HOME  Why its a mistake to give the Catholic Church support via membership or donations

 

EMERGENCY BAPTISM: WHEN THE CATHOLIC RELIGION FORCES ITS VALUES ON OTHERS AND UPSETS PEOPLE
 

"It was one of the worst results of infant baptism, that by making membership in the Christian Church mechanical and outward, it made it cheap; and so paved the way for the persecutor" F C Conybeare M.A., Oxford


The Roman Catholic Church says it is gravely important to have babies baptised as soon as possible. If a baby may die, the Church permits emergency baptisms. For example, the midwife may baptise a newborn baby that appears to be dying. The Church expects all staff in a Catholic hospital to be trained to perform emergency baptism and to be willing to do it.  While there is controversy about what happens in the afterlife to an unbaptised child the Church says baptising a baby is of extreme importance.  Get the water before the medicine.  That doctrine is unalterable for Jesus allegedly stressed that there is no seeing of the kingdom of God unless you are born of water and the spirit.

 John R Connery, S. J., in Hospital Progress of April 1959 which is the Official Journal of the Catholic Hospital Association explains what to do if a baby that is not the child of Catholic parents falls into danger of death in hospital.  ,Q. Are you obliged to tell the parents of an infant baptized in danger of death, if the parents are not Catholics? What if the parents resent it and refuse to raise the child a Catholic?  A. Ordinarily it is not permitted to baptize children of non-Catholic parents against their wishes. To do so would be to violate the rights of these parents. . . . When there is danger of death, however, the Church makes an exception, although even in this emergency primary responsibility for the child’s spiritual welfare belongs to the parents. . . . It is only when the parents, through neglect or for reasons of their own, fail to provide for the baptism of the child, or when the emergency does not allow even sufficient time to warn the parents, that the Church permits a Catholic minister to baptize the child. In this case the Church’s concern over the future religious education of the child . . yields to the child’s immediate spiritual need. Similarly the wishes of parents must give way in these circumstances to the child’s own right to the means of salvation. It will be permissible to baptize the child even without the knowledge or permission of the parents. . .. If a child in these circumstances lives through the emergency, the question arises about the advisability of informing the parents of the baptism. . . . We can say that it would not be necessary, or even advisable, to acquaint non-Catholic parents with the fact that their child had received an emergency baptism unless there is good reason to believe that they would not resent it’.  There is even a rule for baptising unconscious adults! It goes, "In most cases it will not be advisable to acquaint the person with the fact that he was baptized unless it becomes clear that he would have wanted baptism under the circumstances."

What if a baby is dying in the womb?  From a Catholic book by Father Slater:

"The question also occurs whether a mother, who is still living but who cannot bring forth her child alive, is bound to undergo a serious operation like Caesarian section in order to insure the eternal welfare of her child by Baptism. Of course she may not undergo the operation if it would be the immediate
cause of her own death. The mother must not be killed even for the salvation of the child. Even if her health and condition are such that in all probability she could stand the operation, yet it is probable that she is under no obligation to submit to it. The child can with sufficient certainty be baptized in the womb, and even if the operation were performed, greater certainty that the child would still be alive and capable of Baptism can seldom be obtained. In such circumstances no strict obligation to undergo a serious operation can be imposed on the mother."

This does not change the fact that Church is still SUGGESTING she tries to have the baby removed so it can be baptised.  It does not enforce it and as we will see that is just about keeping itself out of trouble.  It still makes the Church hypocritical.  The Church gets away with suggesting the barbarity even though that is as disgusting as enforcing it.  That is just the way society is.

The assertion that the mother must not be killed even for the salvation of her child seems to be a concession to secular thinking.  Is the Church worrying it will be seen as extremist if it says she must be killed?  No - the idea is that the killers of the mother cannot sacrifice their salvation for that of the child for it is a mortal sin to kill.  But that contradicts the doctrine of double-effect.  The idea is that if you have to commit a necessary evil the side-effects are not your fault or doing.  So to risk the life of the mother to get the baby baptised means it is nature that is really to blame for killing her not you. It is clear that the doctrine that baptism must be given at all costs. 

In countries where is a strong Catholic presence, ambulances carry holy water and a leaflet that tells them how to baptise. The medics and drivers are expected to baptise babies who have just died or who are dying even if it is against their conscience and they are not baptised themselves. This is a disgrace.

No matter what, the cruelty follows from the doctrine that baptism is of maximum importance and what we want to think does not change that.  A doctrine with disgusting implications that that hurts so much as one person needs to go to the spiritual lavatory. 
 
