Unmarried couple wanting to have baby Christened

Isolt

My boyfriend and I are expecting a baby in September. While we have planned to marry, the baby came along first

A few people have mentioned that they have had issues finding a priest to Christen their child because the parents are not married. My own aunt had a problem having her son Christened last year as the priest did not approve of her choice of Godmother, as she lived with her partner but is not married. My aunt went elsewhere and did find a priest to do the ceremony. I am guessing this reaction is less common now days though?

We have recently moved into a new area just this week, so we are not really part of the parish yet. My partner is not even Irish. We were both raised as Roman Catholic. If we approached the priest in our new area do you think he would be happy to Christen the baby or will us being unmarried be a problem?

Owryan

2 of mine were christened while unmarried, one with gay godparents and the second whose godmother was 11. Absolutely nothing said about it. Don't be worrying about possible problems until they present themselves, if they do.

hairyslug

I think it really depends on the priest, our first two kids were born and baptised before we got married, the priest and nun organising it couldn't have cared less. You have nothing to lose by asking the priest.

baldbear

My sister just had her baby christened with no problems. She was unmarried. Shocking behaviour:p

It might be a problem if you get a complete arsehole of a priest in the backend of nowhere.
But in this day and age it should be fine.

eviltwin

I really can't see it being a problem, I've known many couples who had their babies baptised when they weren't married, the priest would have known in a lot of cases they were unmarried too. I have however had a priest refuse me but that was back in the 90's and he was known for that kind of thing, he wouldn't marry couples who had children either. I hope those types have been retired.

Manach

Well, Pope Francis has given a precedence that indicates this is okay to do so in similar factual cases:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/10290681/Pope-Francis-promises-to-baptise-unmarried-womans-child-in-latest-phone-call.html

All the best with the ceremony.

Technophobia

I had mine christened and I am not married. My oldest is 8 and there has never been an issue.

If there was, I would consider it a reflection on that particular priest.

My niece has jewish godparents and the priest knew this and was happy out. All gods children is the phrase he used..

Mrs OBumble

The sacrament you are wanting is baptism - if you start with the right name, you're more likely to start off on the right foot.

Start going to Mass. Register at the parish office. Volunteer for a parish activity. Show some indication that you actually mean to raise the kid as Catholic. And then I suspect any objections will disappear pretty quickly.

lazybones32

Isolt wrote: »

My boyfriend and I are expecting a baby in September. While we have planned to marry, the baby came along first

A few people have mentioned that they have had issues finding a priest to Christen their child because the parents are not married. My own aunt had a problem having her son Christened last year as the priest did not approve of her choice of Godmother, as she lived with her partner but is not married. My aunt went elsewhere and did find a priest to do the ceremony. I am guessing this reaction is less common now days though?

We have recently moved into a new area just this week, so we are not really part of the parish yet. My partner is not even Irish. We were both raised as Roman Catholic. If we approached the priest in our new area do you think he would be happy to Christen the baby or will us being unmarried be a problem?

It depends on the priest but why do you want to christen your child?

J C

eviltwin wrote: »

I really can't see it being a problem, I've known many couples who had their babies baptised when they weren't married, the priest would have known in a lot of cases they were unmarried too. I have however had a priest refuse me but that was back in the 90's and he was known for that kind of thing, he wouldn't marry couples who had children either. I hope those types have been retired.

Are you serious ... that he wouldn't marry an unmarrried couple with children????
Sounds like a right old 'Catch 22' ... where they're damned if they do ... and damned if they don't.

I thought that such stuff didn't happen any longer in Ireland - and I have never heard of it happening, even in the 'dismal 50s'.

eviltwin

J C wrote: »

Are you serious ... that he wouldn't marry an unmarrried couple with children????
Sounds like a right old 'Catch 22' ... where they're damned if they do ... and damned if they don't.

I thought that such stuff didn't happen any longer in Ireland - and I have never heard of it happening, even in the 'dismal 50s'.

He was an older man, very unforgiving. I would doubt many of that exist anymore, it was nearly 20 yrs ago.

J C

eviltwin wrote: »

He was an older man, very unforgiving. I would doubt many of that exist anymore, it was nearly 20 yrs ago.

I can only echo Paul on this ...

1 Corinthians 13:13
New International Version (NIV)

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

tommy2bad

The only reason to refuse baptism is if the priest thinks the child will not be brought up in the faith, in which case why ask for baptism anyway.

_Whimsical_

Id imagine the popes comments on this will hold a lot of sway on determining the response. He recently said :

Pope Francis would not be one to turn away someone seeking baptism -- even if they were an alien. He urges clergy to foster an open door policy for all to receive church teachings.

