitution. We don’t like it when people “make up stuff” that’s not Constitutional. Why is it OK to make up stuff that’s not Biblical?
I believe that when a baby or mentally retarded person dies he goes to Heaven since he did not have a capacity to make a decision for or against salvation. (Others believe they don’t go to Heaven.)
On the cross ... baptism of desire.
Where is that in the Bible?
Well, I would not be judgmental on their decision. Many factors could be involved in their decision that you are unaware of.
My first two were christened before 3 months, but my last child was just about 14 months old when I had her christened. There were many things that put off the christening, and there were also many that judged me for it.
Makes you kind of wonder why god fearing people would judge you on the decisions you make or have to make due to problems beyond your control. I thought that judgement was left for only 1, but hey that’s my belief!
She should be Baptized before doing a photo shot with Roman Polanski.
Clean water? So if the ocean is full of bacteria it doesn’t take?
That is ONLY in case of emergency.
Latin Rite
In the Latin Rite Catholic Church, the ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, priest or deacon (canon 861 §1 of the Code of Canon Law), but in normal circumstances, only the Parish Priest of the person to be baptized, or someone authorized by the Parish Priest may do so licitly (canon 530). “If the ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or some other person deputed to this office by the local Ordinary, may lawfully confer baptism; indeed, in a case of necessity, any person who has the requisite intention may do so (canon 861 §2).
By “a case of necessity” is principally meant imminent danger of death because of either illness or an external threat. “The requisite intention” is, at the minimum level, the intention “to do what the Church does” through the rite of baptism.
Please read Col. 2:11-12, wherein Paul uses circumcision as a parallel to baptism. Since circumcision was only performed on infants, and rarely on adults, it stands to reason that he would not have used that parallel if he intended to exclude infants from baptism.
Also John 3:5. Jesus states that no one can enter his kingdom unless he is born again of the water and the Holy Spirit.
Every instance of Baptism that is described in the New Covenant period follows salvation. This is demonstrated in various ways (the convert heard the gospel and believed, the convert repented, they confessed their belief, etc), but there is not one instance of a baptism occuring before conversion, and not one instance where a child is mentioned as being baptized.
My opinion is that, unless your child is old enough to understand what the gospel message is and confess their belief, they are not old enough to be baptized.
Sometimes, there’s only ONE class a month for the parents that is a PREREQUISITE to Baptism in many dioceses/parishes.
They want to make sure the parents understand what they are doing.
NOT DEFENDING - Having moved from Texas to New York, I’m amazed at what New York Catholics put up with after feeling that the Diocese of Dallas was a little overbearing 6 years ago. Now, Dallas has a Bishop from the Northeast... I’m all for the liturgical practices, but the “jump thru this hoop” is nuts!
When they can make a decision about Christ themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.