Refusal of Sacraments

feargale

Here is a extract of an intererview with Iggy Clarke, former Galway hurler and former priest:

Clarke continues by explaining the kind of compassion he showed to those who came to them in a time of crisis.

"I suppose a number of people would have asked me to baptise their children that were born out of wedlock. They might have been refused by somebody else. Here’s a precious little gift of a child and who would I be to refuse a baptism?
“A number of women asked me to do their marriage if they were pregnant that might have been refused as well.

“To me, people’s lives were unique, they were sacred to them and I was there to encourage and to help in a human, caring way.”

I cannot doubt the veracity of his comments but I am stunned to learn that people might have been refused baptism or matrimony in the aforesaid circumstances. I wouldn't have thought it happened in the bad old days, not to talk of the eighties or nineties when Iggy Clarke was ministering.

Would any of you like to confirm or deny the existence of these practices, or to comment?

martinedwards

that was common, in Many Protestant as well as RC churches.

thanksfully the world is a much more forgiving and Christian place now.

hinault

Let's think about this for a second.

Matrimony is a sacrament entered in to freely, and without duress, applicable to both prospective spouses.

Are we really saying that shotgun weddings can constitute a valid basis for marriage?

feargale

hinault wrote: »

Let's think about this for a second.

Matrimony is a sacrament entered in to freely, and without duress, applicable to both prospective spouses.

Are we really saying that shotgun weddings can constitute a valid basis for marriage?

Are you saying that no wedding should take place where the female party is pregnant?

Nekarsulm

hinault wrote: »

Let's think about this for a second.

Matrimony is a sacrament entered in to freely, and without duress, applicable to both prospective spouses.

Are we really saying that shotgun weddings can constitute a valid basis for marriage?

Handy though, when you go looking for an annulment when a younger model comes along!

hinault

feargale wrote: »

Are you saying that no wedding should take place where the female party is pregnant?

I'm suggesting that perhaps one or other prospective spouse is not getting married freely and/or without duress, in a shotgun wedding.

Peregrinus

feargale wrote: »

I cannot doubt the veracity of his comments but I am stunned to learn that people might have been refused baptism or matrimony in the aforesaid circumstances. I wouldn't have thought it happened in the bad old days, not to talk of the eighties or nineties when Iggy Clarke was ministering.

Would any of you like to confirm or deny the existence of these practices, or to comment?

Catholic canon law on the baptism of an infant requires that there be "a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic religion". If the priest thinks there is no such hope, then baptism is to be deferred and the parents are to be counselled as to why.

Obviously, it's perfectly possible for a child borne out of wedlock to be raised in the Catholic faith, but it's also possible that he won't be. If, e.g., the parents are living together but have no intention of marrying and do not see any necessity for it, the priest might take the view that it is hard to expect that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith, which both the parents are explicitly repudiating. Different story if the parents are no longer together, or if they would like to marry or intend to marry but cannot do so immediately, obviously.

So, bottom line: illegitimacy is not itself a bar to baptism. But it often arises in circumstances which, yeah, do present a problem. And some priests would be more willing to discern a "well-founded hope" in those circumstances than others.

As to matrimony, others have pointed to the possible problem. If a couple are already pregnant, are they marrying freely or under the compulsion of, e.g', family pressure? Or, even if they are freely choosing to marry, are they property disposed - e.g. are they marrying to avoid the social stigma of illegitimacy for their child, but with no commitment or intention to a permanent relationship? Again, some priests would be more scrupulous about this than others.

Basically, Christians have a right to the sacraments, so the default is always to celebrate the sacrament rather than refuse to. But there can be circumstances in which the sacraments are properly refused.

Thinkingaboutit

feargale wrote: »

Here is a extract of an intererview with Iggy Clarke, former Galway hurler and former priest:

Clarke continues by explaining the kind of compassion he showed to those who came to them in a time of crisis.

"I suppose a number of people would have asked me to baptise their children that were born out of wedlock. They might have been refused by somebody else. Here’s a precious little gift of a child and who would I be to refuse a baptism?
“A number of women asked me to do their marriage if they were pregnant that might have been refused as well.

“To me, people’s lives were unique, they were sacred to them and I was there to encourage and to help in a human, caring way.”

I cannot doubt the veracity of his comments but I am stunned to learn that people might have been refused baptism or matrimony in the aforesaid circumstances. I wouldn't have thought it happened in the bad old days, not to talk of the eighties or nineties when Iggy Clarke was ministering.

