Posted on 02/14/2013 12:14:09 PM PST by Weiss White
Q: Some Jewish people in my city complained to the local Catholic hospital, saying they were afraid to bring their sick children to the emergency room, because the hospital staff might baptize them. The hospital staff publicly agreed never to do this.
I had always assumed that you can’t baptize a baby without at least one parent’s consent, so I thought the hospital would simply say, “Don’t worry, we’re not allowed to do that anyway!” But the wording of the hospital administrators’ response seemed to suggest that they really could baptize a sick baby if they wanted to. Can a baby be baptized Catholic, even if the parents aren’t Catholic and don’t want the baptism? –Greg
(Excerpt) Read more at canonlawmadeeasy.com ...
“If you are not a believer what does it matter?”
—Clearly, it matters to these parents. Don’t you think it should be their call?—
You two are really talking about different things.
As to “Don’t you think it should be their call?” — obviously, yes. But I don’t know why it would be of any concern unless one thought the act imparted some sort of mystical something on to the child.
Same for the “non-invasive Muslim purification ceremony” (what ever that is). If it is non-invasive how can it affect anything?
That parents may not want these done for whatever reason — that’s a different issue than whether or not it causes harm or any sort of tangible change.
The involuntary baptism and then effective kidnapping of children (because the new “christian” child could not be raised by evilll Jooooos) was a standard practice of Roman Catholics for years.
Indeed, it was an organized effort for some centuries.
The last case was in 1858 in Italy, where a maid who hated the Jewish family she worked for claimed to have baptised their son Edgardo Mortara, and the Pope himself participated in the kidnapping and brainwashing of the child against his parents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara
So, it’s not exactly a far-fetched fear.
Suppose that option is not available, say the nearest maternity hospital is 100 miles away.
What do you do next, sit back and let the Imam perform the ceremony?
For years, the Roman Catholics used forced baptism as a method of kidnapping children.
That’s why it matters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara
“For years, the Roman Catholics used forced baptism as a method of kidnapping children.
That’s why it matters.”
Actually, that’s why its agit-prop in 2013.
No one is arguing that it causes harm, so I'm not sure how your comment is relevant. Parental prerogative is the issue being discussed.
If it's not your baby, it's none of your business.
Unless you think it's completely acceptable for Muslims, Scientologists, Rastafarians, Satanists, etc to do the same to/for your children.
After all, they are all convinced they're doing good, too.
Just because you have no memory or concern of recent history, doesn’t mean the rest of us should not.
It tends to repeat itself.
When I was leaving the hospital with each baby, I was given a little packet that included a card that indicated a baptism had taken place and a St. Christopher's medal for each baby.
At first, I was upset as I am not a Catholic nor was I asked for permission for the baptism and told them so.
Later, I determined that as I am not Catholic, nor do I believe I infant baptism (what can a new born "repent" of), the baptism meant absolutely nothing here or in Heaven.
Do you think they are doing this (if they actually are) so that they can then take the babies later?
I’d be against that too.
You’re probably on to something.
Yeah, exactly. In your case the children have a keepsake of their birth in the little medals.
My kids were born in a totally secular hospital. They gave out info on how to get welfare benefits (even if you aren’t a citizen) and some video on parenting.
Well, I read the article. It appars the Roman Catholics do permit forced baptism at hospitals:
“If Jewish parents are (understandably!) opposed to the notion that their child might be baptized in a Catholic hospital, the hospital staff CAN honor their wishes, even if the child is at death’s door. At the same time, as we’ve just seen, canon law DOES NOT REQUIRE Catholic hospital workers to defer to the wishes of a dying child’s parents. The staff is PERMITTED by the law to perform an emergency baptism in danger of death . . . .”
Well, I guess it matters less since they don’t support kidnapping -— yet.
“Do you think they are doing this (if they actually are) so that they can then take the babies later?”
No, but that was the past history.
And it was not isolated, at all.
While the practice has been banned for several hundreds of years, there were mass kidnapping of Jewish children in this manner in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara
http://www.davidkertzer.com/book/export/html/24
“Although such kidnappings were not uncommon in Jewish communities across Europe, this time the political climate had changed.”
The Jewish community has long memories - so it is hard to dismiss it as just a sprinkling of water by well meaning Catholics when just a couple hundred years ago it was a means used to kidnap children away from Jewish parents.
I recall being taught that anyone, not just a priest, can baptize any person.
***
According to what I learned as a child, this was just for cases in which the recipient was in danger of death and a priest was not available.
“... the recipient was in danger of death and a priest was not available”.
I think we must have gone to the same Catholic schools, Bigg Red. I was taught we could do a Baptism (in an emergency) or last rites (in an emergency); however, WE had to be Catholic. A neighbor of mine worked as an RN at a local, public hospital. She was a Catholic in good standing and did several emergency Baptisms during her career as a nurse. However, the parents requested the Baptism. The same for Last Rites but the family requested it because they knew death was imminent and the Priest was due in a half an hour.
Yes, Archie Bunker is an apt example.
There are probably MILLIONS of babies that were baptized by their Catholic grandparents because their parents for whatever reason would not do it.
The Church teaches that anyone can baptize if a Priest is not available, and there is a danger that baby could die without it. I know a number of older women in my family who did this because they were terrified of the baby going to Hell before they could convince the parents to baptize.
John the Baptist also offered Baptism ~
No one can save souls except God.
hunosehu, baptism is a decision made when a person is well into the age of reason.
It's an outward gesture of dying to yourself and living for Jesus.
Children who have not reached the age of reason will have their souls saved by a loving God.
No, he will not let the soul perish when a small child or infant dies.
Catholics it seems have a ritual of infant baptism which cannot be backed up by scripture.
It makes them feel better in a situation such as the situation discussed.
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.