Baptized. Or not? Real question. Or not?
June 17, 2008, 11:15 am
Posted by David Gibson
QUESTION: My son and daughter-in-law belong to a church with different beliefs from mine, and thus my new grandchildren, a few months old, were not going to be baptized. My 1950s Catholic background would not let me sleep, so I snuck them off to the laundry and performed private rites. Do I get eternal reward or damnation? — NAME WITHHELD
If you hadn’t guessed, this query arrives via The Ethicist, aka Randy Cohen of the New York Times Magazine. Read his answer here, and let me know what you think–or what your answer would be. Then let me know if you think this question was real. Though I suppose parish priests have heard worse.
Personally, I think the Ethicist was pretty much (to continue the laundry metaphor) spot on. Although I was somewhat disappointed that he let her off the hook for “snuck” – isn’t that the equivalent of Dizzy Dean announcing on a baseball radiocast that a player “slud” into the base?
Infant baptism presupposes that the parents are taking responsiblity for rearing their children in the faith we profess. If the parents aren’t taking the responsibility, than the child shouldn’t be baptized – unless he/she is very close to death, in which case, canonically, all of us have a responsibility to do so, even over the parents’ strenouus objections.
Parents not having their children baptized is a serious pastoral issue, and a heart-breaker for a lot of grandparents.
If the query wasn’t real, it certainly encapsulates real-life angst. Personally I know of several instances whree this issue has come up.
I think it’s a real question, if the rancor around grandchildren’s baptisms in our parish is any indication.
Jim, is it truly incumbent on all Catholics to baptize people, even over the objections of their families, when death is imminent?
Does this mean that Catholic nurses must baptize Jews and non-Christians on the point of death? Hmmm, that doesn’t sound right.
Ok, I am assuming that the baptism was correct in basic form and intent. (Which is a large assumption to be sure.) So, in my opinion, the baptism is valid, even if the church of her son and daughter-in-law does not recognize it as such.
But there is no question, again assuming the case as presented, that the baptism was illicit, as the consent of the parents is required in anything but an emergency. I am not sure if there is any kind of canon law penalty in such a case, but I think she needs to have some long discussions with her pastor about this, at the minimum.
The major damage will probably be to the relationship between her and the child’s parents. It sounds like there might already be problems there, and this can only make them worse.
I can’t really tell whether this story is real, fictional, or some combination of the two. But as I work with detention facilities, I have seen far stranger things. Recently.
Can anyone baptize a child without the permission of the parties responsible for bringing the child up, who would be the parents as long as they are alive have not given the child into someone else’s charge permanently? This is parallel to the Mortara case, apart from the papal abductin that followed. Baptism of X is invalid, is it not, if X does not consent, or, if X is a baby, if X’s parents do not consent on X’s behalf?
I can certainly empathize with the baptizer in the circumstances presented, but perhaps the questionable nature of his or her actions would be easier if we were to relate it to Mormon proxy baptisms of non-Mormons. With the best of intentions, the Mormon Church has condoned proxy baptisms of all sorts of non-Mormons, including Gandhi, Jewish Holocaust victims, and even some popes. It is the lack of consent to such a procedure that greatly bothers some non-Mormons, and would likely bother the infant’s parents if they learned of the secret baptism.
Here’s how St. Thomas answered the question whether the children of Jews or other non-believers are to be baptized against the will of their parents:
“If, however, they [the children] have not yet the use of free-will, according to the natural law they are under the care of their parents as long as they cannot look after themselves. For which reason we say that even the children of the ancients “were saved through the faith of their parents.” Wherefore it would be contrary to natural justice if such children were baptized against their parents’ will; just as it would be if one having the use of reason were baptized against his will. Moreover under the circumstances it would be dangerous to baptize the children of unbelievers; for they would be liable to lapse into unbelief, by reason of their natural affection for their parents. Therefore it is not the custom of the Church to baptize the children of unbelievers against their parents’ will. ” (Sum. theol., III, q. 68, ar. 10)
Since Commonweal tends to be a fairly liberal site, both politically and theologically, I am curious: how many posters here really, truly believe that it matters whether anyone is baptized or not? Do any of you honestly believe that a baby who is NOT baptized is in any way in danger of any kind of divine punishment or denial of a particular place in the afterlife, etc. merely for not having been baptized? (rather than for, say, whatever sins he or she might commit during his/her life?)
I realize I am calling into question the entire concept of Original Sin–but to me that is one of God’s problems (to borrow the title of a recent book on why God “permits” human suffering). The automatic, immediate punishment of Original Sin that is meted out to generations yet unborn merely because they have now been born seems to me a relic of past superstitions and harsher theologies, and it has no place in modern interpertations of the message Jesus brought in the new testament, and should be jettisoned along with purgatory. And if that sounds more New Age than New Testament, so be it. The God I believe in does not impose collective punishment on innocent children (indeed, it seems contradictory to worry about the unborn while at the same time threatening to condemn them to hell once they are born if they don’t go through a water ritual at some point in their lives … sounds kind of pagan when you reduce it to its basic elements).