Would any of you like to confirm or deny the existence of these practices, or to comment?

I'm always wary of tendentious and partial accounts.

The Church has long had careful rules about marriage, including degrees of affinity, to ensure the couple are prepared and not closely related, or that marriage not be bigamous, or other similar good reasons that might mean an invalid marriage. Invalid marriages are not marriages, and have to be later annulled. There has also a willingness to accept when the man and woman wished to marry, even if family objected, unlike other societies. Now rules get broken and dispensation given, but care has to be taken.

Now for baptism, it has been allowed, given its absolute necessity for salvation (without which original sin is not washed away and we stand condemned to hell), that it be done as soon as possible quam primam (per Canon 770) and that anyone can be the extraordinary minister of that sacrament, anyone, may baptise, pouring water over the head of the infant in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is even allowed that it a birth might fail that a partially born child be baptised conditionally. If at all possible, a parent should later avail of a priest for the full ceremony of solemn baptism. There would have to be some unusual grounds for a priest refusing to baptise. Adults have to be instructed before baptism. Maybe, someone might lack a sponsor, no details are given.

Strong claims need strong evidence, and the interview doesn't provide that. Oddly enough, his Wikipedia page makes no mention of his been a priest from 1978 to 1997. He might have fallen out with superiors, no details are given.

feargale

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I'm always wary of tendentious and partial accounts.

Yes, the extract is short of detail. That is precisely why I invited people to shed light. I have no more reason to think Iggy Clarke's account tendentious than I have to think that of your contribution here or the other posts.

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

The Church has long had careful rules about marriage, including degrees of affinity, to ensure the couple are prepared and not closely related, or that marriage not be bigamous, or other similar good reasons that might mean an invalid marriage. Invalid marriages are not marriages, and have to be later annulled. There has also a willingness to accept when the man and woman wished to marry, even if family objected, unlike other societies. Now rules get broken and dispensation given, but care has to be taken.

As agreed, the extract is short on detail. I would like to hear or read the interview in full. I would be surprised if Iggy Clarke engaged in sensationalist polemics,

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I
Now for baptism, it has been allowed, given its absolute necessity for salvation (without which original sin is not washed away and we stand condemned to hell), that it be done as soon as possible quam primam (per Canon 770) and that anyone can be the extraordinary minister of that sacrament, anyone, may baptise, pouring water over the head of the infant in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is even allowed that it a birth might fail that a partially born child be baptised conditionally. If at all possible, a parent should later avail of a priest for the full ceremony of solemn baptism. There would have to be some unusual grounds for a priest refusing to baptise. Adults have to be instructed before baptism. Maybe, someone might lack a sponsor, no details are given.

This is one I can't get my head around. I thought in this thread, but on checking it was obviously in another Christianity thread, I read a poster asserting that unbaptired infants who die go to hell. Ok, not every Christian believes that, but , over the ages at least, there seems to have been a wide. divergence of opinion among Christian/Catholic theologians as to what lay in store for unbaptised infants who died. But there seems to be unanimity among CatholIcs that abbsence of baptism affects an infant advernsely. An infant has no free will, apart from howling for a bottle of milk. If you believe in afterlife apartheid, and that being with or without baptism is relevant to same, then how on earth can you believe that an innocent infant, incapable of committing evil, is a victim of what I can only call predestination simply because other people don't share your beliefs, albeit willing to have their child baptised?

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I
Strong claims need strong evidence, and the interview doesn't provide that. Oddly enough, his Wikipedia page makes no mention of his been a priest from 1978 to 1997. He might have fallen out with superiors, no details are given.

In the case of politicians, artists, film actors etc Wikipedia tends to give detailed personal information, down to whether their greatgrandmother was from Outer Mongolia. On the other hand there is very little of this in entries about sports people. The GAA in general is particularly sensitive about this. It has occurred to me that if you picked a
hurling team (not discounting other sports) of past residents of Mountjoy that team might compete with the best in Ireland. But you wouldn't want to be relying on the GAA for the requisite information.
He clearly was unhappy with aspects of church governance or administration. He married after he left. I cannot say if marriage was on his mind before he left.
Next Thursday at 9.30 p.m. TG4's Laochra Gael programme features Iggy Clarke. We may all find out more then.