"Who are we to close doors? In the early Church, even today, there is the ministry of the ostiary [usher]. And what did the ostiary do? He opened the door, received the people, allowed them to pass. But it was never the ministry of the closed door, never."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/12/pope-francis-aliens_n_5310935.html

If you were refused I think you should politely make the priest aware of the popes views and leave him to ponder it while you go and find another more accommodating priest.They're definitely out there.

I never understood the concept of refusing baptism. As a priest you believe that this is a powerful sacrament , the cleansing of original sin,the annointing of a child into the flock of christ, being made worthy of salvation. In the catholic doctrine baptism is as powerful in a spiritual context as healing is in a physical context. I don't remember Jesus ever refusing anyone on the basis of their parents "sins", it makes no sense for a priest to turn a baby away in my eyes.

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

The only reason to refuse baptism is if the priest thinks the child will not be brought up in the faith, in which case why ask for baptism anyway.

... and therein lies the great issue with infant baptism ... it's all about the parents (and whether they will bring up the child in the faith) ... and not about the child.
Its all about recruiting new church members, without their consent ... and not Salvation ... which can only be achieved by a free conscious decision to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour ... which a tiny baby is unable to make.

J C

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Id imagine the popes comments on this will hold a lot of sway on determining the response. He recently said :


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/12/pope-francis-aliens_n_5310935.html

If you were refused I think you should politely make the priest aware of the popes views and leave him to ponder it while you go and find another more accommodating priest.They're definitely out there.

I never understood the concept of refusing baptism. As a priest you believe that this is a powerful sacrament , the cleansing of original sin,the annointing of a child into the flock of christ, being made worthy of salvation. In the catholic doctrine baptism is as powerful in a spiritual context as healing is in a physical context. I don't remember Jesus ever refusing anyone on the basis of their parents "sins", it makes no sense for a priest to turn a baby away in my eyes.

I don't recall Jesus Christ baptising any babies ... or indeed 'aliens' either.

lazybones32

J C wrote: »

... and therein lies the great issue with infant baptism ... it's all about the parents (and whether they will bring up the child in the faith) ... and not about the child.
Its all about recruiting new church members, without their consent ... and not Salvation ... which can only be achieved by a free conscious decision to accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour ... which a tiny baby is unable to make.

Wasn't Jesus dedicated in the Temple as a baby? The command for God's people to do so is in Scripture.
The Apostles allowed people to be baptised on behalf of the dead also. Can the dead make decisions if they have already been judged?

J C

lazybones32 wrote: »

Wasn't Jesus dedicated in the Temple as a baby? The command for God's people to do so is in Scripture.
The Apostles allowed people to be baptised on behalf of the dead also. Can the dead make decisions if they have already been judged?

I have no issue with Christians having a naming ceremony for their children or indeed publicly dedicating them to God - indeed it is mandated by scripture, as you say ... and if they call this 'Baptism' so be it.

However, technically Baptism should come after Salvation - not the other way around ... that is all I'm saying.:)

lazybones32

J C wrote: »

However, technically Baptism should come after Salvation - not the other way around ... that is all I'm saying.:)

That's how it was in the first decades of the Church. People would wait until the end of their life to actually be baptised, since they viewed it as a complete cleansing of every sin. I guess, that when people died before being baptised, it was deemed acceptable to be baptised in their stead because they had the intention.

I view baptism as the gateway to Salvation but different strokes...

beyondbelief67

Our old parish priest used to refuse if the baby had a single mother or unmarried parents but luckily where my daughter is living now there priest more than happily baptised her baby, even though my daughter isn't baptised due to the old priest but as her boyfriend is he was happy to do it

J C

beyondbelief67 wrote: »

Our old parish priest used to refuse if the baby had a single mother or unmarried parents but luckily where my daughter is living now there priest more than happily baptised her baby, even though my daughter isn't baptised due to the old priest but as her boyfriend is he was happy to do it

'Different strokes' like Lazybones 32 said ... but from this, it doesn't seem that Roman Catholic Baptism is for the child's benefit, if the life-style of the parents is what counts ... or am I missing something here?

Adult Baptism has no such issues, as its the sealing of the personal Salvation commitment by the individual being Baptised, in line with Scripture.:)

lazybones32

J C wrote: »

'Different strokes' like Lazybones 32 said ... but from this, it doesn't seem that Roman Catholic Baptism is for the child's benefit, if the life-style of the parents is what counts ... or am I missing something here?

I can see the point of the priest too: a couple who don't appear to be attempting a Christian life aren't likely to raise the child as a Christian. A degree of discretion is a good thing.
The grace of baptism is God's free gift but RC baptism is seen more as a cultural event, rather than being spiritual and communal - the child being welcomed into the Family of God. And this joining is celebrated by getting drunk...