OK, that’s probably enough of a shot across someone’s bow …
Father Komonchak’s quote from Aquinas makes eminent sense to me. As difficult as it is for the grandparent in the hypothetical (or real life) circumstances presented, perhaps the grandparent’s concern for the spiritual health of his or her grandchildren might be buoyed by hope– hope that the parents would eventually have the children baptized, or hope that the children will choose that option themselves when they are older.
I know personally of an instance where the three children in a mixed marriage (Catholic and non-Catholic spouses) were not baptized, to the great consternation of the Catholic grandparents. The issue became a sore one over the years. The three are now college age, and all three, for various non-religious reasons, ended up at Catholic universities. The grandparents, of course, regard this turn of events as an act of Divine Providence in response to their prayers. Breathing the Catholic atmosphere of their schools may lead the three to choose baptism on their own, but, if not, the grandparents believe that they will have a solid foundation, independent of any opposition by the parents, on which to have a dialogue with their young adult grandchildren about the benefits of the sacrament.
“Jim, is it truly incumbent on all Catholics to baptize people, even over the objections of their families, when death is imminent?
“Does this mean that Catholic nurses must baptize Jews and non-Christians on the point of death? Hmmm, that doesn’t sound right.”
Hi, Jean, if we distinguish between infants and other people, then canon law seems to indicate that we may well have an obligation to baptize the infants even of non-Catholic parents. Here are the canons that address that situation both for adults and infants (as well as the situation described in the original post).
“Can. 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.
§2. An adult in danger of death can be baptized if, having some knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, the person has manifested in any way at all the intention to receive baptism and promises to observe the commandments of the Christian religion.
Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.
§2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.
Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:
1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;
2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.
§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.”
I’m not a canonist (are there any on the forum?), so I’m not able to offer an expert, authoritative opinion on this.
Nor do I work in a hospital or do much hospital ministry, so I admit I’ve never faced a real-life situation. I suspect that most nurses, doctors, chaplains, etc. would be reluctant to baptize a dying infant over the objections of the parents. The interpretation I posted is what I’ve been taught. FWIW.
FWIW – I’d think the best solution to the original question, if it can be engineered this way, is to invite the non-Catholic parent(s) to become initiated into the church through RCIA. This would seem to satisfy the “founded hope” requirement for the children. i’ve had one or two instances of this at our local parish.
It’s surprising how often the answer is “yes”, or “I’d be willing to check it out” when an invitation is extended to an adult or teen to go through RCIA.
If it is OK for Catholics to perform sub-rosa baptisms, why not the Mormons the way they do it?
“§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.”
Well, what if the infant of non-Catholic parents is “baptized” but does not die? It is unclear to me how a baptism of the infact of unwilling parents and nonCatholic parents can be valid. There is no consent from the parties responsible. And if the current view that the unbaptized but innocent of personal sin can be saved by God’s mysterious action, what would the point be?
The whole thing puts me in mind of the Mortara scandal, which I assume Jim Pauwels is well aware of.
It also suggest the abracadabrist approach to the sacraments. I believe there was a French movie called Le Defroque in which a defrocked priest (Pierre Fresnais, I believe) walks into a boulangerie and consecrates all the bread.
Jimmy, It is not OK for Catholics to perform sub-rosa baptisms, except in dire circimstances. (In emergency circumstances, the person performing the baptism does not even need to be Catholic.) If you carry out an emergency baptism, you need to report your actions and the circumstances to the local parish or diocese where it occured as soon as is practical.
The Catholic Church has problems with LDS (Mormon) baptism because it considers LDS doctrine on the Trinity so fundamentally flawed as to prevent either proper intention on the part of the minister or proper disposition on the part of the intended recipient, (See this article from Osservatore Romano for some details.) My understanding is that the LDS practice of “baptism for the dead” does not make the act more or less valid, but it could be an cause of confusion and result in significant pastoral issues in some cases.
Regarding baptizing the dying children of non-Christians, here is a comment by Rev. John Huels, who is respected as a commentator on canon law:
[Begin quote]
The passage was not crafted with issues such as those involved in the Mortara case in mind, according to Fr. John Huels, a highly regarded canon lawyer at St. Paul University in Ottawa.
“The usual situation today for the application of this canon is that one or both parents have abandoned practice of the Catholic faith, but they come from a Catholic family, so one or more grandparents and/or other close relatives are keenly interested in seeing that a child in danger of death gets baptized,” Huels said.
“In that situation, I have always taught seminarians and other students that the priest, or other minister, should advise the grandparent or other relative to baptize the infant secretly. This can only be done if the child truly is in danger of death. The relative should baptize the child himself or herself. The Catholic minister should not, lest there be repercussions if the parents hear about it, for example, a lawsuit against the church.
