19 July 2007

Archdiocesan Newspaper Clarifies Its Article on Infant Baptism

The issue of infant baptism was canvassed in the last two issues of the St. Louis Review, the Archdiocesan newspaper. This may not seem that uncommon, but the way the two issues covered the subject, and the contents of each issue, were remarkable. I intended to post on the first article, which ran June 29, 2007, but the excitement and news rush of the Motu Proprio and the CDF document sidetracked my plans.

This may have been for the best, however, because the Review published an editorial in its next edition to clarify the issue.

What was the fuss? The June 29 cover story was titled "Parents delaying infant baptism". This story, instead of decrying the trend of parents today to delay infant baptism, or even merely to describe the phenomenon, contained several paragraphs and quotes from both clergy and parents that tended to indicate that it was no big deal to delay the baptism of an infant, or perhaps it might even be good in certain instances.

Mostly, it was in the tenor and tone of the story-- I don't want to go so far as to say the article strongly advocated waiting awhile to baptise an infant-- it just seemed like the paper didn't really disapprove, and that some clergy didn't strongly disapprove. Some excerpts below, with clergy names withheld:

...According to several archdiocesan pastors interviewed by the Review, it’s seemingly becoming more common for Catholic families to wait to have their children baptized several months — and in some cases years — after the child’s birth. That’s a change from what has been, as a rule, the tradition of celebrating the Sacrament of Baptism within a few weeks after the child’s birth.

But whatever the reasons may be, Father [], pastor of [], summed up the feelings of many priests: "I think people don’t have that sense of urgency that maybe they would have before."


[After a short section about official Church teaching on infant baptism, the article continued.]

Some pastors have said that each family is received on a case-by-case basis, and each generally has good intentions for wanting their child to be baptized — and good reasons for waiting. Priests have said most families are generally accommodated based on their needs.

Several common reasons why priests said parents are waiting include: families who are spread out geographically and need extra time to bring together everyone for a Baptism; a needed delay because parents need to iron out hurdles with their own faith, such as being in a marriage not recognized by the Church; and an increase in more elaborate parish-based baptismal preparations, which can include classes and meetings with clergy and other parents in the parish. The amount of preparation is determined by each parish. Some parishes also schedule Baptisms only once a month, which can cause added delays.
[...]

"Years ago, people had their children baptized immediately, for fear that if they would die, they wouldn’t go to heaven," [a priest] said. "I don’t think it’s that thinking anymore. If a child is sick or in the hospital, there’s always that urgency. But I think people just weigh all of the factors — when the family can get together, a good time for the church."

[Another priest] said he’s happy to see parents aren’t living in fear of delaying Baptism anymore. "It strikes me that years ago, parents were sometimes afraid that their baby might die before Baptism," he said. "So then they felt even more of a pressure to get that child here as soon as possible."

Today, however, "people have come to believe that while Baptism of their children is important, they’re less frightened that should their child die before they were able to have him or her baptized, that something bad would happen to their child."

One possible explanation for the change is because older Church concepts such as limbo — a place where unbaptized infants would spend eternity but without communion with God — are becoming less compelling with younger parents.

Limbo has never been defined as Church dogma and is not mentioned in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, which only states that unbaptized infants are entrusted to God’s mercy.

In April, the Vatican’s International Theological Commission said there are good reasons to hope that babies who die without being baptized go to heaven.

Here is a link to the
original story, that ran on June 29, 2007. When I first read this, I thought that it was an absolute waste of newspaper space. But I am prone to hyperbole, so I let the matter sit awhile. After all, the article did contain a brief section quoting the catechism on infant baptism, and maybe I was imagining what I perceived to be the tendency of the article to "reassure" parents that baptism isn't really that necessary to be given quickly. I did remember thinking that although Bishop Finn may be better positioned where he is now, he was a fine newspaper editor.

But, after the Review came back from its annual summer one-week hiatus, the editorial page ran a
clarification. I actually chuckled a bit; I thought I had heard heads cracking at the chancery from my home about six miles away. Look for a dent on His Grace's ring next time you kiss it. The July 13 editorial:

Delaying infant Baptism not good for child, parents

Again and again in the New Testament Scriptures, Our Lord insists on the importance of Baptism for salvation.

