Atheist vs Catholic beliefs when children are involved

dropinthocean

I am about as atheist as Dawkins himself. My ex-girlfriend and very good friend is a devout catholic (most annoying thing about her :P) She, like me is a scientist, and I've talked and tried to reason with her but she's absolutely stuck in her ways.

One major reason why we broke up was because of our differing belief. One thing that was brought up was if we had a child together. Personally, I'm a true believer in showing children to think for themselves and to only baptize if they are at an age of reason and have chosen it for themselves. She on the other hand would have the child baptized at an early age well before he/she could talk.
It's purely theoretical, but I'm wondering, what would happen if she was absolutely adamant that the child should be baptized and brought up catholic, but I was absolutely adamant that the child must not be baptized? Could it potentially end up in court? Not to mention the questions of going to catholic vs non denominatinal schools etc.

Just interested if anyone else here has run into fairly significant problems simply because they choose to believe in real evidence and reason.

Peregrinus

It could end up in court, though it's a pretty far-reaching scenario. Although it's theoretically possible, in reality I think it's unheard of for the courts to end up making rulings about how to bring up the children of a couple who are married to one another, and whose marriage has not broken down.

If you and your partner separate, of course, then it could very well end up in court, because it's common for separates spouses not only to disagree, but to be unable to negotiate their disagreements.

Assuming you remained married and remained together then, realistically, you would nut these issues out one way or another through discussion, compromise, give-and-take, etc. Neither of you would get what you regarded as the optimal outcome on the childrearing issues, but because neither of you would be insisting that you had the sole and exclusive right to say what was the best outcome, both of you would accept that it was reasonable not to get everything you wanted or hoped for.

lazygal

I wouldn't have had a relationship or a child with someone who's views on religion were so radically different to mine. I would imagine a court would have a hard time balancing the conflicting rights of those involved though.

fatmammycat

A devout Catholic? Is there such a thing these days? No sex before marriage, weekly mass, confession regularly, no meat on Fridays? I've yet to meet one and I'm knocking around 40 years.
OP, like Lazygal, I would never marry someone with such radically different views, be they religious or political, but I doubt it would go to court. More likely it would go the way of most babies being baptised in this country- not treated sincerely and more viewed as a 'day out'.

seamus

Could it end up in court? Potentially, but unlikely. In reality if the mother wanted the child baptised, she can go off and do it herself, she wouldn't need anyone else.

The court's only concern is the welfare of the child. So my gut feeling is that unless you could show good reason why the baptism would be detrimental to the child's welfare, then the judge will take the "what harm is a bit of water" attitude. In theory the onus should be on the mother to show why the baptism is necessary, but all she has to say is that she would like to get the child into X school (which is why we're doing it, incidentally), and a baptism would be helpful in securing the place.

While your argument may be that indoctrination is a bad thing, it doesn't logically follow that after baptism comes indoctrination. So you would need to be able to show why the baptism specifically is a bad thing.

A completely unlinked but not too dissimilar case came up last year which the CTers tried to create a stir about. The story bandied about was that the state brought a woman to court and forced her to vaccinate her child. The reality was that the mother had read articles online about the vaccine and had decided not to vaccinate based on these. The child's father (separated from the mother), disputed this and wanted the child to be vaccinated. As is typical in family disputes where an agreement cannot be made, it goes to court and a judge resolves the disagreement in the best interests of the child. In this case the judge ruled that the father was permitted to go get the child vaccinated and if the mother obstructed him, she would be held in contempt.

It's worth noting that in such things it rarely has to go to court, as parents with joint custody/guardianship are free to unilaterally make decisions on behalf of the child*. As I say, there would be nothing stopping the mother from having the child baptised with or without your consent. Any resulting legal action you take after the fact would require you to show that harm has been done to the child by the baptism...

*Usually. Single fathers often get the raw end in this regard from overzealous authorities

HHobo

dropinthocean wrote: »

It's purely theoretical, but I'm wondering, what would happen if she was absolutely adamant that the child should be baptized and brought up catholic, but I was absolutely adamant that the child must not be baptized? Could it potentially end up in court?

Being an Atheist myself, I would have to suggest that the rational course would be to allow her to baptise the child. The reason being that according to your beliefs nothing will come of that. While it is undoubtedly annoying to have to go along with that sort of nonsense, it actually doesn't effect anything. On the other hand, according to her beliefs, the child might be damned forever if not baptised.

So. If she gets her way, you are somewhat irked. If you get your way, she is terrified for the immortal soul of her child. I think the kindest thing to do would be to agree to the baptism and possibly communion but insist the child is allowed to chose for themseleves after that and make it completely clear that you would not be hiding your beliefs from the child.

This seems the fairest most reasonable course of action to me.

Rev Hellfire

dropinthocean wrote: »

what would happen if she was absolutely adamant that the child should be baptized and brought up catholic, but I was absolutely adamant that the child must not be baptized?

How could you prevent it?
If she wanted to baptise the child she can I believe she could do it herself, she just has to follow the ritual. Now could she get them on the books, that I'm not sure.

neemish

fatmammycat wrote: »

A devout Catholic? Is there such a thing these days? No sex before marriage, weekly mass, confession regularly, no meat on Fridays? I've yet to meet one and I'm knocking around 40 years.
OP, like Lazygal, I would never marry someone with such radically different views, be they religious or political, but I doubt it would go to court. More likely it would go the way of most babies being baptised in this country- not treated sincerely and more viewed as a 'day out'.

Apart from the no meat on Fridays which isn't actually a requirement of Catholicism, congratulations! You've met your first devout Catholic

On topic, no the Catholic Church would not baptise a child if one parent was so opposed to it unless a court stepped in and gave guidance.

If a parent baptised a child they could 'get it on the books' if the right ceremony had been used. You would often hear of nurses/ doctors baptising babies who were very ill at birth

krudler

dropinthocean wrote: »

I am about as atheist as Dawkins himself. My ex-girlfriend and very good friend is a devout catholic (most annoying thing about her :P) She, like me is a scientist, and I've talked and tried to reason with her but she's absolutely stuck in her ways.

One major reason why we broke up was because of our differing belief. One thing that was brought up was if we had a child together. Personally, I'm a true believer in showing children to think for themselves and to only baptize if they are at an age of reason and have chosen it for themselves. She on the other hand would have the child baptized at an early age well before he/she could talk.
It's purely theoretical, but I'm wondering, what would happen if she was absolutely adamant that the child should be baptized and brought up catholic, but I was absolutely adamant that the child must not be baptized? Could it potentially end up in court? Not to mention the questions of going to catholic vs non denominatinal schools etc.

Just interested if anyone else here has run into fairly significant problems simply because they choose to believe in real evidence and reason.

Did ye ever have sex? that pretty much stops her being a devout catholic then. Likewise I couldn't have a relationship with someone who believed in the complete opposite I did, one of my exes was an a la carte catholic, her family were worse, high horse riding judgemental pricks who'd shake hands with someone at mass then talk about them behind their back a few minutes later.

oldrnwisr

neemish wrote: »

Apart from the no meat on Fridays which isn't actually a requirement of Catholicism, congratulations! You've met your first devout Catholic

On topic, no the Catholic Church would not baptise a child if one parent was so opposed to it unless a court stepped in and gave guidance.

If a parent baptised a child they could 'get it on the books' if the right ceremony had been used. You would often hear of nurses/ doctors baptising babies who were very ill at birth

Hmmm, they must have changed the rules of Catholicism while I was away.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

II. THE PRECEPTS OF THE CHURCH

2041 The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor:



2042 The first precept ("You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor") requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the mysteries of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints; in the first place, by participating in the Eucharistic celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered, and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days


The second precept ("You shall confess your sins at least once a year") ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism's work of conversion and forgiveness.


The third precept ("You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season") guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord's Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.


2043 The fourth precept ("You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church") ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts and help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.


The fifth precept ("You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church") means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability.


The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his own abilities.


and further from the 1983 Code of Canon Law:


Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.


The rules of your club require abstinence from meat on a Friday although with the liberalisation of the church since Pope Paul VI, this has been compromised such that Catholics are now required to make a penance on Fridays and not necessarily abstain from meat. However, the leaflet "Friday Penance" issued by the Bishop's conference in November 2010 on foot of a letter from the pope still suggests abstinence as a preferable method of penance.

neemish

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Hmmm, they must have changed the rules of Catholicism while I was away.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

II. THE PRECEPTS OF THE CHURCH

2041 The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor:



2042 The first precept ("You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor") requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the mysteries of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints; in the first place, by participating in the Eucharistic celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered, and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days


The second precept ("You shall confess your sins at least once a year") ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism's work of conversion and forgiveness.


The third precept ("You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season") guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord's Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.


2043 The fourth precept ("You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church") ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts and help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.


The fifth precept ("You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church") means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability.


The faithful also have the duty of providing for the material needs of the Church, each according to his own abilities.


and further from the 1983 Code of Canon Law:


Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday. Abstinence and fasting are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.


The rules of your club require abstinence from meat on a Friday although with the liberalisation of the church since Pope Paul VI, this has been compromised such that Catholics are now required to make a penance on Fridays and not necessarily abstain from meat. However, the leaflet "Friday Penance" issued by the Bishop's conference in November 2010 on foot of a letter from the pope still suggests abstinence as a preferable method of penance.

I'm a vegetarian so fasting from something i don't eat anyway would be pointless. I forego fizzy drinks and desert instead

krudler

neemish wrote: »

I'm a vegetarian so fasting from something i don't eat anyway would be pointless. I forego fizzy drinks and desert instead

Nice sidestep :pac:

What if god doesnt mind fizzy drinks? seems like he'd be more of a Fanta than Club Orange kinda guy

expectationlost

HHobo wrote: »

Being an Atheist myself, I would have to suggest that the rational course would be to allow her to baptise the child. The reason being that according to your beliefs nothing will come of that. While it is undoubtedly annoying to have to go along with that sort of nonsense, it actually doesn't effect anything. On the other hand, according to her beliefs, the child might be damned forever if not baptised.

So. If she gets her way, you are somewhat irked. If you get your way, she is terrified for the immortal soul of her child. I think the kindest thing to do would be to agree to the baptism and possibly communion but insist the child is allowed to chose for themseleves after that and make it completely clear that you would not be hiding your beliefs from the child.

This seems the fairest most reasonable course of action to me.

instituting the key god belief into a child harms their thinking don't we think?

HHobo

expectationlost wrote: »

instituting the ksy god belief into a child harms their thinking don't we think?

I wasn't suggesting instituting belief, only allowing certain ceremonies. The child's mother would attempt to institute the belief no matter what happened with regards to baptism. All that could realistically be done is to provide the child with both cases and allow them to decide for themselves.

Newaglish

neemish wrote: »

I'm a vegetarian so fasting from something i don't eat anyway would be pointless. I forego fizzy drinks and desert instead

You did say it wasn't a requirement of Catholicism

expectationlost

HHobo wrote: »

I wasn't suggesting instituting belief, only allowing certain ceremonies. The child's mother would attempt to institute the belief no matter what happened with regards to baptism. All that could realistically be done is to provide the child with both cases and allow them to decide for themselves.

but she'll send them to school who would institute belief, what other purpose is there of communion? along with the mother.

here's challenge send the kid to ET or atleast a vec school and if mother attempts to institue belief herself then so be it.

recedite

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Can. 1251 Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays

Does anyone know what this "other food" is?
The food catholics are supposed to be abstaining from nowadays instead of meat, on fridays.

recedite

Tofu, maybe?

eviltwin

It's going to be very hard to find some middle ground where kids are concerned with two such differing views.

I couldn't be involved with a devout Catholic. Its not so much the will we / won't we baptize issue and more the narrow minded views re women, homosexuality etc.

I wouldn't want someone like that parenting my child.

HHobo

eviltwin wrote: »

It's going to be very hard to find some middle ground where kids are concerned with two such differing views.

I couldn't be involved with a devout Catholic. Its not so much the will we / won't we baptize issue and more the narrow minded views re women, homosexuality etc.

I wouldn't want someone like that parenting my child.

I would have to agree that in most cases, it just wouldn't work. If I did find myself in the situation, I would probably be more willing to bend than she. Given the nature of what we would each believe, it would have to be that way. Probably end up being a bitter mess though.

pH

neemish wrote: »

On topic, no the Catholic Church would not baptise a child if one parent was so opposed to it unless a court stepped in and gave guidance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara

joseph brand

Our son is making his communion next year, and my wife and the grandparents on both sides are adamant that he go through with it. I've decided not to put up a fight, although I'm dead against it, it may not be worth the hassle.

As HHobo puts it:

So. If she gets her way, you are somewhat irked. If you get your way, she is terrified for the immortal soul of her child.

This sums up the grandparents views more so than my wife's. I suppose I can go along to the church and voice my disdain through some forced tutting. It'll be somewhat similar to being dragged to a Hugh Grant sh1tfest like 'Two Weeks Notice'. (lots of tutting from other lads in a similar predicament, almost made it worth going to see).

