Forced baptism and torts

[Curious George]

Contact the perps to discuss what happened.

To what end revolting?

You child is already wet, they are having bad dreams, they are scared of the water or whatever other damage is claimed, you believe these people are directly responsible. Do you just say no more big brothers or sisters and tell the churchy folk to stay away and take your kid of their email list?

If they are apologetic is everything cool? If they are nonchalant, show conviction for their actions, or make you think that they might do this again, do you then go to the courts?

 

[Vouthon]

This was after we were married... in a Catholic church with a dispensation from the bishop (on account of my not being baptized).

Indeed, the point I had been making before was that she shouldn't have had a problem with your lack of belief in her religion since you'd both been (in her religious estimations) validly married.

If the church accepted it with a dispensation (as it is wont to do frequently since Vatican II in interfaith unions), I just struggle to understand why she was so intent in forcing you against your will into her belief system, when it would've been OK even for St. Paul two thousand years ago that you weren't.

This didn't stop her from worrying about the fate of my soul. In fact, that's why I ended up at RF: she would end up in tears on a regular basis at the thought of me ending up in Hell. I didn't like the idea of my wife being distraught, so I tried my darndest to see if there was a way I could become a Catholic - or at least some sort of Christian - in good conscience.

I am very sorry to hear she put you through this ordeal, I had no idea. It does sound 'emotionally abusive' to me - not least the forced and unexpected baptismal ritual.

The church doesn't teach that people are 'damned' for simply being formally outside her (I guess she misunderstood the meaning of ecclesiam nulla salus). Even back in the old pre-Vatican II days, there was the medieval doctrine of "baptism by implicit desire", explained by even Pope Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863) as follows: “...We all know that those who are afflicted with invincible ignorance with regard to our holy religion [non-believers], if they carefully keep the precepts of the natural law that have been written by God in the hearts of men...and if they lead a virtuous and dutiful life, can attain eternal life by the power of divine light and grace.” Cardinal Juan De Lugo (a. d. 1583-1660), Spaniard, post-Reformation Roman Catholic, Jesuit, Theological Professor, and a Cardinal writing in Rome under the eyes of Pope Urban VIII, had noted this a lot earlier:

“…the members of the various Christian sects, of the Jewish and Mohammedan communions, and of the non-Christian philosophies, who achieved and achieve their salvation, did and do so in general simply by God’s grace aiding their good faith instinctively to concentrate itself upon, and to practise, those elements in the cultus and teaching of their respective sect, communion or philosophy, which are true and good and originally revealed by God…”​

- Cardinal Juan De Lugo (a. d. 1583-1660), De Fide, Disputations


In 1713 Pope Clement XI condemned in his dogmatic Bull "Unigenitus" the proposition of the Jensenist Quesnel that "no grace is given outside the Church" just as Pope Alexander VIII had already condemned in 1690 the Jansenistic proposition of Arnauld: "Pagans, Jews, heretics, and other people of the sort, receive no influx [of grace] whatsoever from Jesus Christ". We subsequently have plentiful magisterial teaching from binding encyclicals and catechisms, including those of Popes Pius IX, Saint Pius X and Pius XII. See:


Holy Office [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith], Aug 9, 1949, condemning doctrine of L. Feeney (DS 3870):

"It is not always required that one be actually incorporated as a
member of the Church, but this at least is required: that one adhere
to it in wish and desire. It is not always necessary that this be
explicit...God accepts even an implicit will, called by that name because it is
contained in the good disposition of soul in which a man wills to
conform his will to the will of God."


Atheists were explicitly stated to be encompassed within this bracket in the Vatican II constitution Lumen Gentium in 1964:


Lumen gentium

Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.​

If I could have had a little catechetical chat with her, with relevant magisterially source material, I'm sure I could have assuaged her unfounded fears.

How sad, all round that her attempt to forcefully baptism you for fear of your soul being damned was not only morally wrong and inane (from a secular perspective) but in violation of the very religion she sought to uphold.

 

[Revoltingest]

To what end revolting?

To convince them to understand the harm done, & to correct their ways.

You child is already wet, they are having bad dreams, they are scared of the water or whatever other damage is claimed, you believe these people are directly responsible. Do you just say no more big brothers or sisters and tell the churchy folk to stay away and take your kid of their email list?

If they are apologetic is everything cool? If they are nonchalant, show conviction for their actions, or make you think that they might do this again, do you then go to the courts?

If initial efforts aren't productive,
then court is an option.

 

[Curious George]

To convince them to understand the harm done, & to correct their ways.

If initial efforts aren't productive,
then court is an option.

Is the definition of productive here remorse? Promise to not do this to other kids? A show of understanding?

 

[Revoltingest]

Is the definition of productive here remorse? Promise to not do this to other kids? A show of understanding?

That would be a wonderful result.

 

[Curious George]

That would be a wonderful result.

Sure it would. But, that doesn't answer the question: whether that is the definition of productive you are discussing.

If this was your kid, you would approach and discuss with the courts as a last resort. Well what is the goal upon which your decision to escalate to the courts turns? You say productive conversation. Surely you don't mean a productive conversation about steam engines. So what defines a productive discussion? Or is this a "i know productive conversation when i have it" type of a situation?

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure it would. But, that doesn't answer the question: whether that is the definition of productive you are discussing.

I did answer your question.
What you described would be a wonderful result.
I've nothing to add.

 

[columbus]

That's insane, what on earth was she thinking?

Stop being so legalistic and be a little more realistic.

She was behaving in a very religious way. Little different from the dude who pushed a disabled kid's head underwater. Or the religious folks claiming that gay people are damaged. Abrahamic religions teach people that what really matters is the afterlife, damage done to living people doesn't matter if done in a scriptural way.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

I did answer your question.
What you described would be a wonderful result.
I've nothing to add.

