My brother and I grew up in a fairly layed back Catholic family we were of course baptized, received our first reconciliation, and were confirmed all before the ripe age of 16. My sister-in-law was brought up layed back Jewish. Basically, she is Jewish by heritage and did not really practice her families faith. Neither did her maternal mother for that matter, they lost it in a sense when they came to the U.S after world war one.
Our parents were sent to horrid Catholic Schools where they only spoke French during class, and Latin at Mass. If they swore they got a ruler across the knuckles from a nun and so on and so forth. This is primarily why my brother and I were brought up so layed back, My parents did not want us going through what they went through. But they felt strong enough to make us go to catechism and receive our first sacrements.
Now having not practiced for well over 15 years, my brother is faced with a dilema – which franky, I am shrugging at right now --to Baptize his impending kids or not. Both do not practise anything, except visiting the local Unitarian church once in a while. They are fairly agnostic. My sister-in-law recently said, “My kids will never be baptized!!”.
Granted this was after a heated conversation revolving around child molestation and Catholic priests.
Weaving an intricate web on these boards of a large multi-denominational group of people posting, I thought this the appropriate place to stick this Q. I do not think my bro who is 30, thinks his kid will go to hell if not baptized but what do others think of this not-so-unique puzzle affecting some of the post-generation-X families of the 21st century.
I was just talking about this with a friend the other day. I don’t intend to baptize any kids I might have, and I have visions of my parents picking my future kids up for an “outing,” then baptizing them in the parking lot of a 7-11 with bottled water and Hand-wipes.
And my opinion is, I’ll let them. Because, if I don’t believe the religion is correct, then the baptism doesn’t matter. It’s a ritual that will make my parents feel better. More power to them.
'Course, I won’t baptize them myself.
I don’t know your sister-in-law, so I can only theorize. That being said…
While many Jews today (including your SIL) do not practice their religion actively, there is a deep cultural taboo against actively doing things to become Christian. This is probably caused by the many times through the centuries when Jews were persecuted by Christians or given the choice of “the cross or the sword.” Thus you have, today, many many Jews who wouldn’t think twice about eating a pork sandwich on Yom Kippur but will absolutely refuse to have anything to do with baptism or a formal conversion.
Well, considering the fact that your SIL’s children will be Jewish under Jewish law, I must, of course, advise against baptism.
You were a little unclear, but if I gather the meaning correctly, you are saying your brother and his wife are both agnostic, the wife is dead-set against baptism, and your brother is indifferent. Should they have their children baptized? What on Earth for? And shouldn’t this thread be in IMHO?
If they don’t feel the baptism is protecting their kids, they shouldn’t do it. And I wouldn’t do it to appease another family member. It’s just disingenuous. I would find it insulting that someone “faked” a religious custom just to please me. People to be honest with themselves about something as important as religion.
EchoKitty, the family members wouldn’t look upon it as being appeased. They won’t look upon the religious custom as being “faked,” because they believe in the religious custom. To them, the custom is real.
Just as important, their concern is whether the child is baptized, not whether the parents were sincere in their desire to have the child baptized.
I can’t speak for all denominations, but United Methodist pastors most certainly do care. The issue with baptism in this case is that it is an oath on the part of the parents to raise their children to “know” god, and to teach them about Jesus and such.
This is the reason I refuse to baptise. I’m not going to take that oath, because it would be a bald faced lie. The pastors I know (and they are many, being a TO myself ), are rather supportive of that stance.
"… if I don’t believe the religion is correct, then the baptism doesn’t matter. It’s a ritual that will make my parents feel better. "
This was the argument given on Sex and the City last week. But, in my opinion, it’s not quite that simple. Okay, these people think my baby will float around in Hell/purgatory because it didn’t have water sprinkled on its head- why not let 'em do it? And, hey, my husband’s parents are Raeliens, why not let them have the kid for a weekend? My grandpa would really like the little tyke to experience his first clan meeting before he turns five- and the kid probably won’t ever remember a thing later on in life, but boy would it make dad feel nice.
Extreme examples? maybe. Maybe not, for Catholic boarding school students.
As a practicing Catholic who genuinely believes that God’s grace does actively work through the sacraments, I would still vote No on this couple having their children baptized.
For them it would be an empty ritual. They are unlikely to follow through with a Catholic/Christian education. It would be, in its way, a mockery of belief (although I doubt it would be a deliberate insult).
God will not condemn the child for having never been baptized. (Even the RCC no longer spends any time talking about the old theological speculation regarding Limbo.)
I generally give the same advice to couple who are considering getting married “in the church” just to appease their families. What is the point if one is not going to continue living the life?
Another Catholic who takes Baptism seriously here.
I don’t see why I should get a vote in the matter, but assuming I have one, I vote no.
More significantly, I suspect you’d have a very hard time finding a priest who’d perform the baptism, under the circumstances described. Contrary to what you may have hear on “Sex and the City,” the Catholic Church is NOT so desperate for members that it will automatically perrform a baptism for any child brought through the door. The Church does NOT regard baptism as some sort of vaccination against going to Hell, and parents who treat it as such (“we don’t really believe in this stuff, Father, but could you just sprinkle a little water on the kid’s head, just in case?”) are really missing the point of baptism.
A priest who’s told, “My wife is resolutely against this child being baptized and I never goes to Mass, but we want the kid baptized so we can have a cake and make the grandparents happy” will almost certainly refuse (I KNOW that my pastor wouldn’t do it).
Baptism is SUPPOSED to be the beginning of a process, not a one-time ritual. Baptizing a baby that you never plan to bring to church again is like… imagine a man and a woman getting engaged, having an elaborate church wedding, and then going their separate ways as soon as the reception is over.