J C

lazybones32 wrote: »

I can see the point of the priest too: a couple who don't appear to be attempting a Christian life aren't likely to raise the child as a Christian. A degree of discretion is a good thing.

There is no requirement for any discretion by anybody else, when somebody decides to be Saved ... it's strictly a matter between themselves and Jesus Christ ... with Baptism following their Salvation.

lazybones32 wrote: »

The grace of baptism is God's free gift but RC baptism is seen more as a cultural event, rather than being spiritual and communal - the child being welcomed into the Family of God. And this joining is celebrated by getting drunk...

... different strokes ... like you have said yourself!!!:)

lazybones32

J C wrote: »

There is no requirement for any discretion by anybody else, when somebody decides to be Saved ... it's strictly a matter between themselves and Jesus Christ ... with Baptism following their Salvation.

Those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven and those whose sins you retain, they are retained Jn 20:23. There's a clear call for discretion on those who have been given a certain power and authority.
I'm not insinuating that people need to pass a test to be allowed baptism*, but I would prefer if only genuine people who understand the significance of the action, avail of it.

(*which they did before...they were catechumen's, being instructed in the faith, before being baptised.)

I Heart Internet

Isolt wrote: »

We have recently moved into a new area just this week, so we are not really part of the parish yet. My partner is not even Irish. We were both raised as Roman Catholic. If we approached the priest in our new area do you think he would be happy to Christen the baby or will us being unmarried be a problem?

By far the easiest way to ensure you have zero problems in arranging a Christening for your child (congrats btw) is to be proactive about your own faith. Make sure you go to Mass and start becoming part of your new parish. This will remove any doubt in the PP's mind that your are comitted to having your child baptised for all the right reasons.

I Heart Internet

eviltwin wrote: »

I have however had a priest refuse me but that was back in the 90's and he was known for that kind of thing, he wouldn't marry couples who had children either. I hope those types have been retired.

I can't understand why a preist would refuse the sacraments in these cases. The marriage thing, for example, is ridiculous - if marriage is to be encouraged, marrying people who happen to already have kids would seem like the only sensible thing to do.

tiablue

Isolt wrote: »

My boyfriend and I are expecting a baby in September. While we have planned to marry, the baby came along first

A few people have mentioned that they have had issues finding a priest to Christen their child because the parents are not married. My own aunt had a problem having her son Christened last year as the priest did not approve of her choice of Godmother, as she lived with her partner but is not married. My aunt went elsewhere and did find a priest to do the ceremony. I am guessing this reaction is less common now days though?

We have recently moved into a new area just this week, so we are not really part of the parish yet. My partner is not even Irish. We were both raised as Roman Catholic. If we approached the priest in our new area do you think he would be happy to Christen the baby or will us being unmarried be a problem?

I have never heard of it being a problem for anybody know as its so common these days. And I never heard of a priest having an issue with the godparents, when i was asked to be a godparent the priest didnt even ask the couple about me, I suppose its just by fluke a person could get an awkward priest, as most dont make an issue out of things like that.

They should be happy people are getting their kids christened with all the scandals around the catholic church, so if they make rude comments on your status or godparents dont be afraid to point that out to them! Congrats on the little one

I Heart Internet

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Id imagine the popes comments on this will hold a lot of sway on determining the response. He recently said :

To be fair, other popes have also said that priest should be generous with the sacraments. Poor old Benedict (who was maligned as a terrible hardliner) spoke about the need to adminster sacraments (communion and confirmation) to children, even it it seemed unlikely they (or their family) were truely committed.

I Heart Internet

tiablue wrote: »

They should be happy people are getting their kids christened with all the scandals around the catholic church, so if they make rude comments on your status or godparents dont be afraid to point that out to them! Congrats on the little one

That would be poor form imho.

tiablue

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That would be poor form imho.

And who is a priest to judge an unmarried couple? a persons circumstances isnt really anyones business including the priest. People pussy footing round people "above" them and not standing up for themselves is just a waste of time. If you feel or think something then just say it, thats my motto.

Gazzmonkey

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That would be poor form imho.

Poor form to point out the failings of the church or poor form on the priest?

All I can say for sure is '796 dead babies' :eek:

I Heart Internet

tiablue wrote: »

And who is a priest to judge an unmarried couple? a persons circumstances isnt really anyones business including the priest. People pussy footing round people "above" them and not standing up for themselves is just a waste of time. If you feel or think something then just say it, thats my motto.

He is the person who the couple are asking to perform the baptism.

A person's circumstances is a priests business if it impacts on a decision or action that he (the priest) has to make.

I wouldn't expect anyone to pussy foot around anyone else. But if, while having a serious discussion about the baptism of your child, you find you don't like the response you're getting so you employ the - "ah sure the church is only full of oul paedos" line, it would be poor form.

I Heart Internet

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

Poor form to point out the failings of the church or poor form on the priest?

Poor form on behalf of both parties imho.

The priest for (as the poster described it) "making rude comments on your status or godparents." There is never any excuse for being rude.

The parents for employing the "ah sure ye should be happy to have us" line.

Both parties are being pretty self-centred if you ask me.

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

All I can say for sure is '796 dead babies' :eek:

See, it's that kind of opportunist use of the memory of dead children that would be classless and poor form. Shame on you.

Gazzmonkey

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Poor form on behalf of both parties imho.

The priest for (as the poster described it) "making rude comments on your status or godparents." There is never any excuse for being rude.

The parents for employing the "ah sure ye should be happy to have us" line.

Both parties are being pretty self-centred if you ask me.



See, it's that kind of opportunist use of the memory of dead children that would be classless and poor form. Shame on you.

You would rather everyone kept quiet about it then?

It's great ammo for atheist's like me as it shows the true nature of religious folk and their attitude towards others

I Heart Internet

Gazzmonkey wrote: »

You would rather everyone kept quiet about it then?

It's great ammo for atheist's like me as it shows the true nature of religious folk and their attitude towards others

I would rather you didn't use it to score a cheap personal point about baptism. Yes.

Other than that, I would encourage everyone to speak about it, in a serious manner, as much as possible.

Gazzmonkey

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I would rather you didn't use it to score a cheap personal point about baptism. Yes.

Other than that, I would encourage everyone to speak about it, in a serious manner, as much as possible.

It wasn't a cheap point at baptism, it was directed at the entire church.

I too love the idea that we all speak about it in a serious manner

Mrs OBumble

796 dead children, I think you'll find, between the ages of 0 and 9 years. Hardly all babies.

And many people believe that the Irish government has a lot to answer for in the whole sorry saga. As well as the children's grandparents, uncles, aunties etc.

tiablue

I Heart Internet wrote: »

He is the person who the couple are asking to perform the baptism.

A person's circumstances is a priests business if it impacts on a decision or action that he (the priest) has to make.

I wouldn't expect anyone to pussy foot around anyone else. But if, while having a serious discussion about the baptism of your child, you find you don't like the response you're getting so you employ the - "ah sure the church is only full of oul paedos" line, it would be poor form.

No a persons circumstances arent a priests business, maybe from a religious point of view but their personal life isnt anything to do with him, but if some priests dont have a problem with it then why should he

and nobody said they have to be that ignorant and say it like that

nc19

Maybe it might be an idea to not christen your child for a number or reason the most glaringly obvious of which is the fact that you do not follow the faith by having sex before marraige.

The next most obvious reason i would not be christening the child in your position is why would you want your child to be part of the religion if the priests are not accepting of you and your life choices?

i think it might all be for the day out........

tiablue

nc19 wrote: »

Maybe it might be an idea to not christen your child for a number or reason the most glaringly obvious of which is the fact that you do not follow the faith by having sex before marraige.

The next most obvious reason i would not be christening the child in your position is why would you want your child to be part of the religion if the priests are not accepting of you and your life choices?

i think it might all be for the day out........

But the fact the parents had sex outside marriage, why should the priest refuse the child a baptism, im sure it wasnt the childs fault lol.... and the priest cant say they arent religious just because they has sex before marriage, im sure their are plenty of religious people who havent followed every rule in the book

nc19

That is exactly my point.

people in general and the church itself take an à la carte approach to this farcical faith. They claim the bible is the word of god and must be obeyed yet NO ONE, not even the church follow it as it was written.

One priest allows x, another one doesn't allow y

They dont appear to be singing of the same hymn sheet


its a feckin joke and how anyone can enter into it knowing everything we all know these days is beyond me

tiablue wrote: »

But the fact the parents had sex outside marriage, why should the priest refuse the child a baptism, im sure it wasnt the childs fault lol.... and the priest cant say they arent religious just because they has sex before marriage, im sure their are plenty of religious people who havent followed every rule in the book

I Heart Internet

nc19 wrote: »

That is exactly my point.

people in general and the church itself take an à la carte approach to this farcical faith. They claim the bible is the word of god and must be obeyed yet NO ONE, not even the church follow it as it was written.

No roman catholic, and I would suggest pretty much no main stream Christian believes or suggests that the bible must be "obeyed" word-for-word, letter-by-letter. That is why the RCC has a magesterium of teaching and tradition (which itself is observed/not-observed by people as best they can/see fit).

The clue to all this is in the word Catholic. It is not a church with a singular world view or singular "standard" believer. I think you might be confusing the RCC with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek)