|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The sins of the mothers
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
But - as I understand it - the morally problematic nature of surrogacy is not what the thread is about. It's about withholding baptism from a child who did not choose the manner of its birth in order to coerce someone else into doing something.
I think it's a blunt instrument for a nuanced situation. Nonetheless it doesn't stop anyone from getting their baby baptized, as long as they accept the church's teaching that the use of the surrogate was wrong.
Orthodox on Surrogacy
This link seems to say that the baptism is not withheld from the child, in that if the parents never accept that surrogacy is sinful, the child can be baptized in good faith when old enough to choose for him or herself.
The reason I raised the moral issues around surrogacy, is to suggest that it might be right for parents who use it to consider them after the fact. In the least generous way of looking at surrogacy (for the purpose of the debate), it is renting a woman's body and then buying the baby she has carried.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul.
Shipmate
# 37
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
But - as I understand it - the morally problematic nature of surrogacy is not what the thread is about. It's about withholding baptism from a child who did not choose the manner of its birth in order to coerce someone else into doing something.
And by the same token you'd be "imposing" baptism on the child who did not choose it if you were to go ahead. As with any infant baptism of course. So if you believe in paedo-baptism ISTM that you are always dealing with the choices of more than just the child (or even child+parents) and so there's always an element of one party's actions affecting the others involved. From that point of view the ruling makes sense.
I think it does seem harsh to me, but maninly because a) I'm not a paedo-baptist, b) I don't have a very high view of sacraments and c) I don't think surrogacy is automatically sinful. But if I did...
Posts: 3689 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The last bit of the statement does says this:
quote:
This concerns not only the question of “surrogate motherhood,” but also any consciously expressed unwillingness to live in a Christian manner .
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Late Paul: quote:
So if you believe in paedo-baptism ISTM that you are always dealing with the choices of more than just the child (or even child+parents) and so there's always an element of one party's actions affecting the others involved.
Granted, but if baptism is barred to children of any parents expressing 'conscious unwillingness to live in a Christian manner' then illegitimate children and children of divorced parents should also be turned away. Heck, if you want to be really picky nobody is worthy to bring a child to baptism - all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. What happens to 'Let the children come to Me' then?
In any case, the church has always been willing to baptise children who are illegitimate or the result of adulterous relationships. Even children of prostitutes. That seems to suggest that the child's acceptance into the church is not dependent on the parents being good obedient clean-living Christians.
Which is just as well really (see above re glory of God, falling short of).
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
I'm not sure you understand "unwillingness to live in a Christian manner" correctly here. It certainly doesn't refer to perfection but rather repentance, a willingness to reform etc. At least one of the parents is under the solemn obligation to bring the child up in the faith. If it is obvious that there is no intention to do so then baptism is rightly, in my view, withheld until the child can decide for himself.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
I do understand it, thanks. That's why I mentioned prostitutes. A prostitute who presents her (or his) child for baptism whilst intending to continue in the same job is certainly not conforming to most people's expectations of 'living in a Christian manner'. And in the eyes of some, a remarried divorcee is an unrepentant adulterer.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I do understand it, thanks. That's why I mentioned prostitutes. A prostitute who presents her (or his) child for baptism whilst intending to continue in the same job is certainly not conforming to most people's expectations of 'living in a Christian manner'. And in the eyes of some, a remarried divorcee is an unrepentant adulterer.
You assume that a priest who baptizes a prostitute's child does not ask the woman to repent, and that the prostitute does not agree to making an effort to change at the time of the request.
Are you aware of any such case where a priest (Orthodox or otherwise) had full knowledge that someone was intending to raise a child in a house of prostitution, but baptized that child anyway? Perhaps it does happen but it strikes me as terribly unlikely.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
In any case, the church has always been willing to baptise children who are illegitimate or the result of adulterous relationships. Even children of prostitutes. That seems to suggest that the child's acceptance into the church is not dependent on the parents being good obedient clean-living Christians.
I would be interested in actual historical facts on this matter. Truly always, everywhere, all churches? Maybe that is true, but I just don't know. What I do know is that the relevant §868 in current RC canon law is wide open to interpretation ("For an infant to be baptized lawfully it is required... that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion" ... what provides well-founded hope then?), and it seems that there is quite some variation as to how it is in fact being interpreted. Most comments I have heard seem to indicate that the RCC in North America is a lot stricter about this than the RCC in Europe, see for example this from Canada.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Are you aware of any such case where a priest (Orthodox or otherwise) had full knowledge that someone was intending to raise a child in a house of prostitution, but baptized that child anyway?
I think a Church of England priest would be legally required to baptise the child, if resident in their parish.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Are you aware of any such case where a priest (Orthodox or otherwise) had full knowledge that someone was intending to raise a child in a house of prostitution, but baptized that child anyway?
I think a Church of England priest would be legally required to baptise the child, if resident in their parish.
In most cases without "full knowledge" because CofE priests don't ask those sorts of questions due to their requirement to baptize any child within the parish presented to them.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
seekingsister: quote:
Are you aware of any such case where a priest (Orthodox or otherwise) had full knowledge that someone was intending to raise a child in a house of prostitution, but baptized that child anyway? Perhaps it does happen but it strikes me as terribly unlikely.