“If the child’s parents-are not Christian, but belong to some other faith, such as Judaism, no Catholic should baptize that child, even in danger of death,” Huels said. “[Baptism] should never be done in violation of fundamental church doctrine on religious liberty. That would be a travesty of the law.”
[End quote]
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_38_36/ai_65344600
Here’s a poser and true story:
Say a grandmother gets her children to baptize THEIR children by promising to shuck out a hefty monthly allowance to the family as soon as the deed is done. And threatens to cut them out of her will entirely if the baptism doesn’t occur.
Say further that the deed is done, after which time the parents and their kiddies never set foot in church again.
Seems to me that in Heaven, Granny and the parents are going to have some explaining to do in the Hereafter.
Does the baptism place obligations on the kiddies, who never consented to it?
P.S. on “civilian” baptisms: My Catholic friends were taught to do baptisms in emergencies by the nuns in their Catholic school. This was probably around second grade. One of their favorite games was for the to pretend I was the mortally injured victim of a car crash (I was the only person they knew who wasn’t baptize) to whom they would administer baptism with a cup of water or spit. While the need for them to perform such a baptism never arose, I was, technically, baptized a Catholic hundreds of times.
I find it interesting that the part of canon law quoted by Jim Pauwels uses (in relevant section) the term ‘licitly,’ but not ‘validly.’
Canon law seems to take a rather cavalier attitude, however, when it states that, on the one hand, a child in danger of death is to be baptized without delay (even w/o the Catholic or non-Catholic parents’ permission) but that, on the other hand, if there is no such danger and there is no reasonable hope the child will be raised Catholic, then any possible baptism is to be delayed. If the poor kid’s gonna’ die anyway, baptize it. On the other hand, if no danger of death, then leave the poor kid to his own devices and hope that he or she doesn’t someday get run over by a car driven by a soccer mom yakking on her cell phone — all the while hoping, of course, that someone nearby will have a canteen, water bottle, hose, bucket, or whatever (not to mention the willingness) to release the H2O and say the magic words!
Under current teaching, a person “baptized by desire” goes to Heaven (immediately or eventually), but a poor kid not baptized at all goes — where???
I’m leaning toward Robert Reid’s thinking on this matter. Aquinas also makes sense.
Joseph Gannon is right, I think, to worry about an “abracadbrist” approach to baptism or any other sacrament. Such an approach is really an exercise in the kind of crass materialism that Yves Congar inveighed against. I’m no canonist, but I cannot imagine that the salvation of the baby in question in any of these emergencies depends on whether or not someone, anyone, pours water, says the proper words, and wants the rite to be a real baptism.
Jean,
Re: a cup of water or spit.
As far as I know I have only been baptized once, but I was married 4 times one day. The seminarians in my theology school had a test in their presiding class and I was brought in to marry them in turns. 4 of the 5 presiders were already deacons, and we all said we were there of our own free will, so…
A friend of mine was thinking of baptizing her grandchildren in the bathtub and talked it over with a priest. I don’t know what she ended up doing, but she told me that the priest said a lot of grandparents did it.
Kathy, there’s a polygamist ranch in Texas you and all your husbands might be interested in. :-)
This conversation reminds me of the old “if a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one there to hear it, does it make a sound” riddle.
If a child is baptized when it is a few hours old, and there’s no one to raise it Catholic, is it truly Catholic and truly saved?
It seems to me that at the very least, whomever baptizes the child has the responsibility to ensure its religious instruction. If Gramma baptizes the kids in her bathtub (or bribes the parents with money to get them baptized), oughtn’t she take them to church?
Thanks to Fr. Komonchak for the wise words from Aquinas.
Robert Reid, I do understand where you come from on the infant baptism question. Those who’ve miscarried children are consigned to “hoping” their children aren’t frying in hell because they carry the stain of original sin that hasn’t been washed away.
Priests offer comforts like, “What does your heart tell you about where the baby is?” Which is a nice way of offering no comfort at all, though I suppose theology prevents them from going further.
I am curious as to why no one has addressed my basic question of who here actually believes that baptism is really, truly necessary (versus being just a nice ritual that we are comfortable with, familiar with, and just sort of expect to conduct because it’s a tradition …) No one so far has declared their absolute belief in the need for baptism nor has anyone really questioned it (except for two comments that only leaned toward questioning the rite)
Is it because EVERYONE here actually does believe in the absolute necessity of baptism? (Because this is, after all, a Catholic site? … yet people here do not necessarily toe the line on many other aspects of catholic theology, so what makes baptism so different?)
Or are people simply uncomfortable with examining too closely the whole question of whether baptism really, truly means anything beyond ritual?
