Need Baptism Help Asap!

[Micah]

Get them to carry some holy water on them. I may be going against the grain here but I'd be ready to baptize that baby myself at the drop of a hat... If I had my way, babies would get dunked in the hospital room. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blush.gif[/img]

[Cherie]

[quote name='tinytherese' timestamp='1285726237' post='2176621']
Ave Maria and Pax Christi.

I can sympathize with what you are saying, but please do keep in mind that if heaven forbid a little one died before Baptism even though the parents intended to do so but didn't in time that the baby would still go to heaven because that would qualify as Baptism of desire which does save.
[/quote]

Of course, (I do appreciate you bringing that up, I should have mentioned that in my post) and if there were an emergency, we would baptize the baby ourselves. In fact, my husband really wants to do it himself in the hospital -- lol -- but I had to convince him that I really think we should wait for Msgr unless there's a problem!

Edited September 29, 2010 by CherieMadame

[Cherie]

[quote name='Micah' timestamp='1285735390' post='2176650']
If I had my way, babies would get dunked in the hospital room. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/blush.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Honestly, I agree! I think there should be a priest on call at every hospital for this very purpose!

[StMichael]

I can't, nor will, judge the parents. They are both Catholics. This is their only child.

I'm astonished that this innocent child can be denied a Catholic baptism that quite frankly is deplorable to put any barriers around it.

Out of desperation to have the child baptized, non-Catholics are suggesting baptism via a Methodist or Lutheran ceremony. Apparently they are far more willing to follow what Jesus taught as opposed to our own Church.

Our Faith is pure, but in far too many instances, it has become so institutionalized that we are destroying ourselves.

Even if the parents were fallen away Catholics, the fact that they would want to give the child the gift of Faith is far more important than having to jump through hoops because a person, other than the Holy Spirit, has decided this is so.

I see this happening constantly in our Church. Not just in this instance. Then we wonder why we see the flock thinning out.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1285773973' post='2176730']
I can't, nor will, judge the parents. They are both Catholics. This is their only child.

I'm astonished that this innocent child can be denied a Catholic baptism that quite frankly is deplorable to put any barriers around it.

Out of desperation to have the child baptized, non-Catholics are suggesting baptism via a Methodist or Lutheran ceremony. Apparently they are far more willing to follow what Jesus taught as opposed to our own Church.

Our Faith is pure, but in far too many instances, it has become so institutionalized that we are destroying ourselves.

Even if the parents were fallen away Catholics, the fact that they would want to give the child the gift of Faith is far more important than having to jump through hoops because a person, other than the Holy Spirit, has decided this is so.

I see this happening constantly in our Church. Not just in this instance. Then we wonder why we see the flock thinning out.
[/quote]

Please. No one said that they could never get their kid Baptized. Sooner is better than later, but later is better than never. They had NINE months to plan for this. It's the parents own fault for not trying to get this sorted out earlier! I know because I've been in their shoes.

And why would anyone promise God that they'd raise their child a religion that they won't? It'd be a lie. A fallen away Catholic has no intention of raising their child in the Faith anymore than a Catholic intends to raise their child Lutheran.

[StMichael]

No, what I am saying is that barriers created by a local parish has unintended consequences. It is obvious their life has not been able to be organized as might be the case for you or I, but to blame the parents for not getting it scheduled doesn't exactly sound like something Our Father would agree with.

The focus here is on the parents, when it should be in the child.

Denying the child a Catholic baptism, because they can't fit in, etc. is simply wrong and against what the Church stands for.

I see and hear far too many stories of Catholics needing to see a Priest, got to get it scheduled, and then when they do see the Priest, they are not fed.

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' timestamp='1285774317' post='2176732']
Please. No one said that they could never get their kid Baptized. Sooner is better than later, but later is better than never. They had NINE months to plan for this. It's the parents own fault for not trying to get this sorted out earlier! I know because I've been in their shoes.

And why would anyone promise God that they'd raise their child a religion that they won't? It'd be a lie. A fallen away Catholic has no intention of raising their child in the Faith anymore than a Catholic intends to raise their child Lutheran.
[/quote]

[Cherie]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1285776519' post='2176743']
No, what I am saying is that barriers created by a local parish has unintended consequences. It is obvious their life has not been able to be organized as might be the case for you or I, but to blame the parents for not getting it scheduled doesn't exactly sound like something Our Father would agree with.

The focus here is on the parents, when it should be in the child.

Denying the child a Catholic baptism, because they can't fit in, etc. is simply wrong and against what the Church stands for.

I see and hear far too many stories of Catholics needing to see a Priest, got to get it scheduled, and then when they do see the Priest, they are not fed.


[/quote]

Like I said before, I completely understand your frustration!!! Life is full of many unusual circumstances and situations, and oftentimes certain "requirements" can be more of a barrier than a help. But try to think of it like the "seat belt" debate. Is it safer to wear a seat belt? Of course! Are there instances in which a seat belt can actually contribute to a person's death in a car accident? Yes, but it's very rare, and the benefits of wearing a seat belt definitely outweigh any kind of benefit of [i]not[/i] wearing one. The parish's requirements are kind of like a spiritual "seat belt" -- Catholics understand baptism MUCH more deeply than those of other Christian denominations; and while yes, their baptisms are valid ("one baptism") we Catholics have an understanding and a commitment that other faiths don't. It's important for parents to realize that baptizing their child is [i]so[/i] much more than just a "religious ceremony," and these requirements are set up in order to teach parents that. They have good intentions; they're trying to ensure the eternal salvation of the parents [i]and[/i] their child. Are the baptismal classes a joke sometimes? Unfortunately, yes. But just as there had to be the Cross before the Resurrection, oftentimes God allows us to go through hardships--even in our own parishes--before He will bring about the good He inevitably desires to bring about.

It is an unfortunate situation, but I definitely would not encourage them to get their child baptized in a church of a different faith.

Have they tried to get a letter from the chaplain at Ft. Braggs? If they can't, or they did and it didn't help, then I would encourage them to wait the three months' time. God has allowed this to happen, and perhaps they could offer up the pain and frustration of waiting for the eternal salvation of their precious little one? Believe me, I know it's frustrating. But remember Romans 8:28 -- God will bring about good from this situation, and in the end, their precious baby [i]will[/i] be baptized. And, like someone else mentioned, if something were to happen to their child, he/she would certainly have baptism of desire and they'd have a little Saint in Heaven.

[Archaeology cat]

Well said, Cherie. While it's frustrating, I do understand the position of the parish, since I often saw people showing up at my old parish to have their child baptised, and they'd have a big party, and not show up again until First Communion. One of the priests who oversaw me as I was converting said he had turned away parents before because they only saw it as a ceremony, a rite of passage, but didn't believe it, didn't live out their faith, and had no intention to raise the child Catholic. Since the parents promise to raise the child Catholic at the baptism, this saved the parents from lying to God. So I can understand why a priest would have these requirements in place, because he doesn't know the parents. I pray they are able to get everything sorted soon. I think Cherie's & Icey's advice about trying to contact the old parish &, failing that, to wait it out, is good, too.

Actually, there's no guarantee of getting to schedule a baptism earlier than 3 months anyway, depending on the parish. My son was 2 months old when baptised, because he was born just before Advent, and our priest requested that we not schedule the baptism until after Epiphany, as he was too busy. My daughter was 3 weeks old, because the deacon at our new parish was able to schedule it sooner for us.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1285773973' post='2176730']
I can't, nor will, judge the parents. They are both Catholics. This is their only child.

I'm astonished that this innocent child can be denied a Catholic baptism that quite frankly is deplorable to put any barriers around it.

Out of desperation to have the child baptized, non-Catholics are suggesting baptism via a Methodist or Lutheran ceremony. Apparently they are far more willing to follow what Jesus taught as opposed to our own Church.

Our Faith is pure, but in far too many instances, it has become so institutionalized that we are destroying ourselves.

Even if the parents were fallen away Catholics, the fact that they would want to give the child the gift of Faith is far more important than having to jump through hoops because a person, other than the Holy Spirit, has decided this is so.

I see this happening constantly in our Church. Not just in this instance. Then we wonder why we see the flock thinning out.
[/quote]
You won't judge the parents, but you'll judge the priest/church/diocese/whoever has put these rules in place? That seems fair.

[Lil Red]

i was made fun of for scheduling all of our babies baptisms before they were even born.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Lil Red' timestamp='1285785229' post='2176788']
i was made fun of for scheduling all of our babies baptisms before they were even born.
[/quote]
In all of the churches here and where I grew up, you were supposed to schedule it before the baby was born, and you were supposed to meet with the Priest at least 3 months before the baby was due.