So, skip the Baptism. The worst possible lesson you could teach a child is that religion is a mere formality.
I can’t imagine why this would be a dilemma for your brother. Why in the world would they have the kids baptized? Neither of them is a practicing Catholic, and your sister-in-law is against it.
Sua
They might not believe the baptism is faked, but they might well believe that it was an empty ritual. And to be truthful (at least for Catholics) , if the relatives are only concerned about the child being baptized ,and not about
-the sincerity of the parents’ desire for the child to be baptised
the sincerity of the promises the parents make, both for themselves and on behalf of the child
and the child’s future religious education
then baptism is for those relatives something between a superstitious way of avoiding bad luck and an excuse for a party.
(and the priest and whoever teaches the baptismal preparation class will certainly be concerned about those issues,even if the relative’s aren’t)
I know you said you wouldn’t baptize your kids yourself Sua, but would let your parents do it because it was important to them. But suppose, because it was important to them, you went ahead and had the child baptized yourself. What would happen in the future, when the child reached the age to start religious education? Would your parents simply be happy the child was baptized or would they also think it important that the child be educated? I’m betting you just would have delayed the (almost)inevitable disagreement.
Hey - something new under the sun - heathen agrees with Catholics on a religious issue!
To have the child baptized would belittle both the religion and the parent’s beliefs.
If the grandparents want to fake a baptismal ritual, well, you may not wish to make it an issue (unless the SIL believes that even that fake ritual constitutes a repudiation of her ancestral religion).
The questions of why grandparents’ religious practices differ from those of the parent’s can be addressed as the child grows.
(I still resent being baptized (age 10) - I think devoting oneself to a religion is something only adults are qualified to do - I didn’t need the baggage)
One more practicing Catholic here, and one more agreement with the proposition that baptism is not appropriate here.
As many have noted above, it’s unlikely to find a priest that would agree to the baptism under the circumstances described in the OP.
Part of the baptism rite involves promises by the parents and godparents of the baptized infant, as a proxy for the child. If neither parent has any intention of living up to those promises, then the entire procedure becomes farcical, and a public profession of a lie - a rather big one.
The child will, I hope, have a chance to discover religion on his or her own as time goes on, at an age where he or she can make an informed, reasoned choice.
The general consensus appears to be against having the child baptized. I guess that is what I figured people would say. But I see an even deeper issue at hand here. I think my brother --who when asked says he is a non-practicing-Catholic – thinks there is something inherently wrong with not baptizing a child.
It is most likely residual feelings from a Catholic childhood that said children must be baptized to eliminate original sin.
I surmise he is a little scared not to baptize his children.
I consider myself agnostic. And say-so when asked if I belong to a particular faith. The pure fact that Brother-Phlosphr says he is a non-practicing-Catholic says to me that he still harbors some Catholic tendencies.
I wonder if there is a societal awakening among Catholics that is in essence down-playing the sacrements that we once held so sacred. Sure your die-hard Catholics are still very present and very adament about the commandments and such, but I venture to say a little less so than their parents parents.
I was baptised as a kid, then brought up in a basically secular family. I became a Christian in my early twenties (well, I had some brief flirtations with the concept at around 12 or 13, but 24’s where I usually count from)
Now in my church there are a lot of people coming in from non-Christian backgrounds, and so a whole heap of adult baptisms. Baptism is a chance for people to show their new commitment - about once every couple of months we’d have a service, the baptees would stand up and talk about what it meant to them, we’d all sit on the floor round the bath, they’d get dunked, everybody had a bit of a party.
Baptisms are great. I love them. But I never got to have one … because I’d “been done” before I had the chance to know anything about it.
So that’s why I’m against infant baptisms. It takes away from people’s ability to choose for themselves both ‘against’ AND ‘for’.
By this rationale shouldn’t Catholic Families wait to baptize their children until the child can make an informed decision to be baptized into Catholicism? Or Lutheran? Or Methodist? etc…etc…
It seems baptizing a child at birth gives that infant-individual no choice what so ever in being inherently Catholic.
Denominations that practice infant baptism don’t view baptism as the ritual that symbolizes that individual’s choice to follow God, or be any specific religion. There are other ceremonies and sacraments for older children and adults that fulfill this purpose. The idea that being baptized “makes” you be a certain religion really isn’t true, you might be considered that religion in name only, but practicing members of that church would not consider anyone a member who did not want to be one and who did not practice.
I agree with most people here, if you don’t practice or believe in that church, don’t go through the motions of baptism. The church won’t appreciate it either, and most would not perform a baptism for a non-member.
I was raised catholic, my wife lutheran. Both strongly atheist/humanist. We got married in the Lutheran church by a minister my wife liked and respected. In retrospect, I would have preferred a civil ceremony.
We did not have our kids baptized. I know for a fact that my mom baptized them all herself. We didn’t really care, as we considered it a meaningless activity, and made my mom happier.
When our kids were a few years old, we had all 3 of them dedicated in our UU church in one ceremony. The sponsor of one of them was catholic. As part of the ceremony, we allowed him to baptize the kids. Again, it meant something to him, and in our minds was nothing more than a moist forehead. And my mom’s reaction, “It’s not a REAL baptism!” Try pleasing some folk.
As a side observation, as most parents, we were stricken with how beautiful and innocent our babies were. Made the concept of original sin all the more ridiculous in our minds, and made us happy we did not believe in a deity that would punish a baby for their parent’s omissions.
A Catholic priest would most certainly advise baptism, assuming the parents were properly disposed. Baptism is quite significant.
There’s something to that. But the sacrament that represents a full communion with the Church is Confirmation, which is conferred at the earliest on teenagers, if they wish it.
), are rather supportive of that stance.