I don't know what happens in the Orthodox church nowadays, or even what happens in the RCC, but I get the impression from my reading of history that *in practice*, in the English church at least, most priests would baptise anyone's baby if asked to do so. This may have something to do with the belief that unbaptized babies would go to Limbo.
The modern RCC does not endorse Augustine's view of Limbo, but the Catechism says "...the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,' allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism." (source of the quote is here ) So the RCC's official position still seems to be that baptism must be done as soon as possible after the birth and presumably, jeopardising a child's chance of salvation in order to play mind games with its parents is not on.
As Ken says, in the C of E there is a legal requirement to baptise anyone living in the parish who is presented for baptism - though most parishes will ask you to do some sort of preparation for it which might (and probably will) include talking about the need for repentance.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
seekingsister: You assume that a priest who baptizes a prostitute's child does not ask the woman to repent, and that the prostitute does not agree to making an effort to change at the time of the request.
I have only very fleetingly worked with an organization that accompanies (ex-)prostitutes in Brazil so I don't claim expertise, but what I do know is that it is a complex problem where the prostitutes are often as much a victim as anything else. Calling on them to repent seems an extremely inadequate approach to me, much less with their children as some strange kind of hostages.
[ 07. January 2014, 15:45: Message edited by: LeRoc ]
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
LeRoc: quote:
Calling on them to repent seems an extremely inadequate approach to me, much less with their children as some strange kind of hostages.
Indeed.
If you don't have a high view of baptism, why does it matter?
If you do, how can you possibly justify risking the child's immortal soul in order to punish the parents?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think a Church of England priest would be legally required to baptise the child, if resident in their parish.
Indeed.
quote:
Canon B22:
4. No minister shall refuse or, save for the purpose of preparing or instructing the parents or guardians or godparents, delay to baptize any infant within his cure that is brought to the church to be baptized, provided that due notice has been given and the provisions relating to godparents in these Canons are observed.
The provisions relating to godparents are that there are to be at least 3 people - two of the same sex as the child and one of the opposite sex, and that they be confirmed. The priest has the authority to water down these requirements to some degree if he sees fit, but cannot be compelled to.
The only way that I can see that a C of E priest could legally deny baptism to an infant residing in his parish lies in Canon B23:
quote:
2. The godparents shall be persons who will faithfully fulfil their responsibilities both by their care for the children committed to their charge and by the example of their own godly living.
This suggests that, just perhaps, the priest might have the ability to veto the choice of particular godparents if, for example, they live lives of such notorious ill-repute that they can't provide "the example of their own godly living".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
Outside of state churches like the Church of England that have legal requirements regarding baptism, I would expect most clergy/priests to discuss sin and repentance with parents presenting their children prior to the service.
Not being RCC/Orthodox perhaps someone can help - are parents or godparents meant to make a confession before the baptism service?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
I know that when my daughter was baptised (in a rather Anglo-Catholic service though it wasn't Anglican, and I doubt the priest would consider himself or his church to be precisely Anglo-Catholic) we promised to turn our backs on the devil. And more relevantly, before hand, we discussed with the priest what that meant. However not what it meant in terms of our lives, but that it clearly did mean rejecting sins in our lives. On the other hand, we were (and are) also members of that church, and even used to live in the Community related to the church, so he knew how we live, and presumably didn't have any major objections to our lives or the way we are raising said daughter.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Irrespective of the law, I think it would be difficult for a couple to insist on having their baby baptised if they flatly refused to attend preparation classes.
I don't know how often this is really an issue. Can any shipmates advise. One would hope and expect that the bishop would back an incumbent if a couple really tried to insist on that. The reference in the Canon to,
quote:
save for the purpose of preparing or instructing the parents or guardians or godparents
means that is supposed to be a condition precedent, and can be insisted on.
I'd interpret that as also meaning, though, that once the parameters are met, the vicar is simply responsible for administering the sacrament. Whether they like it or not, the parents and godparents, not the vicar, take responsibility for understanding and meaning the commitments they are entering into. So it is also not the vicar's responsibility for vetting whether he or she thinks they have got the right theological knowledge or variety of faith before baptising their baby.
I think I'd agree with that. It also goes with what Queen Elizabeth I said about not making windows in men's souls (in those days, and indeed until much more recently, men's included women's without anyone making a fuss about it).
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
As an atheist it doesn't matter to me if surrogate borne children, or prematurely delivered infants kept in incubators are not baptized. For those who care, the recent comment by Pope Francis about reaching out to the children of gay couples and children of broken marriages seems germane;
quote:
How can we proclaim Christ to a generation that is changing? We must be careful not to administer a vaccine against faith to them...
Pope Francis discusses gay couples
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mockingbird
Mimus polyglottos navis
# 5818
|
Posted
The document states quote:
In the case when an infant is brought to Church who has been born of a “surrogate mother,” the question of its Baptism can be decided in accordance with the instructions of the diocesan bishop, who is bound to be guided in concrete cases by the norms contained in the present document. The performance by a priest of the sacrament of Baptism in such cases without the blessing of his bishop serves as the basis for applying canonical sanctions to this priest.