[StMichael]

This is remarkable.

I can see if there was a request that was off the map, but this is insane.

Yes, the diocese/ Priests are functioning in a way that would have Christ slap them with all 5.

Not just on this, but on many other instances.

As I posted earlier, Christ Himself stated otherwise.

To deny a child baptism because of office keeping is wrong, wrong, wrong. Maybe I need to book my anointing of the sick now, just in case.

I feel for the child and I feel for how our Church functions to its own peril.

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1285784678' post='2176785']
You won't judge the parents, but you'll judge the priest/church/diocese/whoever has put these rules in place? That seems fair.
[/quote]

[Jaime]

If the parents had been going to mass at the Church, it would have happened already. Why on earth anyone would complain about "having" to go to mass for 3 months prior to their baby's baptism is deplorable. Its not about office keeping. The Church (as it should) takes all of her sacraments seriously. If you want them handed out like a happy meal at a fast food restaurant, then tell them to go and find a nice protestant church where no one will worry about office keeping.


[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1285796375' post='2176826']
This is remarkable.

I can see if there was a request that was off the map, but this is insane.

Yes, the diocese/ Priests are functioning in a way that would have Christ slap them with all 5.

Not just on this, but on many other instances.

As I posted earlier, Christ Himself stated otherwise.

To deny a child baptism because of office keeping is wrong, wrong, wrong. Maybe I need to book my anointing of the sick now, just in case.

I feel for the child and I feel for how our Church functions to its own peril.


[/quote]

Are you saying that you aren't going to weekly mass?



[quote]\ Maybe I need to book my anointing of the sick
now, just in case.[/quote]

[Cherie]

[quote name='jaime (the artist formerly known as hot stuff) (the artist formerly known as hot stuff)' timestamp='1285799445' post='2176832']
If the parents had been going to mass at the Church, it would have happened already. Why on earth anyone would complain about "having" to go to mass for 3 months prior to their baby's baptism is deplorable. Its not about office keeping. The Church (as it should) takes all of her sacraments seriously. If you want them handed out like a happy meal at a fast food restaurant, then tell them to go and find a nice protestant church where no one will worry about office keeping.

[/quote]

If I'm correct, it's a situation in which the couple recently relocated, and the previous Catholic Church they attended was actually a "parish" on a military base, Ft. Braggs. It's not that they don't want to have to attend church for three months, (because they were attending church at the military base) - it's that they will have to wait an [i]additional[/i] three months to get their baby baptized because they'll have to establish themselves at a new parish in the place they've recently moved to.

Hope that helps clear up a few things!

A lot of people say, too, that "Well, you should've thought of that before the baby was even born - heck, you've had 9 months to prepare for this!" but I would beg mercy and understanding from people who think that. Especially for military families, or people who are moving often, and especially if this is their first child, there is so much going on -- relocating, trying to find a place to live or a place to work, trying to prepare yourself for the birth, making sure you're eating what you should, finding new doctors in the place you'll be moving, and all within a very tight budget ... sometimes things like making sure you're signed up for a particular parish's baptismal classes can be forgotten. A lot of people don't even realize you [i]need[/i] classes -- they just assume you contact the priest and he'll set up a Mass after/during which your baby will be baptized. Requirements like those are often more a "newer" thing that is to be found in dioceses (heck, until fairly recently even pre-Cana classes weren't a requirement!)

Edited September 29, 2010 by CherieMadame

[MissScripture]

[quote name='StMichael' timestamp='1285796375' post='2176826']
This is remarkable.

I can see if there was a request that was off the map, but this is insane.

Yes, the diocese/ Priests are functioning in a way that would have Christ slap them with all 5.

Not just on this, but on many other instances.

As I posted earlier, Christ Himself stated otherwise.

To deny a child baptism because of office keeping is wrong, wrong, wrong. Maybe I need to book my anointing of the sick now, just in case.

I feel for the child and I feel for how our Church functions to its own peril.
[/quote]
So, you know what is in the hearts of those making these decisions? I'm impressed.

[StMichael]

Yes. Ft. Bragg will do it, but they need their local parish to give them a release. Which they aren't doing.

