Posted on 01/11/2011 11:17:44 AM PST by Alex Murphy
A trend to ‘de-baptism’ is growing in Belgium as Catholics leave the Church in the wake of clerical abuse scandals.
“When you don’t agree with an organisation that you never chose to join in the first place, the healthiest thing to do is to leave,” Damien Spleeters told AFP.
The 24-year-old is among a growing crowd exasperated by church policy on issues such as AIDS, and angered by revelations last year of massive child abuse by priests and lay workers.
Spleeters last year wrote to the bishop overseeing the parish where his parents had him christened as a baby to announce he no longer wanted the church “to speak in his name” so was requesting to be struck off the baptism register.
“Whilst we deplore your decision,” replied Abbot Jean-Pierre Lorette, “the Catholic Church respects each individual’s freedom and will not hold back against their will those who wish to leave it.”
Spleeters, the priest added, was in consequence “logically” excommunicated.
In an interview, the young Brussels resident said “I don’t consider myself an atheist” but explained he turned to de-baptism due to growing irritation with the Catholic hierarchy.
I believe Catholics have a Confirmation process also when the child is old enough to choose, no?
Good thing your opinion has no weight past the end of your nose, then.
Yes, but it is what it says it is: confirmation of the baptismal cleansing from inherited sin.
By the way, the two sacraments were originally administered together and really should be done so when the baptizand is beyond the age of consent. There is no reason to have an interval between them if the person can answer for him/herself.
Yes, but it is what it says it is: confirmation of the baptismal cleansing from inherited sin.
By the way, the two sacraments were originally administered together and really should be done so when the baptizand is beyond the age of consent. There is no reason to have an interval between them if the person can answer for him/herself.
How does the Catholic church view the status of an adult who was baptized as an infant but never confirmed, by choice?
Yes, that is correct there are confirmations in the Catholic Church, usually when you are 14.
During the horrible Nazi era, lots of Jewish children across Europe had been entrusted by their parents to Catholic neighbors for their protection. Many of these Jewish parents were, after the war, missing or dead, but the Catholic Church would not baptize these children even if they and their Catholic guardians wanted it. The Church said that they must be returned, unbaptized, to whatever Jewish family members could be located, or placed with surviving unrelated Jewish families.
This is because Baptism is NOT to be conferred on anyone unless they are of age to request It, or are Catholic children being raised as Catholics in their own families.
The issue is: once baptized, a person's objective status is: a baptized person. They can leave, but they're still "a baptized person who is not a practicing Catholic." They can be excommunicated, but they're still "a baptized person who is excommunicated." They can go to hell and still be "a baptized person who is damned." That's just the reality. You can't take away what actually happened.
This may be true for an individual who willfully wanted it and dedicated his/her soul to Baptism, but there are those who were led to the alter and baptised who did not believe in it's sanctity. Like parents who have their child baptized and the child did not willfully ask it to be done, based on his/her commitment to Christ.
Which means they were never saved in the first place. This young man need not denounce his baptism since it never occurred in the first place in the eyes of God. This young soul will die with the beast in the field, by his own free will.
Finally in his mid-thirties his mom guiltily admitted that she just had never gotten around to having him baptised. The were overseas in the military so no one else in the family realized it.
What say you?
The Church views it as baptized as an infant but never confirmed, by choice.
And you say this was done secretly when you were a baby?
If true, there would be a baptismal record. You could look it up at the Diocesan offices. Frankly, I consider your story very doubtful.
How did you find out about it? And when? Any evidence? Any links?
This is right up there with women who refuse to marry, and then demand the right to divorce.
It has no practical, this-world consequence, if the person ignores it.
He can't be UN-baptized, so someday he might change his mind again, and he can resume his Faith journey, as many have before him.
Not in the realm of the physical world, maybe, but one implication is that the voluntarily unconfirmed person forgoes the Graces bestowed by the Sacrament.
I find myself in this position, as I have not yet found a time travel machine to transport me back to 1959 or so and the Church (minus the mistakes of modernism) to which I would wish to be Confirmed.
Do you think that, because of sin, the usual minister of the Sacrament of Confirmation (your bishop or his representative) can no longer do so validly?
Do you think the "Gates of Hell" have in fact prevailed, and thus Christ's mission has failed?
Or do you no longer wish to receive the Holy Spirit because of faults and sinful mistakes of some in the household of the Faith?
What is the nature of your difficulty?
I do have questions of this nature. Not only because of sin but also, possibly, sloppy or incorrect liturgical procedures.
Do you think the "Gates of Hell" have in fact prevailed, and thus Christ's mission has failed?
No. I think vestiges of the True Church remain. I'm positive they do.
Or do you no longer wish to receive the Holy Spirit because of faults and sinful mistakes of some in the household of the Faith?
No, nothing to do with the situation.
Thanks for the thought you put into the questions! I may resolve my on-going stalemate on this by traveling to an FSSP parish, where things are still as they should be, as far as I can tell.
I should qualify the part of that having to do with “faults and sinful mistakes”.
No, those fallen from Grace do not dissuade me from receiving the Sacrament of Confirmation in my normal parish/diocese.
I think, however, that God allowed those transgressions to occur as a consequence of errors the Church made in the modern era.
This tarnishes the Church but does not destroy it.
When the coin in the cougher clinks, a soul from purgatory springs!
I knew a priest, Episcopal, who said he had been accepted for seminary, was ready to seal the deal, and then discovered that he couldn’t find his baptismal record. He said that he thought, if I’m going to be a priest, I suppose I really ought to have been baptized. They figured it out somehow - I don’t remember the resolution, but I just thought it was funny. You never think about the possibility of a priest not having been baptized, or not able to prove it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.