This might (or might not) allow the priest some leeway. It depends on how flexible are the enforcement mechanisms for "the norms contained in the present document".
I note that the document is prescriptive. Unless more appears, we cannot conclude that any child has yet been denied baptism on the basis of its teachings.
On the general point: A priest should indeed conscientiously refuse baptism, or marriage, or to witness and bless any other vows, if there are strong grounds for thinking that the vows will not be made sincerely.
I would expect such decisions to be made case-by-case. Here, though, the bishops seem to lean toward the view that those raising the child, if they were party to the surrogacy in any way, are by that very fact presumptively untrustworthy. Is there any other canon law that creates a presumption of untrustworthiness? If so, how does the present statement compare? The document refers to "teachings of the Church regarding the inadmissibility of the Baptism of infants in families whose members explicitly and deliberately neglect ecclesial tradition and do not share the Christian teaching about marriage and family, which practically eliminates the possibility of the child’s Christian upbringing," but provides no citations.
If the bishops met to transact legal business on December 25-26, should that be taken as a deliberate snub toward those who use the Gregorian or Revised Julian calendars? Or is that reading too much into it?
--------------------
Forþon we sealon efestan þas Easterlican þing to asmeagenne and to gehealdanne, þaet we magon cuman to þam Easterlican daege, þe aa byð, mid fullum glaedscipe and wynsumnysse and ecere blisse.
Posts: 1443 | From: Between Broken Bow and Black Mesa | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mockingbird:
If the bishops met to transact legal business on December 25-26, should that be taken as a deliberate snub toward those who use the Gregorian or Revised Julian calendars? Or is that reading too much into it?
That's like saying if I go to work on Yom Kippur it's a deliberate snub of Jews. Gregorian December 25 isn't a holiday for them. Why shouldn't they work on it?
It's been brought up twice but nobody has answered it: the synod's decision is tantamount to telling these parents, "Your baby has no right to exist."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
No. There is a difference between the means being sinful and the result nevertheless having a right to exist.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's been brought up twice but nobody has answered it: the synod's decision is tantamount to telling these parents, "Your baby has no right to exist."
That's a deliberate rhetorical confusion of the moral evaluation of the parent's actions and the baby's being, trading on ambiguities in what "right to exist" means. It also simply ignores what the Russian bishops have said about their motivations, and is inconsistent with the provisions they have established (the baby can be baptised, given two different conditions). Silence was the charitable option there, or perhaps just what one hears when eyes are being rolled...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
No, I don't think it is rhetorical confusion. It is a reasonable conclusion drawn from what the document says. If surrogacy is (always) considered sinful, then the 'true' Christian course for any couple who are unable to have a baby without using a surrogate mother is not to have a baby at all. It's not much of a stretch from there to 'this baby shouldn't exist'. Most people are intelligent enough to make the connection, even if the bishops don't come right out and say it aloud.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
No, I don't think it is rhetorical confusion. It is a reasonable conclusion drawn from what the document says. If surrogacy is (always) considered sinful, then the 'true' Christian course for any couple who are unable to have a baby without using a surrogate mother is not to have a baby at all. It's not much of a stretch from there to 'this baby shouldn't exist'. Most people are intelligent enough to make the connection, even if the bishops don't come right out and say it aloud.
That's your interpretation of it.
One can easily read it as, the sin of using a woman is so significant as to put into question the commitment to Christian faith of the parents who hired her. So that commitment must be confirmed with an agreement to repent of the sin, so that the baby can be baptized in accordance with church rules on the parents' obligations.
If a man who committed rape brought the resulting child to a priest for baptism, do you think that the priest asking that man to repent of his sin, is the same thing as saying "this child should not exist?" Do you think children born of rape shouldn't exist even though I am sure you think rape is a sin? Of course not.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
No, I don't think it is rhetorical confusion. It is a reasonable conclusion drawn from what the document says. If surrogacy is (always) considered sinful, then the 'true' Christian course for any couple who are unable to have a baby without using a surrogate mother is not to have a baby at all. It's not much of a stretch from there to 'this baby shouldn't exist'. Most people are intelligent enough to make the connection, even if the bishops don't come right out and say it aloud.
You are just perpetuating the rhetorical confusion, which frankly is massively insulting to the bishops (not that they are my bishops, but still...). "This baby should not exist" is true in the sense that (according to the bishops) the baby exists because of sinful actions, and sins should not be committed. "This baby should not exist" is false in the sense that the baby alive now has less of a right to exist than other human beings.
The reason the bishops have given for their denial of baptism clearly pertains to the former, not the latter. They say that they are worried about the Orthodox upbringing of the child, given that the way it has been brought into the world is sinful according to their Orthodoxy. This is about the past actions of the parents predicting their future actions, and it can get fixed by the parents repenting (and thus providing reason to believe that the child will be brought up Orthodox). This is in not about the life of the baby, as indicated by the fact that they will allow the child to ask for baptism as soon as it is capable thereof (and without any repenting by the child). If the life of the child was the problem itself, then this would make no sense at all.
I have no problem with a discussion whether the particular sins of the parents here warrant such a reaction, whether this is inconsistent with other decisions of the same bishops, etc. One can certainly question this decision in many ways. But to assume that the bishops somehow have a problem with the baby's life as such is really shameful, unless there is serious evidence that they are sick bastards ignorant of the basics of Christian faith, indeed, of universal morality. I have seen no such evidence so far.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I don't think it's correct to describe this as 'rhetorical confusion'. Nevertheless, although I can see how they might get there, I think that both Mousethief and Jane R are thinking linearly and so ending up in the wrong place. Seekingsister's interpretation fits the statement of the Bishops, and both make good sense to me.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
seekingsister: quote:
One can easily read it as, the sin of using a woman is so significant as to put into question the commitment to Christian faith of the parents who hired her.
I can understand the concern about wealthy women outsourcing the messy parts of pregnancy by hiring a poorer woman as surrogate. If that is a significant problem in Russia, I can see why the bishops are concerned. However, as several people have already said, surrogacy for profit is illegal in the UK (as is donation of eggs or sperm) and many surrogate mothers enter into the arrangement for altruistic reasons. And if after giving birth they do not wish to hand the baby over to its biological parents, under UK law they don't have to.
I'm out of here, anyway.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I can understand the concern about wealthy women outsourcing the messy parts of pregnancy by hiring a poorer woman as surrogate. If that is a significant problem in Russia, I can see why the bishops are concerned.
Commercial for-profit surrogacy is legal in Russia and it's apparently a popular choice for overseas couples from US, UK because it's cheaper.
Russian Surrogacy
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Commercial for-profit surrogacy is legal in Russia and it's apparently a popular choice for overseas couples from US, UK because it's cheaper Russian Surrogacy
That was ... educational. Total costs €36,000 to €60,000. I wonder how much the surrogate mother gets of that? Anyway, the Russian bishops are opposed to surrogacy per se, not (just) because of the potential commercial aspect:
quote:
The Basis of the Social Concept XII.4:
«Surrogate motherhood», that is, the bearing of a fertilised ovule by a woman who after the delivery returns the child to the «customers», is unnatural and morally inadmissible even in those cases where it is realised on a non-commercial basis. This method involves the violation of the profound emotional and spiritual intimacy that is established between mother and child already during the pregnancy. «Surrogate motherhood» traumatises both the bearing woman, whose mother’s feelings are trampled upon, and the child who may subsequently experience an identity crisis.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Commercial for-profit surrogacy is legal in Russia and it's apparently a popular choice for overseas couples from US, UK because it's cheaper.
Russian Surrogacy
Thank you for finding that out. I didn't know that, and probably would not have known what keywords to google to get it. I found it quite disturbing. It sounds as though, far from being an exotic foreign thing, womb farming is a bit of a growth industry in Russia, probably with westerners, local oligarchs and various clinics exploiting poor girls throughout the towns and villages of Russia.
With that background, I'm even more in sympathy with the Russian bishops.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Enoch: With that background, I'm even more in sympathy with the Russian bishops.
I'm in awe of how bravely they have halted this process by not baptizing the children.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's a deliberate rhetorical confusion of the moral evaluation of the parent's actions and the baby's being, trading on ambiguities in what "right to exist" means.
I was making a point about how the parents feel. This is emotion talk. Logic doesn't enter into it nearly as much as some people might wish.
quote:
It also simply ignores what the Russian bishops have said about their motivations
This actually tells in its favor, given the relationship between the ROC and Putin.
quote:
and is inconsistent with the provisions they have established (the baby can be baptised, given two different conditions).
"Just admit this baby should never have existed, and we'll baptise it."
quote:
Silence was the charitable option there, or perhaps just what one hears when eyes are being rolled...
We have a pot/kettle problem here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Enoch: With that background, I'm even more in sympathy with the Russian bishops.
I'm in awe of how bravely they have halted this process by not baptizing the children.
That's a daft comment, of course. Just because one cannot stop something does not mean that one has to condone it by one's own actions.
That said, I would not expect that Western "womb tourism" would lead to big demands for Russian Orthodox baptism, in Russia. I assume that most of those babies would be baptised back in the West by the "buying" parents. And I'm rather sceptical that many Russian oligarchs are trying to build their dynasty by mass surrogacy of heirs, or for that matter that many rich Russian women farm out their pregnancies to poor ones. I expect that by and large this remains a service demanded by infertile couples, whether Russian or foreign.
I think the moral case should be made against the backdrop of the entirely reasonable and natural desire of couples for children. If one has to invent weird villains to justify the moral rules, then the case has already been lost. I note that in my quote from the Russian bishops above, they argue against surrogacy as such, even if it is done apart from any commercial gain.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
IngoB - apparently the outrage was sparked by a 64 year old Russian celeb having twins with her much younger husband via surrogate.
Orthodox Church slams surrogacy
quote:
The comment from the head of the Patriarchy Commission for Family Motherhood and Childhood, Dmitry Smirnov, came after Russian mass media reported that in September 64-year-old Russian pop star Alla Pugachova and her 37-year-old husband Maksim Galkin had two children born through surrogate motherhood.
“I would ban this, of course. We can see that a bad example is contagious,” the senior church representative was quoted as saying by Interfax. “This is mutiny against God, this is very happy fascism with a contract, the money and confiscation of a child.”
[ 08. January 2014, 15:23: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was making a point about how the parents feel. This is emotion talk. Logic doesn't enter into it nearly as much as some people might wish.
Fine. But Church doctrine and discipline cannot be based simply on sentiment, however heartfelt. And I would suggest that the best way of getting this ruling changed, if one wishes that, is not to go on about the hurt feelings of the parents. Frankly, most sinners have hurt feelings when being called on their sins, and I doubt that the Russian bishops will be shocked by yet another instance of that. Rather it is precisely the logical argument presented on this thread, namely that it is unfair to single out surrogacy as evil that must be repented of when many other sins of parents are being overlooked systematically, which might have some impact.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
It also simply ignores what the Russian bishops have said about their motivations
This actually tells in its favor, given the relationship between the ROC and Putin.
That's simply an argumentum ad hominem. Also, you are in communion with these bishops, correct? Can you point to a contrary ruling of your bishops? Or are you now suggesting that the bishops in Orthodoxy have no teaching authority any longer?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Just admit this baby should never have existed, and we'll baptise it."
More like: "Admit that this baby should never have existed according to the Orthodox faith you share, and we'll accept your claim that you will raise the baby as Orthodox, and baptise it into the Orthodox community."
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
IngoB - apparently the outrage was sparked by a 64 year old Russian celeb having twins with her much younger husband via surrogate.
Orthodox Church slams surrogacy
The current outrage may stem from this. But the document I have been quoting from was issued in the year 2000 by the Council of Russian Bishops, thus over a decade ago. If this is a case of policy on the run, then only as far as the denial of baptism over surrogacy is concerned, not concerning their general rejection of surrogacy.
Anyway, abusus non tollit usum (abuse is no argument against proper use). I see no evidence of a surrogacy epidemic even among rich Russian women just because of one case. Any moral argument should deal with the average infertile couple sincerely desiring offspring. Outrage about some woman trying an end-run around her biological clock should not determine basic moral argument.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I was making a point about how the parents feel. This is emotion talk. Logic doesn't enter into it nearly as much as some people might wish.
Fine. But Church doctrine and discipline cannot be based simply on sentiment, however heartfelt.
True. This wasn't meant to lay forth a basis for episcopal decision-making on terms of praxis. (Indeed I'm not at all sure how it could have been taken to be such, but there you go.) It was meant to portray what the parents may feel like they are being asked to do when they are asked to "repent."
quote:
And I would suggest that the best way of getting this ruling changed, if one wishes that, is not to go on about the hurt feelings of the parents.
As noted, that's not the reason I brought that up.
quote:
Frankly, most sinners have hurt feelings when being called on their sins, and I doubt that the Russian bishops will be shocked by yet another instance of that.
I would suggest that "having hurt feelings" and "being told your child doesn't deserve to exist" are not exactly analogous. You're trivializing something that to a parent could be crushing. I find it difficult to believe anybody could reduce the latter to "you have hurt feelings." It rather feels disingenuous.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
It also simply ignores what the Russian bishops have said about their motivations
This actually tells in its favor, given the relationship between the ROC and Putin.
That's simply an argumentum ad hominem.
No, it's simply an insult. An argumetum ad hominem is by definition an argument. I wasn't making an argument here, just giving my opinion about those particular bishops and how much I trust what they say about their own motivations. Knowing how they fawn over Putin, in the name of Orthodoxy, gives me a certain skepticism about what they claim to be motivated by.
quote:
Also, you are in communion with these bishops, correct? Can you point to a contrary ruling of your bishops? Or are you now suggesting that the bishops in Orthodoxy have no teaching authority any longer?
Yes, no, no. What does this have to do with the argument? It seems rather a non sequitur.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Just admit this baby should never have existed, and we'll baptise it."
More like: "Admit that this baby should never have existed according to the Orthodox faith you share, and we'll accept your claim that you will raise the baby as Orthodox, and baptise it into the Orthodox community."
Potayto.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
I already said I do understand the bishops' concerns about 'wombs for hire', though I hadn't realised it was such a big problem in Russia.
I was slightly bemused by this comment:
quote:
This method involves the violation of the profound emotional and spiritual intimacy that is established between mother and child already during the pregnancy.
How many bishops have personally experienced the 'profound emotional and spiritual intimacy' of pregnancy? Or is this yet another example of the male priesthood romanticizing motherhood?
And once again; if they believe baptism is important, why withhold it from the child in order to punish the parents? What does the Orthodox Church think will happen to the child's soul if it dies before it is old enough to choose to be baptised by itself?
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It was meant to portray what the parents may feel like they are being asked to do when they are asked to "repent."
And your latest description "just admit this baby should never have existed, and we'll baptise it" is fair enough, given that you understand it as "potayto" to mine. We can now discuss whether the Russian bishops are correct factually. We can also discuss whether accepting that they are correct factually (at least for the sake of argument), their actions are prudent pastorally and politically. What we cannot do however is to say that because we see pastoral or political issues they must have their facts wrong.
