From: elendil@seashell.mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: baptismal rites for infants in the roman catholic church
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 92 11:34:58 CST
Organization: Seashell Software

Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:

> Ed, there is a quantum difference between emergency baptism of
> prematures (which I have done multiple times in 34 years of OB
> practice) and the routine 'sprinkling' of a child of parents who have
> not taken the trouble to solemnize their relationship before God.
> I really believe that God will provide the grace for the salvation of
> an innocent child that dies, regardless of the status of his parents.

Len, I agree with you 100%.  However, it's not what the RCC teaches or
'officially' believes.  More to the point is what the priest who is refusing
baptism believes.  More below...

> We are now talking about the propriety of baptizing the child of an
> unknown set of parents, who just walk in off the street and want their
> child baptized.  We are not talking about life and death situations,
> as that falls into the 'extraordinary' situation.  We are in the
> ordinary.  And I repeat that there is more to baptism that the initial
> sacrament.  If the parents are members of the church, and after
> counseling by the priest, are able to indicate that they are really
> believers, and are intending to lead a new life, and are waiting fro a
> secular situation to resolve itself......[name your own reason]...
> then I might see the priest being willing to baptize the infant.  But
> as for some private, clandestine sacrament to avoid embarassment,
> forget it.  Baptism is a part of a total life in Christ.  And the
> parents have a responsiblity to demostrate their own commitment, THEN
> expect the priest to be willing to accept their intentionality.
>

Again, I have no real quarrel with what you say.  It's just that I don't see
where the priest is considering the child.  If he (the priest) truly believes
that Baptism is required to wash away Original Sin, and he is denying that
child the sacrament, he does the child no justice.  If the parents also believe
that Baptism is important enough to get involved in this whole situation in the
first place, I would accept that as an act of faith that the priest needs to
deal with.

My biggest problem is with the technicalities here.  The RCC is quick to invoke
doctrine, etc., in so many situations that I find it incredulous when a
situation pops up and the doctrine is bent.  We've got priests chaining
themselves to abortion clinics because the Church teaches that life begins at
conception.  We've got priests who refuse absolution to women who use birth
control.  We've got tons of acrimonious debate over homosexuality and ordaining
women.  Now comes a clear-cut case where doctrine should apply (removal of
Original Sin), and all of a sudden the 'by the book' facts go out of the
window.

Now, if the Church taught, as you and I believe, that unbaptized children can
still receive salvation, I would say the parental situation is important.  The
Church tends to frown on situational ethics in general, and should not practice
it in specific.

Peace,
Ed.




|Edward J. Branley         elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us|
|Seashell Software, Metairie, LA            +1-504-455-5087|
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic