From: bob@anagld.analytics.com (Bob Smith)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Subject: Re: infant baptism
Date: 17 Dec 92 15:00:20 GMT
Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation - Systems Engineering Division

In response to all of you who have posted here and replied privately,
Thank you.

THe point not elucidated in my original post is this:
THe rite and instrution for the rite specifies the actions
required before the rite and after (I>E> commitment on the
part of parents and God parents).  The canon law, which I 
had thought the pastor of the church was supposed to follow,
is - to my reading -explicity clear.  The pastor declined to
re-read or discuss the law or the instructions for the rite.

As some of you know, my son and his fiancee have followed all
of the rules presented to them.  As the date of the baptism at
a regularly scheduled mass approached, the baptism was cancelled.

The pretext used was the fact that they are not yet married.
Discussions with the pastor showed that he is personally uncomfortable
with this situation.  In fact he cancelled all baptisms on that sunday
because of a substitute priest who "does not do baptisms".

The liturgy committee set the rules for our parish - baptisms at
two masses on one sunday per month except during lent, baptism prep
courses required for parents and godparents, firm commitment to
live up to required commitments, etc etc.

The pastor was posed the question of what if for some reason the 
parent of a child presented for baptism had no intention of marrying
the other parent of the child, would he baptize the child.  His answer
was no.  Then he waffled and said no not at a public mass, then no
not at a mass then he said maybe.

He challenged me to produce canon lawyers who agree with my reading -
again he refused to read either document set - I know of and interact
with, on a regular basis, more than 6 canon lawyers in the DC archdiocese.
I spoke with some of them and we came to the conclusion that he may think
it is personal interest rather than pure reading of the documents.
I have been contacted by a number of folks who now know more about this.
I am refraining from naming the priest, I am not after scalp or blood,
I am after conversion to an open mind that can accept a loving God and
not a God of retribuition.  My GRANDDAUGHTER will be baptized on 10
January 1992 at a non-regularly scheduled mass.  We have invited our
families and friends - including the parish at large.  We are expecting
approximately 350 people last count....normal 1200 mas is 100 max.
Redskins games cut down on the attendance at that mass.

We will have a celebration, a welcoming into the community, a mass,]
and I will offer up my prayers for his enlightenment.

Oh, yeah, they were discouraged from running off to get married before t
the birth of Colleen and have been attending Marriage prep classes since last
march.  They are scheduled to marry 24 April 93, after attending
the engaged encounter in feb, the earliest available date.
WHen a couple abides by the rules, seeks guidance from a pastor,
is open, frank and committed, things could have been handled more gently
but the result would probably have been the same...this is not the issue though.
The issue is baptizing children who have parents who are not married to each
other.....I see the return of the bar sinister -signifying a bastard - as
this pastors mood.  As a descendant of a long line of bastards, I object.
As a practicing, active RC, I object, as a believer in the Good News, I
object, as a human, I object.
This is the point.  This is why I would like to either have my
view corrected or assistance in correcting the pastor's view.
Thank you...happy holidays to all....peace to all
and blessings to the children.
bob

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU