Someone asked the following question on EWTN and received and answer that I'm not too sure of. I have a problem with the priest saying it is a God-given right for parents to raise their children whatever religion they want. Isn't this a heresy? What do you think of this woman's situation. Did she do the right thing?
-----------------------

Baptize child without parents' consent

Question from Amy on 1/9/2007:  
 
My nieces and nephew are not baptised. Their parents will not be baptizing them anytime soon, if ever. Should I baptize them and take responsibility for their souls, as much as possible (constant prayers, religious gifts, answering their questions, etc.)? Wouldn't the grace received justify this?
 
Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 1/10/2007:

No, you must not violate the right and obligation of parents to see to the religious upbringing of their own children -- this is a God-given right.

It is appropriate for you to encourage (even strongly) the parents to get the children baptized. But it is wrong for you to do this on your own initiative.

 

Someone asked the following question on EWTN and received and answer that I'm not too sure of. I have a problem with the priest saying it is a God-given right for parents to raise their children whatever religion they want. Isn't this a heresy? What do you think of this woman's situation. Did she do the right thing?
-----------------------

Baptize child without parents' consent

Question from Amy on 1/9/2007:  
 
My nieces and nephew are not baptised. Their parents will not be baptizing them anytime soon, if ever. Should I baptize them and take responsibility for their souls, as much as possible (constant prayers, religious gifts, answering their questions, etc.)? Wouldn't the grace received justify this?
 
Answer by Rev. Mark J. Gantley, JCL on 1/10/2007:

No, you must not violate the right and obligation of parents to see to the religious upbringing of their own children -- this is a God-given right.

It is appropriate for you to encourage (even strongly) the parents to get the children baptized. But it is wrong for you to do this on your own initiative.

 

The priest is right. I've heard an SSPX priest denounce the practice of baptising children without the parents' consent.

It is a violation of their natural right.

That is Catholic teaching, and pre-conciliar too! I've looked into it before, and it is perfectly traditional.

Clare.

Just found the following, while looking for something else:

Article 12. Whether the children of Jєωs and other unbelievers ought to be baptized against their parents' will?

I answer that, The custom of the Church has very great authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things, since the very doctrine of catholic doctors derives its authority from the Church. Hence we ought to abide by the authority of the Church rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever. Now it was never the custom of the Church to baptize the children of the Jєωs against the will of their parents, although at times past there have been many very powerful catholic princes like Constantine and Theodosius, with whom most holy bishops have been on most friendly terms, as Sylvester with Constantine, and Ambrose with Theodosius, who would certainly not have failed to obtain this favor from them if it had been at all reasonable. It seems therefore hazardous to repeat this assertion, that the children of Jєωs should be baptized against their parents' wishes, in contradiction to the Church's custom observed hitherto.

There are two reasons for this custom. One is on account of the danger to the faith. For children baptized before coming to the use of reason, afterwards when they come to perfect age, might easily be persuaded by their parents to renounce what they had unknowingly embraced; and this would be detrimental to the faith.

The other reason is that it is against natural justice. For a child is by nature part of its father: thus, at first, it is not distinct from its parents as to its body, so long as it is enfolded within its mother's womb; and later on after birth, and before it has the use of its free-will, it is enfolded in the care of its parents, which is like a spiritual womb, for so long as man has not the use of reason, he differs not from an irrational animal; so that even as an ox or a horse belongs to someone who, according to the civil law, can use them when he likes, as his own instrument, so, according to the natural law, a son, before coming to the use of reason, is under his father's care. Hence it would be contrary to natural justice, if a child, before coming to the use of reason, were to be taken away from its parents' custody, or anything done to it against its parents' wish. As soon, however, as it begins to have the use of its free-will, it begins to belong to itself, and is able to look after itself, in matters concerning the Divine or the natural law, and then it should be induced, not by compulsion but by persuasion, to embrace the faith: it can then consent to the faith, and be baptized, even against its parents' wish; but not before it comes to the use of reason. Hence it is said of the children of the fathers of old that they were saved in the faith of their parents; whereby we are given to understand that it is the parents' duty to look after the salvation of their children, especially before they come to the use of reason.

But if the child is in the danger of death, You can baptize it.

Yes.