Catholics Marry, Just Not at Church

[Lilllabettt]

  On 9/14/2015 at 5:55 PM, Maggyie said:

that's not what I said.... How would you define well founded hope since the catechism rather deliberately doesn't?

it means you have reason to believe the child will be taught by their parents that Catholicism is the true religion and that its teachings must be believed and adhered to.

[Maggyie]

  On 9/14/2015 at 6:27 PM, Lilllabettt said:

it means you have reason to believe the child will be taught by their parents that Catholicism is the true religion and that its teachings must be believed and adhered to.

and what counts as enough of a "reason to believe."

[hotpink]

  On 9/14/2015 at 8:31 PM, Maggyie said:

and what counts as enough of a "reason to believe."

What do you think of people in my above situation...those which may either publicly or in a short conversation with a Priest be very clear they are against many tenants of the church?  Is that enough, just because they want Baptism?

[Sponsa-Christi]

  On 9/14/2015 at 4:45 PM, Lilllabettt said:

Nope.

The person baptizing must have a "well founded hope" the child will be brought up in the faith.  The requirement is a positive one. The celebrant must have a well founded hope a child WILL be taught the faith, not the absence of a suspicion that they will "likely" be taught to hate the faith.

A child that is not deliberately instructed will soak up the culture of the day - a culture which happens to be openly hostile to Christianity.

Actually, the hope needs to be "founded," not "well-founded." That is, a hope just can't be "altogether lacking." Even if there's a just sliver of hope somewhere that the child will have some sort of Catholic upbringing, the Church would still allow him or her to be baptized.

The bar for a licit infant baptism is very, very low. The Church intends to err on the side of as many people as possible receiving the sacrament. 

[Lilllabettt]

  On 9/14/2015 at 8:52 PM, Sponsa-Christi said:

Actually, the hope needs to be "founded," not "well-founded." That is, a hope just can't be "altogether lacking." Even if there's a just sliver of hope somewhere that the child will have some sort of Catholic upbringing, the Church would still allow him or her to be baptized.

The bar for a licit infant baptism is very, very low. The Church intends to err on the side of as many people as possible receiving the sacrament. 

ah, well I was quoting my sister, but maybe THATS the discipline that should be changed, then, given the stakes. Gone are the days when someone who is not instructed in the faith might grow up without being inculcated with anti-Christian attitudes. 

  On 9/14/2015 at 8:31 PM, Maggyie said:

and what counts as enough of a "reason to believe."

The parents say they intend to teach their child that Catholicism is true, that its teachings must be believed and adhered to. 

I would like to point out that there is no morality quiz. A prostitute should have her child baptized if she intends to bring the child up believing in the truth of the Church's teaching on sexuality. 

If parents do not intend to bring their children up as believing Catholics, there is no point in having the children baptized. Making a promise without having any intention of keeping it is far worse than never making the promise at all. Where baptism is concerned it is sacrilegious. 

[Peace]

  On 9/12/2015 at 1:06 AM, Nihil Obstat said:

 

Matrimony is somewhat unique as far as sacraments go due to its legal, contractual, public nature.

Now you know I ain't about to let you off the hook that easy.

[Nihil Obstat]

  On 9/14/2015 at 9:59 PM, Peace said:

Now you know I ain't about to let you off the hook that easy.

Yeah, yeah. I was at work on my phone.

[Maggyie]

  On 9/14/2015 at 9:05 PM, Lilllabettt said:

ah, well I was quoting my sister, but maybe THATS the discipline that should be changed, then, given the stakes. Gone are the days when someone who is not instructed in the faith might grow up without being inculcated with anti-Christian attitudes. 

The parents say they intend to teach their child that Catholicism is true, that its teachings must be believed and adhered to. 

I would like to point out that there is no morality quiz. A prostitute should have her child baptized if she intends to bring the child up believing in the truth of the Church's teaching on sexuality. 

If parents do not intend to bring their children up as believing Catholics, there is no point in having the children baptized. Making a promise without having any intention of keeping it is far worse than never making the promise at all. Where baptism is concerned it is sacrilegious. 

yes but how should the priest determine this? Since we can (according to one theory) safely assume that people in an invalid marriage are also not open to life, don't understand what marriage means etc, since they don't wish to sanate their marriage, what is the basis under which you'd baptize their children? Or wouldnt you?