"Parents unhappy therefore bishops wrong" is simply not a valid argument here. It would be if Christianity was about making people happy in this world, but since it is not we gain nothing from such an argument.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I would suggest that "having hurt feelings" and "being told your child doesn't deserve to exist" are not exactly analogous. You're trivializing something that to a parent could be crushing. I find it difficult to believe anybody could reduce the latter to "you have hurt feelings." It rather feels disingenuous.
First, you keep changing your statement about the baby. "Should never have existed" is not the same as "does not deserve to exist". If this is not intentional rhetorical trickery, then please think carefully about what you claim the bishops are saying to the parents and stick to one thing. It is rather annoying having to update my agreement or disagreement with your assessment every other post. Second, I did not intend to indicate some kind of upper limit to how much hurt was being caused here. I simply intended to state in what way the hurt was being caused. Bones were not broken, rather feeling were being hurt. That's all. If you want to say instead that the parents are being "emotionally traumatised", for example, then that is no skin off my nose.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No, it's simply an insult. An argumetum ad hominem is by definition an argument. I wasn't making an argument here, just giving my opinion about those particular bishops and how much I trust what they say about their own motivations. Knowing how they fawn over Putin, in the name of Orthodoxy, gives me a certain skepticism about what they claim to be motivated by.
"This actually tells in its favor, given X." is an argument, however minimalistic. If X is a personal insult, then it becomes an an argumentum ad hominem. And you continue along these lines here, by putting the motivations of the Russian bishops in question. "Argument" means more than just "logical deduction". There is no reason at all why we should discuss the relationship of the Russian bishops to Putin here. They have argued their case with no reference to Putin or the Russian state, therefore we can and should address their argument on their terms.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Also, you are in communion with these bishops, correct? Can you point to a contrary ruling of your bishops? Or are you now suggesting that the bishops in Orthodoxy have no teaching authority any longer?
Yes, no, no. What does this have to do with the argument? It seems rather a non sequitur.
I'm sorry, that may just be my Catholicism coming through. We believe that people who are in communion with each other need to agree at least officially on important matters of faith and morals. If the RC bishops of Russia made a major ruling on faith and morals that I find highly problematic, then I would consider it very pressing to get this sorted out at the official level. Because otherwise the assumption of coherent faith and morals across the communion means that this ruling will apply to me as well. Obviously, the way the RCC is organised, I would mostly look to Rome for a "global" clarification. But absent that, I would look to "my" local bishops for comment. What I would not do is to set this aside with a shrug of my shoulders, or complain about it as one does about foreign affairs. I cannot set aside the actions of any RC bishop anywhere like that, because they all contribute to one and the same teaching office of the Church.
[ 09. January 2014, 09:27: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
I don't understand how these things work. Is an Orthodox believer under an obligation to agree with a Bishop even when they (the believer) thinks they (the Bishop) are fundamentally wrong about something?
I'm not Orthodox, but as far as RCs go, you are ultimately bound by your conscience alone. However, it is one's duty to inform that conscience properly; and official teachings of the Church, to which bishops can contribute, are privileged by faith in providing such information with various levels of authority. Thus a bishop officially teaching against what your conscience currently tells you is like receiving a piece of new evidence apparently contrary to what you held true so far. It is not clear that your conscience must change, but it is clear that you must worry about that. The more authoritative the teaching, the more so.
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
How many bishops have personally experienced the 'profound emotional and spiritual intimacy' of pregnancy? Or is this yet another example of the male priesthood romanticizing motherhood?
Is it your opinion that a medical doctor must have suffered every disease she is ready to treat, because otherwise she does not have the necessary experience to do anything about it?
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And once again; if they believe baptism is important, why withhold it from the child in order to punish the parents?
This is not what the bishops themselves say they are doing. Please present some kind of argument, rather than mere assertion, why you think that they are lying.
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
What does the Orthodox Church think will happen to the child's soul if it dies before it is old enough to choose to be baptised by itself?
That's an interesting question, and I would be keen to hear an answer from an Orthodox. For RCs, in danger of death such concerns about providing sacraments have to yield. However, there is of course a risk that the child dies unexpectedly and too rapidly to provide an "emergency sacrament". Such risk however is considered to be on the heads of the parents. The Church cannot accommodate every sin just to protect all innocents. Parents do have responsibility for their children.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
We can now discuss whether the Russian bishops are correct factually.
I'm not sure what you would appeal to to determine if a ruling on morals was "factually" correct. Do you mean if it follows from other moral teachings of the church? You can't get an "ought" from an "is." Morals aren't matters of "fact."
quote:
We can also discuss whether accepting that they are correct factually (at least for the sake of argument), their actions are prudent pastorally and politically.
That's rather what I thought I was doing here. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough?
quote:
"Parents unhappy therefore bishops wrong" is simply not a valid argument here.
Yes. Thank you. I have agreed. You can stop saying it. Really. Stop. Now.
quote:
First, you keep changing your statement about the baby. "Should never have existed" is not the same as "does not deserve to exist".
Not logically, no. But I thought I had made it clear I wasn't talking about logic here. See previous comment.
quote:
Second, I did not intend to indicate some kind of upper limit to how much hurt was being caused here. I simply intended to state in what way the hurt was being caused. Bones were not broken, rather feeling were being hurt.
It was far from clear what you were intending.
quote:
If you want to say instead that the parents are being "emotionally traumatised", for example, then that is no skin off my nose.
Chivalrous of you.
quote:
"This actually tells in its favor, given X." is an argument, however minimalistic.
I just told you it wasn't. Do you want to tell me other contents of my mind I'm not aware of myself?
quote:
There is no reason at all why we should discuss the relationship of the Russian bishops to Putin here. They have argued their case with no reference to Putin or the Russian state, therefore we can and should address their argument on their terms.
If you don't think their character has bearing on their decisions in moral areas, I'd say you are deluded about how human beings actually operate. This seems to me the problem some Catholics have who can't understand why the pedophile scandals have made people less trusting of the Catholic Church's moral authority.
quote:
We believe that people who are in communion with each other need to agree at least officially on important matters of faith and morals.
It is one of the greatest strengths and also one of the greatest weaknesses of Orthodoxy that we don't have this lockstep mentality. The autocephalous churches truly are autocephalous.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm not sure what you would appeal to to determine if a ruling on morals was "factually" correct. Do you mean if it follows from other moral teachings of the church? You can't get an "ought" from an "is." Morals aren't matters of "fact."
I disagree, one can get an "ought" from an "is" and morals are matters of fact. But I actually did not want to make a natural moral law argument here. I just sloppily used "factually" because it is a bit difficult to find a single word for the part of this that is not pastoral / political: doctrinally sound, logically coherent, practically discernible, scripturally proven, authoritatively decided... all that sort of stuff in due measure put together. The sort of thing one thinks about when one is not just considering one concrete case, or worried about the public impact.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's rather what I thought I was doing here. Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough?
Perhaps I simply do not think that one can discuss the pastoral / political side usefully without considering the "factual" side carefully first. I'm also not just talking to you on this thread, and it is quite possible that on occasion I simply write in a wider context than just addressing your concerns.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not logically, no. But I thought I had made it clear I wasn't talking about logic here. See previous comment.
I wasn't complaining about the logic, but about having to update my response every time you change your claim about what the parents may feel.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If you don't think their character has bearing on their decisions in moral areas, I'd say you are deluded about how human beings actually operate. This seems to me the problem some Catholics have who can't understand why the pedophile scandals have made people less trusting of the Catholic Church's moral authority.
Well, that is fair enough. However, this sort of prejudice is useful for times when a judgement is needed instantly, or perhaps when one cannot gather all the information required. It's then a way to make a "quick and dirty guess". Here however we are having a leisurely discussion based on a considerable range of source materials, with the internet being freely available to gather more information. There is then simply no excuse for shooting from the hip. We can evaluate the statements and actions of these bishops carefully, and we should be able to discern the truth. Or at least we should be able to discern the truth much better than just by saying "cronies of Putin are likely to make immoral decisions". Perhaps they are, but whether they did so in this case is what we are discussing here.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is one of the greatest strengths and also one of the greatest weaknesses of Orthodoxy that we don't have this lockstep mentality. The autocephalous churches truly are autocephalous.
I can see all too clearly how this is a weakness, but in what way is this a strength, precisely?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is one of the greatest strengths and also one of the greatest weaknesses of Orthodoxy that we don't have this lockstep mentality. The autocephalous churches truly are autocephalous.
I can see all too clearly how this is a weakness, but in what way is this a strength, precisely?
For one thing, if one church goes off the rails, the others can act as a corrective. Think Borgia Popes.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
For one thing, if one church goes off the rails, the others can act as a corrective. Think Borgia Popes.
I don't see how, at least not how in any systemic way. After all, your bishops are not particularly concerned by the crap that the bishops of Russia are spouting (assuming that it is crap for the sake of argument). After all, that is an autocephalous church to you. And if your bishops do make a decision that is contrary, then the Russian bishops need not be overly concerned with that either - after all, you are an autocephalous church to them, so what does it matter if you disagree?
I could theoretically see the potential for faster exploration there, i.e., in theory all your different autocephalous churches could trial different rulings, and then pick the best one to move forward. Except historically speaking we see no such dynamism at all. Whether you agree with the direction the RCC has taken or not, it is simply true that she is changing a lot faster than all Orthodox churches combined. And the reason for that seems obvious enough: you have no functional mechanism for evaluating and selecting from whatever diversity may arise.
I am not just shilling for the RCC in this case. I can see plenty of potential for organising her structure better than the shape into which she has grown. Perhaps even by relaxing the lockstep, as you say, in specific ways. But I really don't see much advantage in the current Orthodox system. Indeed, I would worry about its overall stability in modern times (where local change is starting to accumulate much more quickly). If the Russians take enough "wrong but who cares" decisions, then eventually their sum will become of serious concern to you. It's after all not as if you are communion with just everybody, or as if you have the Anglican ability to politely look the other way no matter what.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I'm new to this thread and haven't read all of it. Forgive me.
I understand that in Orthodoxy like in the RCC and quite a few places a priest will not baptize a child unless the parents agree to raise the kid in the faith and appear to actually mean that.
I do not think this is a discussion about the validity of any baptism of an infant where the parents do not really intend to raise the infant to believe in all the doctrines of the Church, but I am going to ask about it.
If an adult is baptized but does not intend to believe, for example, that surrogacy is sinful, is his/her baptism valid?
If an infant is baptized but her/his parents do not believe that surrogacy is sinful and do not intend to teach the child that, is the infant's baptism valid?
The reason the Church refuses to baptize babies when the parents don't seem that they will really raise the child in the faith may have nothing to do with validity. But I am interested in the validity nonetheless.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274
|
Posted
Surely one's opinion on surrogacy does not rise to the level occupied by core doctrine such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the sacrifical nature of the Eucharist and Christ's Real Presence under the outward forms of bread and wine in the Eucharist. I am unaware that RC priests normally refuse to baptise infants whose parents are almost certainly using artificial contraception (I'm not suggesting the parents would be gratuitously interrogated about the matter, but rather that a combination of observation of circumstances, general knowledge regarding fertility and human sexuality, and timing of child-bearing in any particular instance would tend to reveal quite a lot to anyone thinking about a particular case; nonetheless, RC clergy don't appear to deny baptism to the children of contraception-using "cafeteria Catholics" AFAIK).
[ 09. January 2014, 20:06: Message edited by: Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras ]
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
If an adult is baptized but does not intend to believe, for example, that surrogacy is sinful, is his/her baptism valid?
I'm neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but would assume that the answer is yes. We are baptised on our belief in Jesus Christ, not our opinion about something else.
Also, baptism is the beginning of the journey. I hope no church withholds baptism from all those who have not yet got everything right.
On this particular issue, having a speculative view about whether surrogacy is sinful or not is relatively unimportant unless you start doing something about it, hiring someone to bear your child, renting out your womb, or working in the industry.
Also, being baptised doesn't suddenly make everything that was sinful, OK.
quote:
If an infant is baptized but her/his parents do not believe that surrogacy is sinful and do not intend to teach the child that, is the infant's baptism valid? ....
Again, I would have thought, obviously, yes. I would have thought everyone is agreed that baptism is objective.
Again, also, there's a difference between whether this is a fundamental and significant part of the family belief system, e.g. because the child was born that way, or because that is how one of the parents earns their living, or is just something remote and in the background, of no particular relevance.
The actual question though, isn't about validity, but whether it is a good practice or an abuse for churches to baptise people who don't seem to intend to live a Christian life or bring up their child to.
I get the impression that most ecclesial communities have moved their position on this over the last 60 years or so. Very few would now say that baptism, automatically, objectively and mechanically, bestows regeneration and salvation on babies, irrespective of what sort of instruction they later receive or whether they subsequently appropriate Christian faith for themselves.
If it were as simple as that, it would be a good thing and a work of virtue to go round baptising all and sundry, the more the merrier. There have been people in the past who acted as though they believed this was so. I get the impression that is now either unknown or very rare.
[ 09. January 2014, 20:23: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Um...well I think that the RCC believes that if a child is baptized and dies before reaching the age of reason, the child is going straight to heaven. The RCC isn't so sure about unbaptized children before the age of reason, and it isn't so sure that such children would go to "Limbo," if such a thing exists, either, but it places its hope in God's mercy for such cases.
As for children baptized as infants who reach the age of reason, the remaining graces of the sacrament that would work in the child's remaining in life and after death are (correct me if I'm wrong) still there, but don't take effect unless the child chooses to continue in living and believing in the faith.
Not baptizing a child with parents who don't seem intent on teaching the doctrine of the Church to their children might be bad for other reasons, but the reason I asked about validity is that the RCC at least (and I think Eastern Orthodoxy but correct me if I'm wrong) thinks that baptism is very important for the salvation of children for the reasons listed above. So I'm inclined to think that as long as all baptisms of infants using the correct form and matter are valid, the parents should be given the benefit of the doubt and more infant baptisms would always be a blessing. But that is why I am asking about any effect of the parents' intent on the validity of an infant baptism. Any RC or Orthodox(or non-RC and non-Orthodox experts of RC and Orthodox doctrine) hair-splitters want to tackle this?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
Another vote for renegade baptisms here! The idea of withholding God's grace from a child in order to manipulate the child's parents is just...repugnant to me. (And, as others here have noted, while I myself have some real issues with the practice of surrogacy, I'd hardly put desperate infertile parents using a surrogate mother in the same category as parents in blatant apostasy.)
Surrogacy may indeed be exploitative in many cases, especially in countries like Russia with a lot of vulnerable and easily exploitable women/manipulative menfolk and not a lot of legal protection or governmental oversight...but, again, the baby involved is an innocent party in all this. And while you can harangue infertile couples endlessly about legal adoption as a better option all around...people don't always think rationally when it comes to parenthood. Rather than pushing families away from the Church, I'd think the Church would do better to use this opportunity to reach out to them and bring them into a reconciled relationship (maybe one that includes thoughtful, empathetic faith formation that helps people make better ethical decisions?).
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
