A baptismal question to Roman Catholics?

[boswd]

But funeral rites do not include baptism. This canon only refers to being buried from the church by a minister of the church using the church's order for burials. It probably also includes a funeral Mass and burial in consecrated ground.


The Canon you cited means that it is permissible to give them a Catholic funeral even if they were not baptised. It says nothing about the "last rites" or baptising the corpse, just that a Christian funeral, etc. will be allowed. The Ordinary might have been consulted, yes, because the child was not a Catholic. However, I have the suspicion that the priest considered her to be an unBaptised Catholic because the mother was a Catholic, and she might have backed up this POV in conversation with him.

This is where I believe this was at the request of the Parents. The parents are in charge of what type of burial and funeral services, A Priest just doesn't decide to take over any funeral job he wants to.

If it was a Catholic Rite funeral then it was that is what one or both of the Parents wanted.

As far as the baptisim, I too agree with many and that was done more than likely at the request of the grieving parents.

To me this sounds more like "small town" gossip circles, sticking their noses in peoples buisness.

Again the Parent's are the ones in charge and making the decisions of contacting the Priest etc.

It's nobody's business but the Parents and the family's.

 

[Albion]

This is where I believe this was at the request of the Parents. The parents are in charge of what type of burial and funeral services, A Priest just doesn't decide to take over any funeral job he wants to.

If it was a Catholic Rite funeral then it was that is what one or both of the Parents wanted.

As far as the baptisim, I too agree with many and that was done more than likely at the request of the grieving parents.

To me this sounds more like the "local protestant" churchs acting more like a gossip sewing circles.

I was with you until you decided to insert a bigoted and completely unnecessary comment like that. There is every reason to wonder at a priest baptising a corpse in a mortuary and giving a non-Catholic child who had attended non-Catholic schools a Catholic burial.

Again the Parent's are the ones in charge and making the decisions of contacting the Priest etc.

Not entirely correct. If the parents had wanted the child to be stuffed and put in a corner of the church, I am quite confident that the priest would not have done that just to be kind to the parents. In fact, the church runs on Canon Law, as we all know, and while there are exceptions to the rules in certain unusual matters, "Whatever the parent wants" is not one of them.

 

[boswd]

I was with you until you decided to insert a bigoted and completely unnecessary comment like that. There is every reason to wonder at a priest baptising a corpse in a mortuary and giving a non-Catholic child who had attended non-Catholic schools a Catholic burial.


Not entirely correct. If the parents had wanted the child to be stuffed and put in a corner of the church, I am quite confident that the priest would not have done that just to be kind to the parents. In fact, the church runs on Canon Law, as we all know, and while there are exceptions to the rules in certain unusual matters, "Whatever the parent wants" is not one of them.

It's wasn't meant to sound bigoted, I will go back and clean it up, my point was the Parent's are in charge of whether they want a Catholic Funeral or a Protestant funeral, they are the ones who make the decisions.
The way it's presented here is that the local church's think the Catholic Priest decided to come in and just take over without being asked to.

The parents do decide what type of funeral service.
But I do stand by my statement in that it "sounds" more like small town gossip circles running amok in someone's else's buisness.

 

[boswd]

I guess here's the $64,000 question. Did any of the "concerened" people decide to ask the family?

 

[Albion]

I guess here's the $64,000 question. Did any of the "concerened" people decide to ask the family?

No, that isn't the $64,000 question. The priest acts according to Church policy, we may all expect. That's the way the Church operates. The question then is completely centered around the appropriateness of his actions.

While it may--emphasize "may"--be the case that he stretched his authority for reasons of compassion towards the mother OR was misled by her (both of which guesses have already been offered on this thread), it still is a fair question to ask if he acted properly or not. For sure we can't give him a complete exoneration, because we know that there is NO justification for baptising a corpse in a mortuary. Therefore, the rest of what he did is open to question, too. The parents are not, in fact, "in charge." Their wishes matter to some degree but the Church has its own policies and rules, which cannot be waived merely because the parent would prefer something unusual. In some churches, that might work out differently, but not in the RCC.

At bottom, I think we've explored the whole thing as well as can be and ought to let it end there.

 

[boswd]

I don't think it denomination snottiness.