I have read, for instance, arguments from fundamentalists that say if you don’t believe in Original Sin then there’s no need for a redeemer and thus no need for Jesus Christ, and therefore you MUST accept the concept of Original Sin or abandon your faith entirely … is that the problem?
Personally, I believe you can tweak the idea of Original Sin and make it something more like Inevitable Sin (i.e., that we all will inevitably do something that is against God’s wishes and therefore we all will eventually need God’s forgiveness, even if we are sweet and innocent as babies–which to me would solve the whole collective guilt/unfair punishment for infants issue … and also solve the truly painful experience that Jean describes … while still requiring a redeemer/savior to absolve us of those inevitable sins we will commit during our lives … and which can be symbolized through a baptism ceremony at some point (but which is not necessary for “salvation”) … to me, at least, THAT version of sin and absolution seems much more in line with the actual message of the New testament, regardless of whether it conforms to Vatican rules or not.
Joseph and Bernard,
Could one of you, or someone else, say more about “the abracadabrist approach to the sacraments”? I think I understand what is meant, but the phrase seems to contradict everything I was ever taught.
By the way, I know of a grandmother who did something similar, but used ordinary tap water to keep here unchurched daughter’s children from being pagans. She used the correct formula, too. I just thought the phrasing of the question and the laundromat reference were so studied as to give it a Monty Python-esque sound.
This thread has raised issues that have been debated before about Original Sin, and I think Robert Reid makes a good challenge–and indeed, I think the comments here reflect what (from my view) is clearly an ongoing debate about the role of baptism in salvation and the fate of the unbaptized.
It seems we’re clearly moving away from the Augustinian notion (as I understand it) of baptize-or-hell…Or even Limbo. In fact the 2007 Vatican statement on Limbo and realted issues is worth reading in this regard. It is a 41-page document, titled “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized.” Here is the CNS write-up:
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm
And a key passage:
“Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered … give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision,” the document said. “We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge,” it added.
So that gets us back to the reasons for infant baptism. No?
Catholics in general would be surprised how many such baptisms occur without the danger of death involved. Around western NC, the majority of cases involve a Catholic (usually a nominally-practicing Catholic) parent and any Christian parent who believes in “believer’s baptism”.
In my minimal years of priestly experience compared to other priests, I have encountered many more people who have “snuck” in a baptism rather than thinking about sneaking in one. I advise them to be silent about it if they inform me that it has already occurred. If they are considering sneaking, I advise against it, especially if the non-Catholic parent promises to raise their child in the faith of believer’s baptism.
As a sidenote, these couples described have not had their marriage prepared or blessed by the Church; therefore, they have not often been informed of or have consented to their responsibility to have their children baptized as infants.
Robert Reid, this might be one of the few times you and I agree. Only Catholics talk this way as do some Protestants. To paraphrase Thomas, some believers should not be baptized as it is now more a social than a religious practice. Infant baptism is mainly a fourth century phenomenon. And we know how Augustine has put all those unbaptized children in hell. This is a doctor of the church who even predestined everybody.
Let’s admit that the theology of baptism is pretty well messed up. Baptism is an embrace not a question of matter and form. More absurd theology. Does it make it less absurd because supposedly intelligent scholars bought into this? It is easier to concentrate on abortion which is so simple. If you nuke someone it is debatable according to this pope. But abortion, never.
David Nickol
The Catholic Church recognizes as valid at least one form the the canon of the Mass used in an Eastern Rite that does not actually have the presider utter the words of institution (“This is my body”) This suggests that these words are not a magic formula that, provided they are uttered with intent by someone ordained, will turn any bread he happens to focus on into the Body of Christ. Note in fact that in the canons we use the presider does not so much use the words of institution as mention them, that is, he says that Jesus on a certain occasion said certain words. They are effectively in quotation marks.
Robert, yes, I think baptism is necessary in some instances.
If you are a sincere believer of an age to know your own mind, God expects you to take the trouble to be baptized and receive the instruction required for same. Baptism, I truly believe, is a “fresh start”–which comes not only washes away your old sins, but obligates you to live a Christian life.
If you have been baptized, it’s your obligation to baptize your children, though I have a hard time believing that God sends the children of negligent parents to perdition. Or that God sends miscarried or aborted children to hell. It makes a good argument against abortion, but doesn’t do much for those who’ve had multiple miscarriages.
I find your notion of “inevitable sin” vs. “original sin” helpful; I guess that’s close to how I see it.
Not to thread-hog and take this in too many directions, but there used to be a practice of baptizing or giving the last rites to the dead on the theory that you couldn’t say exactly when the soul left the body. I have a friend whose stillborn daughter was baptized. This was about 45 years ago. I think it was established on another thread that this is no longer done.
Interesting historical tidbit: Medieval midwives used to take holy water with them to deliveries. If it looked like the child might not make it, they would baptize the child in the birth canal.