I have absolute 'faith', that my son will not become a believer, as he has already made derogatory remarks about the church. He once told my mam that 'Padre Pio was crap'. That didn't go down very well, funnily enough.

Another time my dad was showing him a YouTube video which apparently had a ghost in it. My son smiled, looked at my dad, then told him; "there's no such thing as ghosts, isn't that right dad?"

So, I'm certain that him making his communion will affect him as much as it did, myself and the regular posters and mods of A&A.

I'm willing to lose this battle, to win the war. /waves fist

looksee

I have a 'devout catholic' spouse who does keep the rules. I agreed (signed to the Church) any children should be raised as Catholics, and supported their Catholic upbringing in all practical ways, including (fairly) explaining Catholic beliefs as questions came up. Hubby took them to mass every week and on feast days. At various points between around 16 and 20-ish all of them have fallen away and two are actively 'anti'.

So don't worry about it, they will sort themselves out one way or the other.

Banbh

I took an active interest in protecting my kids from the start - physically and emotionally. Any extended family and friends who would interfere were told that they did not have a role in deciding the upbringing of my kids. And that's all there was to it. When you stand up for your beliefs, the nosey-parkers just fade away.

Akrasia

I wouldn't worry too much about it to be honest.

The days of catholic universalism in Ireland are over.

Most children are naturally sceptical. When I was growing up, practically everyone in the school was a catholic and went to mass and all that stuff so being a catholic was just accepted and normal and even despite this, there were still underlying doubts about the details we were supposed to believe (I could never figure out why a fish wasn't counted as meat for the friday thing).

The kids that go to school now will be in a class with children of other religions and, increasingly, children who have never been enrolled in any religion (such as my own)

Being in a religion will be a bit like supporting a football club for the kids, (who do you support, liverpool or Man Utd) and some people won't even like football. When they're older and start to think about the logic behind religion, the sillyness of it all will be much more obvious at an earlier age.

Akrasia

Banbh wrote: »

I took an active interest in protecting my kids from the start - physically and emotionally. Any extended family and friends who would interfere were told that they did not have a role in deciding the upbringing of my kids. And that's all there was to it. When you stand up for your beliefs, the nosey-parkers just fade away.

If anyone tries to tell my kids that they're going to hell if they don't believe in God I'll just laugh with my kids at how silly that other person is, ghosts and monsters don't exist.

Banbh

But the problem is that you are not there when the group identity is being formed. When you wave goodbye to you kids at the school gate you are effectively telling them that they are in the care of people you trust - trust to explain about numbers, language, play, sharing, caring and obeying the diktats of a cruel and ignorant religion.

Akrasia

While I have absolutely no doubt that in the not so distant past, there were some horrific abuses carried out routinely by religious motivated educators on our children in the name of Catholicism, I think that thankfully, in the 21st century, the vast majority of irish schools are nowhere near as forceful as they were in the past.
They'll get all kinds of incorrect information in their school from other kids and from the teachers. Tell your child that the teacher and the other kids are not always right and that they should think things through for themselves and there is nothing wrong with questioning things.

This, amazingly, is only recently acceptable behaviour for a child. For certain types of authoritarian people, children are actively discouraged from questioning or thinking for themselves.

joseph brand

Relevant.

dropinthocean

joseph brand wrote: »

Our son is making his communion next year, and my wife and the grandparents on both sides are adamant that he go through with it. I've decided not to put up a fight, although I'm dead against it, it may not be worth the hassle.

As HHobo puts it:


This sums up the grandparents views more so than my wife's. I suppose I can go along to the church and voice my disdain through some forced tutting. It'll be somewhat similar to being dragged to a Hugh Grant sh1tfest like 'Two Weeks Notice'. (lots of tutting from other lads in a similar predicament, almost made it worth going to see).

I have absolute 'faith', that my son will not become a believer, as he has already made derogatory remarks about the church. He once told my mam that 'Padre Pio was crap'. That didn't go down very well, funnily enough.

Another time my dad was showing him a YouTube video which apparently had a ghost in it. My son smiled, looked at my dad, then told him; "there's no such thing as ghosts, isn't that right dad?"

So, I'm certain that him making his communion will affect him as much as it did, myself and the regular posters and mods of A&A.

I'm willing to lose this battle, to win the war. /waves fist

I really enjoyed this post

Banbh

Atheists who rear their children as Catholics are helping prepare them for life in Ireland: thinking one thing and saying another, hypocricy, evasiveness, dishonesty, the blind eye, the wink, the nod...