Peregrinus

feargale wrote: »

This is one I can't get my head around. I thought in this thread, but on checking it was obviously in another Christianity thread, I read a poster asserting that unbaptired infants who die go to hell. Ok, not every Christian believes that, but , over the ages at least, there seems to have been a wide. divergence of opinion among Christian/Catholic theologians as to what lay in store for unbaptised infants who died. But there seems to be unanimity among CatholIcs that abbsence of baptism affects an infant advernsely. An infant has no free will, apart from howling for a bottle of milk. If you believe in afterlife apartheid, and that being with or without baptism is relevant to same, then how on earth can you believe that an innocent infant, incapable of committing evil, is a victim of what I can only call predestination simply because other people don't share your beliefs, albeit willing to have their child baptised?

The Catholic position is not that an infant should not be baptised unless they are going to be raised in the Catholic faith; just that they should not be baptised in the Catholic church unless they are going to be raised in the Catholic faith. As far as the Catholic church is concerned baptism into anothe Christian denomination is perfectly valid and effective, or you can baptise your own infant; that's also perfectly good.

So they are not denying baptism outright, or saying that it ought to be denied; they are saying "we won't baptise someone into this community who isn't going to be a part of this community. Parents, you should baptise your children in the community in which you intend to raise them."

hinault

feargale wrote: »

Yes, the extract is short of detail. That is precisely why I invited people to shed light. I have no more reason to think Iggy Clarke's account tendentious than I have to think that of your contribution here or the other posts.



As agreed, the extract is short on detail. I would like to hear or read the interview in full. I would be surprised if Iggy Clarke engaged in sensationalist polemics,




This is one I can't get my head around. I thought in this thread, but on checking it was obviously in another Christianity thread, I read a poster asserting that unbaptired infants who die go to hell. Ok, not every Christian believes that, but , over the ages at least, there seems to have been a wide. divergence of opinion among Christian/Catholic theologians as to what lay in store for unbaptised infants who died. But there seems to be unanimity among CatholIcs that abbsence of baptism affects an infant advernsely. An infant has no free will, apart from howling for a bottle of milk. If you believe in afterlife apartheid, and that being with or without baptism is relevant to same, then how on earth can you believe that an innocent infant, incapable of committing evil, is a victim of what I can only call predestination simply because other people don't share your beliefs, albeit willing to have their child baptised?



In the case of politicians, artists, film actors etc Wikipedia tends to give detailed personal information, down to whether their greatgrandmother was from Outer Mongolia. On the other hand there is very little of this in entries about sports people. The GAA in general is particularly sensitive about this. It has occurred to me that if you picked a
hurling team (not discounting other sports) of past residents of Mountjoy that team might compete with the best in Ireland. But you wouldn't want to be relying on the GAA for the requisite information.
He clearly was unhappy with aspects of church governance or administration. He married after he left. I cannot say if marriage was on his mind before he left.
Next Thursday at 9.30 p.m. TG4's Laochra Gael programme features Iggy Clarke. We may all find out more then.

The issue of unbaptized babies who die, is highly contentious.

The onus of responsibility to get every infant baptised resides solely with the baby's parent(s) and/or baby's legal guardians. It is the parent/legal guardian duty to get their baby baptised.

Very definitely responsibility for not baptising a baby lies with them. And these guardians will have to account to God.

tuxy

hinault wrote: »

The issue of unbaptized babies who die, is highly contentious.

The onus of responsibility to get every infant baptised resides solely with the baby's parent(s) and/or baby's legal guardians. It is the parent/legal guardian duty to get their baby baptised.

Very definitely responsibility for not baptising a baby lies with them. And these guardians will have to account to God.

What happens to a baby that is not baptised and dies?
I understand that baptism is necessary for salvation.
Do they go to hell? Does it only happen to babies that deserve it?

hinault

tuxy wrote: »

What happens to a baby that is not baptised and dies?
I understand that baptism is necessary for salvation.
Do they go to hell? Does it only happen to babies that deserve it?

Tell us your own system of belief, first.

tuxy

hinault wrote: »

Tell us your own system of belief, first.

I'm actually trying to use the views of the catholic church to decide my belief but I am unsure if my understanding is correct.

Peregrinus

tuxy wrote: »

I'm actually trying to use the views of the catholic church to decide my belief but I am unsure if my understanding is correct.

I don't think it is.

The Catholic position is this:

1. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.

2. The Church does not know of any means other than baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude.

3. But (from a time when this was a real consideration) the Church beliveved that someone martyred for the faith before being baptised was "baptized by their death for and with Christ". This baptism of blood "brings about the fruits of baptism without being a sacrament".

4. "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Therefore everyone who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved.

5. Regarding children who die without baptism, the Church entrusts them to the mercy of the God who desires that all should be saved.