It been brought up multiple times of "why" a child who was raised Protestant, went to non denominational school all of sudden gets baptised by the a Catholic and obvioulsy why a Catholic funeral?

All I'm saying is, it was the Parent's decision to have this. A Priest didn't just come barging in and took over.

And your right about the whether or not the Priest over stepped his bounds in baptising a the dead child and it is speculation and guess work on all our parts. I agree with you and others that it was more than likely to appease the Mother.

 

[Albion]

I don't think it denomination snottiness.

"To me this sounds more like the "local protestant" churchs acting more like a gossip sewing circles."

Sounds a bit tart, wouldn't you agree?

It been brought up multiple times of "why" a child who was raised Protestant, went to non denominational school all of sudden gets baptised by the a Catholic and obvioulsy why a Catholic funeral?

All I'm saying is, it was the Parent's decision to have this. A Priest didn't just come barging in and took over.

Probably not, but the parents don't have the final word, which I think you intend to overlook. The priest still has to act within his own church's regulations and theology.

 

[synger]

Catholic Encyclopedia: Baptism

I especially took information from the sections on Necessity of Baptism, Effects of Baptism, and Recipient of Baptism (unborn infants)

------
It seems to me that this case centers on a couple of things:

If the child were not yet baptized, he could not have a RC burial.

"Such [unbaptized] persons, by the ordinary law of the Church, may not receive Catholic funeral rites. "

If the child had been baptized already by a Protestant minister, it would be a legitimate baptism in the RCC's eyes, and the RC priest would not have needed to baptize him.

Pope St. Stephen, therefore, upheld a doctrine already ancient in the third century when he declared against the rebaptism of heretics, and decided that the sacrament was not to be repeated because its first administration had been valid, This has been the law of the Church ever since.

Without baptism, the RCC teaches that a person cannot be part of the Church, and thus is "deprived of the happiness of heaven"

(the 1992 Catechism states "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allows us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.")

It is specifically prohibited to baptize corpses. When a baby is being delivered in difficulty, the rubric of the baptism ritual supposes that at least some part of the baby has emerged from the womb. In addition, there is a conditional clause that can be added to such baptisms

"If after extraction it is doubtful whether it be still alive, it is to be baptized under the condition: "If thou art alive". Physicians, mothers, and midwives ought to be reminded of the grave obligation of administering baptism under these circumstances. It is to be borne in mind that according to the prevailing opinion among the learned, the fetus is animated by a human soul from the very beginning of its conception. In cases of delivery where the issue is a mass that is not certainly animated by human life, it is to be baptized conditionally: "If thou art a man."

From my reading, this seems to presuppose that a baptism must be done on someone who is alive.



So it looks to me like an unbaptized child died, and the RC priest baptized its corpse so it could have a RC burial. If that's the case, the RC priest is theologically in the wrong according to RC doctrine. Whether he's emotionally in the right, to comfort the parents in this way, is not mine to judge.

 

[Tonks]

You'll not get any news links on the baptism by a Roman Catholic Priest in the morgue. You'll only get info that a Roman Catholic child died in a fire, that's what I've been trying to tell you. The media said the child was a Roman Catholic, but all the locals including the local ministers know the child was brought up Protestant, went to a non-denominational school and attended Protestant Sunday school. Our local minister told that the Priest baptised the dead child in the morgue. This never reached the media and is the reason I'm asking the question here.

If you want more imformation I'll give you it, as long as its relevant for our discussion. I'm not hiding anything, I just don't want the thread to become political, because it so easily could.

Sounds like a lot of rumor-mongering to me. ie: I can't prove any of this because none of it is published but *wink* *wink* trust me on it.

Given the utter lack of anything concrete I tend to believe this:

To me this sounds more like "small town" gossip circles, sticking their noses in peoples buisness.

As for this bit:

No, that isn't the $64,000 question. The priest acts according to Church policy, we may all expect. That's the way the Church operates. The question then is completely centered around the appropriateness of his actions.

'Tis all make-believe as far as I'm concerned at this point...I heard from a guy, who heard from a guy, who heard from a guy that may have been there. etc etc.

 

[boswd]

"To me this sounds more like the "local protestant" churchs acting more like a gossip sewing circles."

Sounds a bit tart, wouldn't you agree?