For most of the Christian era Catholic parents have recognized the need to ensure that their children receive this great Sacrament of Initiation. In fact, for centuries devout parents did their best to have children baptized on the very day they were born.


The effort to have babies baptized as soon as possible sprang from an appreciation of the importance of Baptism and an awareness of the high level of infant mortality.

There are a number of factors that might lead parents to delay their children’s Baptism, as noted in the Review June 29. Improved medical care has lessened but not eliminated the danger of infant death. The desire to schedule a Baptism to allow attendance by more family members can be a reasonable cause for briefly postponing the sacrament.

Sadly, though, an increasingly secular society can lead some to regard infant Baptism as less important than was common in the past.

Parental attitude is the central factor governing setting the date for a child’s Baptism. When the faith of parents is deep, they will realize the greatness of this sacrament and the treasure it confers on their offspring. This attitude will be the measure of the faith they will pass on to their children.

In the setting of the date of Baptism and in all they do to foster the growth of faith in their children, we should pray every day that God’s blessing and inspiration will guide all parents. To become an adopted child of God and a brother or sister of Jesus Christ is no small matter. Parents should make it among the highest priority in the care of their children to ensure that they become that adopted child of God.

A fairly gentle correction, perhaps, but an immediate and solid clarification of Catholic teaching on infant baptism. One may thus assume that His Grace reads the Archdiocesan paper.

5 comments:

wolftracker said...

Amen. For our last child we waited four days to baptize. If life is precious, eternal life is all the more. Why wait to insure the latter when the former is at hand, both by the grace of God?

JS Petrick said...

Key Message: Years ago, people had their children baptized immediately, for fear that if they would die, they wouldn’t go to heaven. This still applies, despite recent documents from a recent Vatican commission. Try a listen to the recent talk on Limbo on audiosancto.com (Contra Sede Vecantism and...). It is really a good one, like all other orthodox FSSP sermons on that site. In that sermon, father clearly illustrates that it is serious matter not to baptize within two weeks!!! Listen to it and other sermons there on baptism for an authoritative interpretation.

http://www.audiosancto.com/audio/2007/20070422__Sermon__Contra_Sedevacantism_and_the_Recent_Document_on_Limbo__32.mp3

Possible Heretical Remarks from the St. Louis Review: "One possible explanation for the change is because older Church concepts such as limbo — a place where unbaptized infants would spend eternity but without communion with God — are becoming less compelling with younger parents. Limbo has never been defined as Church dogma and is not mentioned in the current Catechism of the Catholic Church, which only states that unbaptized infants are entrusted to God’s mercy. In April, the Vatican’s International Theological Commission said there are good reasons to hope that babies who die without being baptized go to heaven."

This implies that all babies are now born in the state of Grace, and that Original sin no longer exists in the Church, at least according to the ITC and the St. Louis Review.

Another Terrible comment from the STL Review: "The desire to schedule a Baptism to allow attendance by more family members can be a reasonable cause for briefly postponing the sacrament."
Can it be reasonable though? The reason for Baptism is not for a family celebration (although this is good), but rather, it is to remove from the little heathen the stain of Original Sin :-) I cannot wait for my little heathen to be born this November. My child will be baptized within a week if possible. One simply cannot resist the eternal happiness of their child in Heaven by being lazy and heterodox in their practice of baptizing the child. Baptize early for it is truly a salvation issue.

thetimman said...

JS, thanks for the comment. Some good stuff.

I do think we ought to be careful to distinguish the quote of someone in the first article with the stance of the Review itself. You indicated possible heretical remarks "from the St. Louis Review". I know you likely did not mean the remarks were those of the St. Louis Review, but rather they were uttered by someone and appeared in the Review. The prudence of printing these remarks is open to criticism, but the only stance on the issue properly belonging to the Review is the editorial that subsequently ran.

Latinmassgirl said...

Two weeks after my last child was born, we were visiting the priest that would baptise our child. He kissed our adorable little son, and said, "yes, this is what an unbaptized baby looks like."

That statement hit me like a ton of bricks, and I insisted that he set the date right then to get our baby baptized in two more weeks! If the Godparents had been there we would have done it that day!

Anonymous said...

To JS: the Catechism also states that there is reason to hope that infants who die without baptism are saved, so it's definitively not heretical to hope for such.