Big hoo-ha over whether or not the Latter-Day Saints ritually "baptized" Obama's mother after her death (which is something Mormons do). I say, So what if they did? What is that to me? If the Mormons want to "baptize" me in this way without my consent, I suppose I wish they wouldn't, but if they do, what's it to me? No offense to my Mormon friends, but as a non-Mormon, I believe this to be a ritual without any objective spiritual significance (as distinct from, say, a validly ordained Orthodox priest being the vessel through which the Holy Spirit transforms wine and bread into the literal Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, which I firmly believe occurs even if nobody else does).
Anyway, insofar as it affects my eternal destiny or present spiritual condition not one whit, why should I care in the slightest if the Mormons wanted to hold a baptismal ceremony for me after I die? Why should you? Seriously.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Hey, two of my babies were "sprinkled" by a Catholic Priest in the hospital without my knowledge or consent. I found out that they do that to all newborns in a Catholic hospital. I thought it was hilarious and no big deal, and we are Mormons!
Well that's different because Catholic baptism is different and babies, on some level, are aware of surroundings.
Whatever you felt about it that is certainly not supposed to be allowed in Catholic hospitals, it is specifically forbidden in fact. This kind of abuse in Catholic hospitals is something I'd never heard of before and I'm rather disturbed by stories of it on this thread.
And you might say "huh why are you disturbed, I'm not?" For a Catholic baptism isn't like what posthumous baptism is to Mormons. Many Catholics will think, on some level, that the baby is Catholic because it's baptized Catholic regardless of what happens. Further it is a form of disrespecting the relationship of parent and child.Lastly it may encourage hostility between Catholics and other faith.
For quotes on the matter
"If, however, they (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" Thomas Aquinas
Although the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911 does give provisos like
"for it would undoubtedly be licit to impart such baptism if the children were in proximate danger of death; or if they had been removed from the parental care and there was no likelihood of their returning to it; or if they were perpetually insane; or if one of the parents were to consent to the baptism; or finally, if, after the death of the father, the paternal grandfather would be willing, even though the mother objected." (Catholic Encyclopedia 1911 is kind-of sexist)
Still generally it seems to indicate the baby has to be dying or there has to be a grandparent agreeing. (I think this is too low a standard and would likely not be acceptable today)
Granted the Church has rules it's ostensibly orthodox members also don't obey. There's an encyclical from the eighteenth century explicitly saying that priest candidates have to be people who can be trusted around children. Still this kind of stuff I disapprove.
Thomas R. it seems to me that your assuming that people, being deceased then have no awareness of your surroundings.
I don't really see any point in an argument comparing and contrasting Catholic and Mormon baptisms, but I wanted to point out how weak that argument is. Just as a baby is not able to say, "dude, stop sprinkling that water on me, I don't believe in God." The same way, a deceased person can't stop the ordinance from being performed on earth. It's just up to them whether or not they choose to accept it.
Chris, thanks for your response. And Elder D. Todd Christofferson, that is one of the most deeply insulting, ignorant, and arrogant comments I have ever read on this blog.
"being deceased then have no awareness of your surroundings." JM
TR: No, but I think being deceased they have little reason to care that much what we say about them. Granted as a Catholic I believe the souls in Purgatory care about prayers given to them so maybe I'm a bit wrong here. Still I don't think it has anything but a fleeting impact on their afterlife if that.
A living baby isn't going to stay an unaware baby for all time. Someone deeming them Catholic may indeed matter later on. Besides which it's a perversion of the faith to baptize someone Catholic without any hope of raising them Catholic and to violate the rights of the parents.
So non-consensual posthumous baptism I guess might be similarly wrong when it's done to members of cultures that place a strong value of connection between the dead and the living. For example most American Indian tribes, Jews, and Chinese traditional religionists. Or religions that seem open to the idea the rituals of other religions may "have power" like maybe some forms of Hinduism or even Baha'i. Still in most modern societies the bond between living and dead is not like the bond between parent and child.
In any event rights or wrongs baptizing a baby Catholic without parental permission is wrong. What this says about posthumous baptism doesn't necessarily matter to me.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.