Isn’t intent critical? Matter and form may be correct, but does someone who sneaks somewhere to baptize intend what the Church intends?
Baptism is meant to be an immersion into the life of the Church. Some bond, perhaps even a saving bond, may be formed between grandparent and infant, but it is not the immersion in the life of the Church that baptism demands. So I doubt the intent is what the Church intends.
There is reason not to baptize, if the baptism is valid. More is demanded from those who are given more, so a child baptized, and left without the support of the Church, is in greater danger of condemnation than one who was never baptized. No automatic condemnation perhaps, but a greater chance of earning it on your own. (for the record, I think the baptism invalid, so this last is just speculation on my part)
Why infant baptism? It is a rite of initiation appropriate for children of Christian parents who wish their be members of Christ’s church. Actually I believe that in Eastern churches infants are also confirmed, and one might argue that this makes more sense than R.C. practice, Why deny your children the benefits of confirmation until they are twelve? They also receive the Eucharist much earlier.
Rita Ferrone knows far more about this than I do.
Jim,
According to what you are saying, someone who was baptized and doesn’t know it is at a disadvantage compared to someone who was never baptized and does know it. If baptism has any affects at all, I would think it would be the opposite. Do sacraments do harm?
This discussion made me think of another discussion earlier, about baptism using an invalid formula (Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier). The ruling from the Vatican was that if you were baptized using the invalid formula, you weren’t baptized at all and should be baptized. If you were baptized with the invalid formula and then married, you were neither married nor baptized. However, the practical advice from people in the United States who seemed to know what they were talking about was that if nobody knew, you shouldn’t worry about it. One would think that if baptism actually does something, the advice would have been to seek (re)baptism if there was any reason to doubt. I would draw the conclusion from the practical advice that baptism doesn’t really do anything (which is, of course, not what I was taught).
Infant baptism seems not unreasonable to me. When you are born, you become a citizen of the country, so why shouldn’t you become an official member of the church you are born into?
“Since Commonweal tends to be a fairly liberal site, both politically and theologically, I am curious: how many posters here really, truly believe that it matters whether anyone is baptized or not? Do any of you honestly believe that a baby who is NOT baptized is in any way in danger of any kind of divine punishment or denial of a particular place in the afterlife, etc. merely for not having been baptized? (rather than for, say, whatever sins he or she might commit during his/her life?)”
Hi, Robert,
Yes, I do believe that baptism matters.
It’s interesting that, when we confront the problems associated with baptism, we’re confronting problems associated with revelation (as opposed to natural law, politics, ecclesiastical issues, and many of the other things we frequently discuss here). Ultimately, what the church teaches and practices about baptism is based on revelation – as it has come to us in scripture, and through the living witness of generation after generation of faithful Christians.
Revelation has to be “unpacked” – interpreted, elaborated, systematized and applied to our lives, and istm that the issues we’re batting around here involve the proper way to unpack revelation.
So, for example, when Jesus tells us, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven”, the church interprets that as a reference to the imperative of baptism. But what of those who die as catechumenates? What of those who die never having heard the Good News? What of those who die as unbaptized infants? The answers to those questions hasn’t been definitively revealed, so we work with what we do know and use the tools (reason, experience) that God has gifted us with.
Regarding infants who die without baptism: it’s something I think about frequently, both because we’ve lost children to miscarriage, and because I’m involved in a ministry that provides burials to abandoned and dead children. It seems to be that the key word, nicely captured by David Gibson, is “hope”. AFAIIK, revelation does not really address the question of infants who die before baptism, but it tells us two key things: that humanity is fallen, and that God is merciful. We don’t have all the bones of the dinosaur, but we have enough to offer several tantalizing possibilities of what it may look like.
As I always like to point out, if life begins at conception, when you take into account the number of lost embryos and miscarriages (even leaving out the number of abortions), they account for the majority of humankind. Human existence becomes even a greater mystery than was thought (at least for Catholics). The old Baltimore Catechism said, “God made us to know, love, and serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in Heaven.” But it may be that the majority of human beings never spend enough time in this world to know, love, and serve. Jesus said, “He who has ears, let him hear.” But perhaps a majority of human beings don’t develop to the point that they have ears. Continuing in this train of thought, baptism would appear to be for a minority. The Gospels and the Church would appear to be for a minority.
“I realize I am calling into question the entire concept of Original Sin–but to me that is one of God’s problems (to borrow the title of a recent book on why God “permits” human suffering). The automatic, immediate punishment of Original Sin that is meted out to generations yet unborn merely because they have now been born seems to me a relic of past superstitions and harsher theologies, and it has no place in modern interpertations of the message Jesus brought in the new testament, and should be jettisoned along with purgatory. And if that sounds more New Age than New Testament, so be it. The God I believe in does not impose collective punishment on innocent children (indeed, it seems contradictory to worry about the unborn while at the same time threatening to condemn them to hell once they are born if they don’t go through a water ritual at some point in their lives … sounds kind of pagan when you reduce it to its basic elements).”