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1285802562' post='2176837']
If I'm correct, it's a situation in which the couple recently relocated, and the previous Catholic Church they attended was actually a "parish" on a military base, Ft. Braggs. It's not that they don't want to have to attend church for three months, (because they were attending church at the military base) - it's that they will have to wait an [i]additional[/i] three months to get their baby baptized because they'll have to establish themselves at a new parish in the place they've recently moved to.

Hope that helps clear up a few things!

A lot of people say, too, that "Well, you should've thought of that before the baby was even born - heck, you've had 9 months to prepare for this!" but I would beg mercy and understanding from people who think that. Especially for military families, or people who are moving often, and especially if this is their first child, there is so much going on -- relocating, trying to find a place to live or a place to work, trying to prepare yourself for the birth, making sure you're eating what you should, finding new doctors in the place you'll be moving, and all within a very tight budget ... sometimes things like making sure you're signed up for a particular parish's baptismal classes can be forgotten. A lot of people don't even realize you [i]need[/i] classes -- they just assume you contact the priest and he'll set up a Mass after/during which your baby will be baptized. Requirements like those are often more a "newer" thing that is to be found in dioceses (heck, until fairly recently even pre-Cana classes weren't a requirement!)
[/quote]

[tinytherese]

I understand that it would be a pain for the parents to wait, but considering that the worst that could happen is that they would have to wait three months, but with all due respect, I don't see why it would be so terrible. No one is saying that the child can't be baptized at all. All that the parents have to do is come to mass every sunday for three months (which they should be doing anyway.) Patience is a virtue.

[MIKolbe]

Since the infant cannot make a profession of faith for him/herself, and the parents make it on behalf of their child; I see Mass attendance as a very rudimentary way of discerning the faithfulness of the parents...perhaps not perfect..but it seems like an honest attempt at some type of 'due diligence'. If you have the faith (however imperfectly), you would attend Mass. No matter how bad I am in math, I still attend all the classes... If you do not have the faith, how can you honestly profess it for your child? How can you honestly pass it onto your child?

Now, if the Church was saying, 'How can we cut off the sacraments to the most amount people...OH!! I KNOW!! let's require XYZ!!"..then maybe St.M, you might have a better point. But the Church isn't doing this. Maybe she takes her sacraments more seriously than Lutherans or Methodists?

Are the parents more upset with their relationship with God, or with the Church daring to call them on it?

My prayers for them and the child.

[Nunsense]

I am a little concerned at the attitude of the parents, that it is just as acceptable to be baptised in another faith. I do understand that they are concerned for their child, but it shows little faith in either God or His Church.

I too, don't see why waiting three months would be such a bad thing. The child is hardly going to be punished by God should it die unbaptised but the parents would definitely benefit from understanding more about their faith.
Prayers for the family.

[Cherie]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1285848439' post='2176908']
I am a little concerned at the attitude of the parents, that it is just as acceptable to be baptised in another faith. I do understand that they are concerned for their child, but it shows little faith in either God or His Church.
[/quote]

I must say, in order to give this family the benefit of the doubt, I know a family that is very strongly Catholic, and their son had a child and was in a situation in which it was questionable whether or not the child would receive Baptism, because the mother of the child was very much against it. Though they knew it was far from the most desirable situation, they were desperate for the baby to be baptized, and yes, considered having it done by a Greek Orthodox priest they knew who was willing to baptize him. Anyway ... I think when it comes to faithful Catholics who are considering this, it's more a situation of "Baptism is necessary for salvation, and the baptism is certainly valid in this other church, so let's get it done asap!" Especially for "old school" Catholics, they realize the incredible importance of this Sacrament, and so while on the outside it may seem like, "How could they be good Catholics if they are considering getting the baby baptized in a Lutheran or Methodist church?!?!" ... sometimes the intentions and convictions of the people in the situation aren't what they seem! That's why sometimes it's good to at least give the benefit of the doubt



St. Michael, why is the current parish not giving a "release"? (and by "release" I'm assuming you mean they won't baptize the child earlier than three months even though they have a letter from the chaplain that they've been faithfully attending Mass on base). Are there any other parishes in the area who would honor the letter from the chaplain?


For those who are following this thread, don't you think it rather unfair that a parish wouldn't baptize the baby sooner since they received a letter from the chaplain at Ft. Bragg stating the family was in regular attendance at Mass there? This family just moved to the area, so of course they aren't established at the parish yet, and they are relying on the recommendation of the chaplain, who has given them a good recommendation!