  On 9/14/2015 at 8:45 PM, hotpink said:

What do you think of people in my above situation...those which may either publicly or in a short conversation with a Priest be very clear they are against many tenants of the church?  Is that enough, just because they want Baptism?

personally this is a situation where I would say no, simply because they are being aggressively anti-Catholic. But I suppose it matters why they are presenting for baptism when they don't believe in the fundamentals of Catholic morality. Tradition? Cultural factors? While important these are not good enough reasons to baptize someone. 

  On 9/14/2015 at 9:05 PM, Lilllabettt said:

ah, well I was quoting my sister, but maybe THATS the discipline that should be changed, then, given the stakes. Gone are the days when someone who is not instructed in the faith might grow up without being inculcated with anti-Christian attitudes. 

The parents say they intend to teach their child that Catholicism is true, that its teachings must be believed and adhered to. 

I would like to point out that there is no morality quiz. A prostitute should have her child baptized if she intends to bring the child up believing in the truth of the Church's teaching on sexuality. 

If parents do not intend to bring their children up as believing Catholics, there is no point in having the children baptized. Making a promise without having any intention of keeping it is far worse than never making the promise at all. Where baptism is concerned it is sacrilegious. 

I don't think I would describe your scenario as sacreligious. For instance 90% of children being baptized will not be taught that contraception is evil by their parents. Certainly their baptisms are not sacreligious. Again the efficacy of the sacraments does not depend on an orthodoxy test or purity test. That is not the point of them either - they are not a prize for good behavior. The Catechism spells out all that is needed to determine whether a child can be baptized. As Sponsa said, the bar is VERY low.

[hotpink]

  On 9/14/2015 at 10:14 PM, Maggyie said:

 

personally this is a situation where I would say no, simply because they are being aggressively anti-Catholic. But I suppose it matters why they are presenting for baptism when they don't believe in the fundamentals of Catholic morality. Tradition? Cultural factors? While important these are not good enough reasons to baptize someone. 

For the most part I think it's tradition and culture.  It's a bigger problem down in CA where there's more people from Centerial America who were Catholic and now, say, only Grandma is.  They do it to make her happy.  It's just another milestone, just like a quincenera.  Gallup poles and the such show that many people who do identify as Catholic find it fully acceptable to call themselves Catholic and not adhere to the teachings.  It's really not *that* uncommon.

[Maggyie]

My favorite semi-un-kosher baptism story, which I have to tell, is when we took my little brother to be baptized at St Patrick's Carhedral. We lived in New Jersey but for the sons of the family the little parish church wasn't good enough. 

Well the godmother was supposed to be our aunt but she didn't bother to come for the ceremony. Not sure what my parents were thinking. Anyway the priest at St Pat's told them if this was a little church in Ireland he'd baptize the child right away, but this being the Cathedral, they needed to strictly adhere to the rules. 

My biopolar mother started to throw one of her patented tantrums. My dear old Protty father said "if Jesus was here, would he baptize the baby?" This shut the priest up instantly because of course He would. Fr grabbed one of the cathedral ushers and made him stand in as godparent. And that is the story of how my brother wound up with an anonymous guy as his godfather at St Patrick's Cathedral.

[Nihil Obstat]

Pretty sure godparents can appoint a proxy.

[Maggyie]

  On 9/14/2015 at 10:36 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

Pretty sure godparents can appoint a proxy.

yes that was the general idea but I guess you need proper paperwork and the actual godparent to cooperate. 

[Nihil Obstat]

 

  On 9/14/2015 at 10:38 PM, Maggyie said:

yes that was the general idea but I guess you need proper paperwork and the actual godparent to cooperate. 

One does need the godparent to actually be a Catholic in good standing...

[Maggyie]

  On 9/14/2015 at 10:40 PM, Nihil Obstat said:

 

One does need the godparent to actually be a Catholic in good standing...

yes and she definitely did not qualify. My parents were a little bit ignorant about all of this. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

  On 9/11/2015 at 2:44 AM, Nihil Obstat said:

 

Only Catholics are bound to observe canonical form. Non Catholics can and do contract valid natural marriages.

 

Only Catholics are bound to observe canonical form. Non Catholics can and do contract valid natural marriages.

Yes... And yes again  

  On 9/12/2015 at 11:15 PM, Maggyie said:

it's not about being charitable. It's about being wise as serpents and reading the signs of the times. For some reason Protestants always seem better at this than Catholics. Catholics are always like "but... Our club has ALWAYS had that rule."

Protestants change their teachings based on the times. I'm glad we don't. That's how the Church is infallible... As for wedding locations - if the couple is well formed in their faith wouldn't they appreciate and love the idea of saying their vows before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament? If someone doesn't care and doesn't ask for permission either - I don't know if they were really strongly formed in their faith...