I’d just remark that Original Sin, besides being something that some of the best thinkers in the church have affirmed, is a neat answer to the question, “Why did God send his only Son to us in human form?”
“As far as I know I have only been baptized once, but I was married 4 times one day. The seminarians in my theology school had a test in their presiding class and I was brought in to marry them in turns. 4 of the 5 presiders were already deacons, and we all said we were there of our own free will, so…”
Hi, Kathy, you would have been the minister of matrimony, so I’d really like to know: what was your intention that day? :-)
For a real Catholic issue we can remember that June is Torture Sufferers Month. http://www.tassc.org/
But wait! That is a debatable Catholic issue. How much are the bones stretched in this indisputabley human person…….? ETC. And of course, there is the old Inquisition salvo, still uttered by some Catholics today, we are doing them a favor, the tortured and the bombed by sending them to their eternal salvation sooner.
Jim Pauwels, you mentioned the church teaching “the imperative of baptism.” Then you asked, “But what of those who die as catechumenates? What of those who die never having heard the Good News?”
The CCC 1281 states, “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, can be saved even if they have not been baptized (cf. LG 16).”
Your reference to Jesus telling us that those not “born of water and the Spirit…cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven” got me to thinking (potentially dangerous:) that maybe Jesus was suggesting that those not physically born (i.e., after the mother’s water breaking) and alive (physical life from God) cannot enter Heaven. If we tie this interpretation to the idea that Heaven is the “here and now” and not just the “hereafter,” it would suggest that God might have a special providential reality or plan for those who never made it to live birth.
Robert Reid, your idea of “Inevitable Sin” makes perfect sense. The teaching on Original Sin, however, has never made sense to me. I think this revised understanding might answer Jim’s question, “Why did God send his only Son to us in human form [if there's no such thing as Original Sin]?” The answer, in light of his teaching by word and example, is that Jesus walked among us to show us how to live, that is, how to bring heaven to the “here and now.” We know that Jesus never intended to start a new religion with revised or new theological understandings.
With all due respect to philosophy and theology, perhaps we’ve made more of Christianity than necessary?
Thanks to everyone for their interesting responses! Joseph Jaglowicz: I am interested in your idea of heaven as the “here and now” … can you explain it more? Is it your own idea of derived from a particular school of thought on heaven? And how does that idea reject/accept/or avoid the question of the divinity ofr Jesus? I am curious.
Of course there are the accounts in the Gospels of Jesus being baptized, but are there any accounts or indications that baptism was a part of the ministry of Jesus? Did Jesus, the apostles, or his disciples baptize anyone?
After this , Jesus and his disciples went into the region of Judea, where he spent some time with them baptizing. John 3:22
Terri,
Thanks for the reference. I see (due to the magic of the web and cross referencing) that we also have John 4:1-3
This has a footnote
http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/john4.htm
David Nickol, re “abracadabrist:” I can’t speak for Joseph Gannon, of course. What I mean by it goes something like this: Take the case of the sacrament of baptism. If I pour water on the head of an unbaptized person X and say the right words and want to baptize X, then the question is, “Do I intend to do what the Church intends by baptism?’ If yes, then I take it that X is validly baptized, though quite possibly not licitly baptized. That’s a problem for me, not X. But if what I intend to do either ignores what the Church intends or actively disregards it as irrelevant, then I’m acting as a kind of magician who’s got the “secret to the trick.” Then I’d be an abcadabrist, a kind of magician. In that case, if I’m not mistaken, there is no valid baptism. I think that this is what is meant by the ex opere operata efficacy of the sacraments. Of course, I’m more than open to correction.
The more important issue here though is the question of salvation. It is always and only God who saves. And it is his will that everyone find salvation. We believe that he has established the Church to be of service to him in his saving activity. For allowing us to be members of his Church is indeed a blessing and a grace. But I can’t see what sense it would make to say that it gives us “a leg up” in our quest for salvation. Like every other human being, we always are needy. We rejoice in our membership in the church because of the opportunities for service that members have. No more and no less. We always have to respect the fact that God is at work offering salvation to people having no connection with the Church that we can discern. As for unbaptized infants, why would God not offer salvation to them?
“Of course there are the accounts in the Gospels of Jesus being baptized, but are there any accounts or indications that baptism was a part of the ministry of Jesus? Did Jesus, the apostles, or his disciples baptize anyone?”
Hi, David, this is from Acts 2, immediately following Peter’s first great public preaching of the Good News (after flames appeared over his head and that of the other disciples):
37
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?”
38
Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
39
For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”
40
He testified with many other arguments, and was exhorting them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.”
41
Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand persons were added that day.
