[ebb tide]

The less reasonable source of resistance is the idea that baptism just isn’t very important, and that it essentially makes no difference if an infant is unbaptised for a year or so after birth, and indeed what difference could it possibly make to a merciful God if an infant dies without baptism? This comes down to a denial of the supernatural reality of the Sacrament. Of course baptism makes a difference: it washes away Original Sin. This means that it raises the child to spiritual life, the life of grace. No Catholic should brook unreasonable delay in arranging this for their children.

[ebb tide]

Ping

[stylin19a]

In our family, it was, wait too long and some granny will take the baby into the bathroom and provide the home version. (especially back when limbo still existed)

[foreverfree]

bump

[Svartalfiar]

The response of many priests and others will be that ‘private baptism’, without the full ceremonies, whether carried out by a priest or a lay person (and obviously only a priest can do the full ceremonies, with the anointing, blessings and so on), is only to be contemplated where there is ‘danger of death’.

Well that's news to me. The Church has been telling us/family/friends that the deacon can do it just fine. The priest is usually reserved for the illegals.


It is often said that the emphasis on quick baptisms for infants was coloured, in the old days, but the high rates of infant mortality, and of course this was a relevant consideration.

Sigh. This author is obviously British, but he still needs to use an editor. It's "was colored by the", not "was colored but the".