The main points concerning this issue are:
 
# If you are in a position to judge Jesus as the perfect role model and to dedicate a child to him by baptism then you must be even more perfect for you are claiming to be in a position to judge. The humility of Christianity is really arrogant self-aggrandizement. The God you adore more than God can be seen in the mirror.
 
# Nobody has the right to give parents reason to worry that their baby may not have been properly baptised or may suffer if it is not baptised.
 
# Medical professionals have even less of a right to do that to parents.
 
# It is hideous to say that God's grace is needed to get you into Heaven and this grace corrects the moral and spiritual defects in you and that receptivity to grace is administered to babies in baptism. This is clearly forced conversion where the child is anti-God by default and then forced to be receptive by baptism. The implication is that the force is justifiable for the baby is so bad.
 
# The practice reminds parents of Church teaching that failing to baptise harms the baby. They have trauma enough without that. The baptism implies they are bad parents if they do not get the child baptised and the child ends up receiving an emergency baptism.
 
# The principle behind emergency baptism is that it can be done without or against the consent of the parents. It forces Catholicism on the babies of Muslims etc. You make yourself bad in principle by tolerating it. Canon law 867 requires that babies be baptised without delay even if the parents are not present and the parents would oppose the baptism if they knew. The principle underlying the baptism shows disregard for parental rights.
 
# Nobody will be able to give an adequate account of the case for baptising the baby. It is not based on evidence but on fear.
 
# The parents have extra torment if the baptism is conditional - meaning the baptising person has to say "If you are alive then I baptise you." Imagine doing such a thing to the parents of a stillborn child! Even seeing attempts to have the child baptised will be extremely upsetting.
 
# Catholic baptism is intended to bring the baby under Canon Law so the parents get the obligation to treat the baby as a Catholic and have him or her indoctrinated as one. There are other religions similar to Catholicism so it should be left up to the child when she or he is old enough.
 
# It is not right considering few parents know enough about religion and its controversies to make an informed decision to baptise their child or have her baptised. Imagine then how bad it is to baptise behind their back or while considering their consent unimportant?
 
# There have been cases where getting medical help has been put on the back burner as giving the baptism is put first. Even if this does not happen, the Church says in principle baptism should be put first. This is essentially religious derangement. It still shows what kind of people are in the Church.
 
# Religion has to be kept out of public life. The hospital or the doctor is paid by public funds and should be neutral on religion.

# We would not tolerate the insensitivity displayed by the Church in the medical profession so why does religion get an exception? And it is extreme insensitivity.

There are other obscene principles involved. There are gruesome guidelines about how to baptise a child with a needle that is still in the womb. The Church commands that if only a foot can be reached by water then touch it with water and do the baptism. It requires that if the baby survives and is born that it must be baptised again in case the first baptism didn't work.
 
If it is uncertain if the baby is alive or dead, the baptising person must say "If you are alive then I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
 
If something is delivered and nobody is sure what it is, the formula is, "If you are a man then I baptise you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

It is interesting that the Church doesn't demand that the baptism must be performed by a male if any is available.
 
There was a car crash in St Petersburg in Russia. A baby boy had head injuries and instead of getting medical help, the parents took him to a Church for an urgent baptism. He died.

If baptism is so important - and as Christians are given the right to believe unbaptised babies will never enter Heaven - then surely one should use boiling water if one has to?  Better to scald a baby that is dying anyway than to let her go to the hellfire of Limbo - despite Limbo being popularised as a nice place this is asserted by the Church to be a mere opinion meaning that the horrific alternative is still possible and an option.  Some parts of the Church believe that you need baptism and communion to be saved even if you are a baby.  Infants were forced to consume bread and wine though they were too sick to do so.  It has in several cases even been forced into the corpses of babies.

Should doctors and medical personnel administer baptism and teach medical students to do the same?

No. They should be suspended for performing emergency baptisms and facilitating them. They are employees of the state in state hospitals and religion is not their concern or business. They are forcing religion on the babies when it is not their place.

You can imagine scenarios where emergency baptisms are frequent.  They have been frequent in certain times of crisis.  Mass baptisms of sick babies by sprinkling can take place in war-time.  The emergency baptism shows how mechanical Catholicism is.  The faith would wish it could give emergency baptism to all people if it could in the guise of protecting them from the devil and Hell.

Finally, with baptism of babies we seem to have presumed consent.  But in fact we do not - parents and godparents decide for the child.  If a child has god receptors turned off by original sin then there is no consent of any kind.  It is the opposite.  The child does not want baptism.