“The more important issue here though is the question of salvation. It is always and only God who saves. And it is his will that everyone find salvation. We believe that he has established the Church to be of service to him in his saving activity. For allowing us to be members of his Church is indeed a blessing and a grace. But I can’t see what sense it would make to say that it gives us “a leg up” in our quest for salvation. Like every other human being, we always are needy. We rejoice in our membership in the church because of the opportunities for service that members have. No more and no less. We always have to respect the fact that God is at work offering salvation to people having no connection with the Church that we can discern. As for unbaptized infants, why would God not offer salvation to them?”
Hi, Bernard,
Re: a “leg up”; I suppose the answer is that salvation is through Jesus Christ; and it is through the church that we come to know Jesus Christ. The sacrament of baptism is significant in this respect because God gives us grace through the sacrament to help us adhere to Jesus and his teachings.
Re: why would God not offer salvation to unbaptized infants? Of course, we don’t know that he doesn’t, and hope that he does. The recent document from the Holy See that David Gibson referenced earlier in the thread seems to trace a trajectory, broadly speaking, from grave doubt that unbaptized infants could be saved (Augustine) to progressively more hopeful/optimistic views. The document stops short of teaching that they are saved; but emphasizes Christian hope.
Jim Pauwels,
I suppose my intention was not to do what the Church means to do in the Sacrament of Matrimony.
Phew. That’s a relief. Imagine supporting all those husbands.
My thanks to Joseph Gannon, Terri Miyamoto, Bernard Dauenhauer, and Jim Pauwels for answering my questions. I find it interesting that the baptism of Jesus features so prominently in the Gospels, but baptisms by Jesus (if any) happen off stage. I have a Dan Brown style thriller forming in my head about the extraordinary powers of the people Jesus baptized. I won’t set it in Rome for fear we won’t be able to shoot the film there.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4147839.ece
If anything has been misunderstood it is Paul’s statement “one faith, one baptism.” Baptism means commitment to God through the example of Jesus. We have the connection because of doing or working to do the will of God not all the ex opera operato silliness. Same with the Eucharist. It is a dying and living with Christ that makes it operative. God save us from lawyers and liturgists.
Bill,
You don’t think Ephesians is deuteroPauline?
Jim Pouwels,
Re “leg upness:” I don’t disagree with what you say. But my question is: What about people who lived thousands of years ago? What about people of any era who know nothing of Christ or Christianity? Etc., for any other number of people? Does it make sense to say that they were or are disadvantaged in terms of salvation? How could that be,if God genuinely loves them.
All this is relevant, I believe, to how we understand our own Catholic relationship to God and to how we understand the Church. I’m not prepared to propose any large answer. But the very question makes me think that some definite modesty is called for when we talk about such matters.
“Did Jesus, the apostles, or his disciples baptize anyone?”
“By His power He is present in the sacraments, so that when a man baptizes it is really Christ Himself who baptizes ” Sacrosanctum Concilium 7
Wait. Maybe you are asking this as an historical question. In that case, we have to turn to the NT for history. That leads to the question, why don’t the synoptics show Jesus baptizing, though Mt shows him commanding baptism and Acts shows the disciples baptizing?
“Re “leg upness:” I don’t disagree with what you say. But my question is: What about people who lived thousands of years ago? What about people of any era who know nothing of Christ or Christianity? Etc., for any other number of people? Does it make sense to say that they were or are disadvantaged in terms of salvation? How could that be,if God genuinely loves them. All this is relevant, I believe, to how we understand our own Catholic relationship to God and to how we understand the Church. I’m not prepared to propose any large answer. But the very question makes me think that some definite modesty is called for when we talk about such matters.”
Hi, Bernard, I agree that the fates of the people who lived thousands of years ago, who don’t know Christ, etc., are perplexing problems. Rather than view them as “disadvantaged”, maybe it makes more sense to say that we have special advantages – gifts, really, and gratuitously given.
It certainly is, or should be, a spur to evangelize; if we’ve been given gifts this precious, we should share them.
FWIW, 1 Peter chapter 3 has an interesting passage about those who lived thousands of years ago:
“18
For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.
19
In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison,
20
who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. ”
The church’s interpretation of this passage (cf CCC 632-637) is that, when Christ descended into Sheol, he preached the Good News to those who had died before Christ’s time. What’s more, these “spirits” were those who had been “disobedient”.
It doesn’t say that all of them were saved; but they all had the same opportunity that we do. Nor does it say that those who live now without hearing the Gospel are given this same opoprtunity after death. But at the very least, it’s a sign of hope.
Jim,
I would be interested to know if baptisms were performed by the “historical Jesus.” John L. McKenzie remarks in Dictionary of the Bible that there is little mention of baptism in the New Testament, and that the descriptions of baptism were not baptismal formulas. There seem to be no clear accounts of Jesus baptizing. I suppose one can only speculate as to why not, but it seems like a very interesting topic.