It seems to me your answer leaves unclear what a "productive" discussion would entail. But your lack of anything to add suggests that a productive conversation includes at minimal a show of understanding. So provided you do not find this, at what point do you resort to court?

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems to me your answer leaves unclear what a "productive" discussion would entail. But your lack of anything to add suggests that a productive conversation includes at minimal a show of understanding. So provided you do not find this, at what point do you resort to court?

You're making this more complex than necessary.

 

[Curious George]

You're making this more complex than necessary.

That is my m.o.

I ask if a remedy should be found through the courts or through some other avenue. You suggested you would reserve legal proceedings as a last resort, first pursuing productive discussion. I asked what productive discussion even looks like. We established that it would require at least a show of understanding. So, failing that is it to the courts? Or are there other steps prior to legal remedy?

 

[Vouthon]

She was behaving in a very religious way. Little different from the dude who pushed a disabled kid's head underwater. Or the religious folks claiming that gay people are damaged. Abrahamic religions teach people that what really matters is the afterlife, damage done to living people doesn't matter if done in a scriptural way.

If we both believe - as I take it is the case - that these attitudes and behaviours are harmful and if such religious people (who are by no means representative of many religious folks) are unlikely to be persuaded by secular rationalist arguments, is it not better to show them the faultiness of their thinking and its negative implications from within the framework of their own religion by relying upon the sources they accept as authoritative, if this is at all possible?

If one doesn't admit the potential efficacy of such a strategy, then to my mind its effectively implying that such people are irredeemably lost, which I do not believe (speaking as a religious person who isn't of that (fundamentalist) mindset).

The situation described violates church teaching (its technically an excommunicable offence, an abuse of the sacrament, to try and baptise someone against their will) and thus it could quite clearly be shown to her that she is in error / committing a possible mortal sin if she accepts the authority from which this doctrine of baptismal non-coercion comes (the Magisterium), which in the case of the ex-wife of Penguim's would likely apply, because (as I understand it) she was Catholic and purportedly acting according to what she thought her religion demanded of her (which was in fact wrong).

How could she dispute it if a paper trail of magisterial teaching stretcing back to the Council of Toledo in the seventh century up till 1960s Vatican II is set before her, from a source she (at least in principle) would regard as the authority in her faith tradition? Is she more Catholic than the Pope?

The apparent "legalism" has meaning within the religious framework, if you accept the basic religious premise in view here (i.e. a Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit).

 

[columbus]

(who are by no means representative of many religious folks) a

I think that this is where we disagree.
I see it as very representative of many religious folks, the majority even.

Not only Catholics by any means, but that's what I know about.

I was definitely taught a lot more about the dire necessity of a "proper" baptism to avoid an unpleasant afterlife than the technicalities of canonical law on the subject.
Of course, I'm old. I was also taught about limbo. My teachers were horrified by Vatican II and ruining proper Latin mass. I went to 12 years of Catholic academy, and I was 10, 4th grade, in 1968. From race riots and assassinations to Viet Nam and Vatican II, those were interesting times.

Kinda like 2020.

Tom

 

[sojourner]

No. A forced baptism is as a severe breach of constitutional and human rights.

It’s also a severe breach of spiritual ethics.

 

[sojourner]

I’m scratching my head, because this doesn’t seem indicative of either the Friends Church or BBBS. Friends are not a militantly evangelical bunch. Perhaps whoever did the baptizing was told only that the boy “wished to receive baptism.” The Big Brother should be fined and kicked out of the program. BBBS should bear some measure of responsibility here. To have one of their representatives pressure a vulnerable client in this way is a serious breach of ethics. Further, if the boy was underage, the church should have insisted that his parents speak for him before doing the baptism. If the boy was of majority age, I can see where the church might have taken his “consent” as valid.

The Big Brother certainly should be held liable for abuse. BBBS should be accountable for their representatives and could be legally liable. The church? Questionable. We just don’t have all the particulars.

 

[columbus]

It’s also a severe breach of spiritual ethics.

Your spiritual ethics.

Obviously not everyone's spiritual ethics. Unfortunately, there is no objective standard for such things. So everyone's spiritual ethics are just as valid as anybody else's.
Tom

 

[sojourner]

Your spiritual ethics.

Obviously not everyone's spiritual ethics. Unfortunately, there is no objective standard for such things. So everyone's spiritual ethics are just as valid as anybody else's.
Tom

Forced baptism is against every spiritual tenet of most legitimate denominations.

 

[columbus]

Forced baptism is against every spiritual tenet of most legitimate denominations.

I was not taught about that in the RCC schools I attended. What I was taught is that a person who dies with Original Sin is lucky to get assigned to limbo. That plus a real sin, like refusing Jesus's Love( when it's been explained to you) and you're definitely hell bound.

Perhaps you weren't taught by conservative Catholics decades ago. But that's what I was taught.
Tom

 

[sojourner]

I was not taught about that in the RCC schools I attended. What I was taught is that a person who dies with Original Sin is lucky to get assigned to limbo. That plus a real sin, like refusing Jesus's Love( when it's been explained to you) and you're definitely hell bound.

Perhaps you weren't taught by conservative Catholics decades ago. But that's what I was taught.
Tom

I get that. But the church would never force baptism. In fact, I believe there’s a papal directive against such things.

 

[columbus]

I get that. But the church would never force baptism. In fact, I believe there’s a papal directive against such things.

It wasn't the Church bigwigs.
It was The Church. A Catholic, with fairly typical education in Catholicism. Similar to mine, at least in my childhood. She was doing what she thought necessary to save her husband's soul from eternal damnation.

I doubt she got a memo concerning papal directives on the subject of baptism, I certainly didn't.
Tom