Probably not, but the parents don't have the final word, which I think you intend to overlook. The priest still has to act within his own church's regulations and theology.

agree on all accounts and would like to add that ALL congragations, RCC, UMC, EO's, Baptist, they all have their little gossip circles So I went back and cleaned it up, thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Tyndale]

Sounds like a lot of rumor-mongering to me. ie: I can't prove any of this because none of it is published but *wink* *wink* trust me on it.

Tonks, I know this story is all based on hear say, you'll just have to trust me. That's why I am trying to find out what you RC's thought about it.

Have you ever come across anything like this before?

When is the latest you've heard of a Priest baptising a person? at the point of death?, just after death?, when the body is warm, etc?

 

[Yarddog]

Tonks, I know this story is all based on hear say, you'll just have to trust me. That's why I am trying to find out what you RC's thought about it.

Have you ever come across anything like this before?

When is the latest you've heard of a Priest baptising a person? at the point of death?, just after death?, when the body is warm, etc?

I have never heard of a person being baptized after death and there is nothing on the Vatican site which would allow it.

Most likely this did not occur. Whomever related the story may have been mistaken about was going on.

 

[tadoflamb]

Tonks, I know this story is all based on hear say, you'll just have to trust me. That's why I am trying to find out what you RC's thought about it.

It's...it's...it's UNBELIEVABLE!

 

[Tyndale]

Whomever related the story may have been mistaken about was going on.

That may be the case, although the person in the mortuary should have known the difference unless a Priest can use holy water when giving the last rights, etc? does holy water ever get used during last rights or prayers, etc?

 

[synger]

"Last rites" include the rites of Penance, Anointing of the Sick, and Eucharist. It would only be done to someone who is living. The Anointing of the Sick (used to be called Extreme Unction) is done with consecrated oil, not water. Baptism is a completely different rite.

 

[Assisi]

That may be the case, although the person in the mortuary should have known the difference unless a Priest can use holy water when giving the last rights, etc? does holy water ever get used during last rights or prayers, etc?

'last rites' is also only for the living. Once you're dead, you're dead. I think there'd be plenty of people who wouldn't know the difference between a sacrament (baptism or extreme unction) and Catholic prayers.

Perhaps you should contact the priest to find out his account of what actually happened, that way you could either notify his Bishop or dispel the rumour - depending on the outcome.

 

[Tonks]

Tonks, I know this story is all based on hear say, you'll just have to trust me. That's why I am trying to find out what you RC's thought about it.

I'm not Catholic. Was...but am not now.

Have you ever come across anything like this before?

Haven't during the previous year since I've been Orthodox nor during the rest of my life when I was Catholic.

When is the latest you've heard of a Priest baptising a person? at the point of death?, just after death?, when the body is warm, etc?

I've never heard of it after death...that sounds like Mormon or other such indefensible stuff. As to the "latest"...what qualifies as latest? This is sort of like asking "what is the latest that someone can accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior"? Their last breath? Their second to last breath? As they are breathing out their last breath? The point being, once someone is dead someone is dead.

That may be the case, although the person in the mortuary should have known the difference unless a Priest can use holy water when giving the last rights, etc? does holy water ever get used during last rights or prayers, etc?

I really don't think what you're positing actually happened. I can't verify it...you seemingly heard it fourth or fifth hand...no proof other than hearsay. The Holy Water question is irrelevant as well. When a person is dead they are dead...we may, of course, pray for them but you can dunk them all you want and it has no meaning.

I think that this is completely made up and just trying to stir up controversy.

 

[Albion]

That may be the case, although the person in the mortuary should have known the difference unless a Priest can use holy water when giving the last rights, etc? does holy water ever get used during last rights or prayers, etc?

Yes, it does, but last rites are not given to the dead any more than baptism is. So are you suggesting that the alleged baptism might have been only a sprinkling of the body with holy water, which would be unusual but would amount only to a blessing such as can be made to any object?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Wherezat in Scripture?

It's there right after TULIP.

 

[Tyndale]

So are you suggesting that the alleged baptism might have been only a sprinkling of the body with holy water, which would be unusual but would amount only to a blessing such as can be made to any object?

It's possible that some misunderstanding has been made, that's why I'm trying to think what other act had taken place that might have been mistaken for baptism.