David N.
I don’t have the reference but I have seen it said that Tertullian thought that Jesus baptized his disciples in the Sea of Galilee. Since there is no evidence in the Gospels, I suspect that Tertullian was trying to defend the necessity of baptism by an untestable supposition.
The first passage cited from John (3:25) has been taken as evidence that Jesus was originally a follower of John the Baptist and and was baptizing with the baptism of repentance that John preached. If Jesus was not doing that, why were his disciples, as noted in 4:1-2. There are also are people in the NT (Apollos in Acts 18:24ff. and others) who had only had the baptism of John but “followed the Way of the Lord”. Jerome Murphy O’Connor suggests that Apollos had received the baptism of John from Jesus in his days as follower of John.
Hi, David,
I believe the post-Pentacost baptisms attested in Acts would be the best parallel we have to Biblical examples of baptism as the church understands baptism today. In support of Joseph Gannon’s point, recall that baptism initiates the baptized person into the death and resurrection of Jesus, so baptisms performed by Jesus, at least before his death and resurrection, may not have precisely the same meaning.
The baptismal formula is found in Mt 28:19.
I just wish all my Protestant relatives who say Catholics don’t know their Bible would come over here and read all this.
Great discussion, and I’m learning lots.
David,
The presentation of baptism in the NT is an interesting topic. Because there are only a few basic texts, we generally plunge into an array of subsidiary texts, like Nicodemus “born again”, healing cleansings of the leprous and blind, Jesus washing feet, etc.
Does that work? Not for the historical question, but perhaps for others. And if we answer those questions, they might tell us something about the historical question. Or they might not.
It is open to question whether the baptismal formula in Matt 28:19 was given by Christ to his disciples as the one and only formula. In Acts the same disciples don’t seem to remember. See Acts 2:38 where Peter tell those who have heard him and have believed to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ”, and promises that as a result they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
“It is open to question whether the baptismal formula in Matt 28:19 was given by Christ to his disciples as the one and only formula. In Acts the same disciples don’t seem to remember. See Acts 2:38 where Peter tell those who have heard him and have believed to be baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ”, and promises that as a result they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
Hi, Joseph, I agree with you. Acts is a little inconsistent about this (internally and with our understanding of the baptismal formua).
One explanation I have heard of “baptism in the name of Jesus Christ” is that baptism in Jesus’ name may be what they viewed as distinctive about their version of baptism- as opposed to other baptisms, such as John the Baptist’s baptism “for the forgiveness of sins”. A generation or so after Christ’s death and resurrection, perhaps they hadn’t yet thought through all of the Trinitarian implications of Christianity.
Otoh, Matt 28:19 suggests that this may have been a standard formula for Matthew’s church.
Jim
We are in agreement. What’s interesting is that when a certain Vatican official, whose name I do not recall, was reproving the modern variant formulas in use in some places, and declaring the results invalid, he said that anyone who did not use the Trinitarian formula, which has become standard, was disobeying the commandment given to Christ and he cited Matt 28:19. Offering bad arguments and showing an ignorance of Scripture–I am tempted to quote St. Jerome but will refrain–does nothing for one’s case.
The Anchor Bible volume Matthew by W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann says of Matthew 28:19:
Robert Reid, in response to your questions of June 18th:
More than a dozen years ago, a former pastor sermonized that if we live the teachings of Jesus in this (mortal) life, we bring heaven to earth. Where Jesus is, there is heaven. Where his teachings are followed, there is heaven. Given our sinfulness, this heavenly presence is only sporadic — but real, nonetheless. We get “a taste of heaven.”
This idea, as I see it, would not adversely affect our understanding of the divinity of Jesus. He is still the Savior. However, instead of limiting our understanding of salvation to the “hereafter,” we can be saved from ourselves (literally) during earthly existence by adhering to the Lord’s teachings — the beatitudes, etc. Jesus did the teaching. Unfortunately, as history shows, man has not always done the learning.
If we abide by Jesus’ teaching, the Lord can save us (from ourselves and one another) now as well as after mortal death. His divinity always remains intact. His presence among us epitomizes God’s unconditional love.
Joseph J., I like how you put that.
I have always found it helpful to think of God as blind in that that God does not really see the same distinction between life and death that we do. The good we do here is the same good people do in heaven. A blind God would simply feel those deeds, no matter whether in heaven or on earth.
That means, of course, that life is not a test we pass in order to get into the Hereafter Club, but an existence whose boundaries we expand until we’ve established our existence beyond those boundaries.
God searches for us and we respond to God in the sacraments. We promise to try to stick to the good road, and God pledges to help us.
Can God find you without the sacraments? God can do whatever he wants, and I expect that some of us will be surprised to see who’s gets a seat at the Table and where they’re sitting.