CANON LAW APPEALS TO REASON AS A GIFT OF GOD AND THUS SHOWS THAT TRYING TO USE INFANT BAPTISM TO MAKE A CHILD A CHRISTIAN FAILS

SATIS COGNITUM asserts: “the Church is visible because she is a body.  Hence they err in a matter of divine truth, who imagine the Church to be invisible, intangible, a something merely “pneumatological” as they say, by which many Christian communities, though they differ from each other in their profession of faith, are untied by an invisible bond."  This doctrine contradicts the notion that babies are put into the Church by baptism for if no baby was raised Catholic it would not make any sense to say the Church was real.  It rejects the notion that something like spiritual DNA is given to you by baptism to make you a Catholic.

Canon Law points to how God gave us the gift to think and regulate his society the Church.  If that is true then any irrational laws it gives are not laws at all.  They are null.

As an entity that is about social prestige and influence, it is not surprising that the Catholic Church does not really care if parents don't take baptismal commitments seriously and come along with a child for baptism. This is a rite of initiation into the Church. It confers rules on the child. It supposedly makes the baby a member of the Church.

It takes little thought to see that baptism confers pretend membership of the Church on a baby. You cannot make a baby a member of a sports club so why would you think a baby can be made a member of the Church?

And if the baby is inclined to rebel against God from conception as the Church says and needs baptism to heal this trait, surely you are forcing your will on the baby by baptising it or having it baptised? If the baby had a choice it would most probably choose what is called evil by the Church - namely a normal life that doesn't worry much about God or popes or what the Bible says. In other words, it doesn't want baptism for it doesn't want to be healed.
 
Baptism religiously speaking is a more important step than marriage. Yet if a child weds, the wedding will be considered to be invalid because the child didn't fully understand what she or he was doing. So how can we recognise a baptism if the child chooses to be baptised without fully understanding it? Religious people will feel uncomfortable at the thought of a child validly choosing baptism so why do they feel okay about a baby being baptised? Christian teaching regards the enforced baptism of a child from seven upwards as invalid. "If an adult lack the intention of receiving the sacrament, he must be rebaptized. But if there be doubt about this, the form to be used should be: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee." See Summa, Question 68, Article 7. Whether the intention of receiving the sacrament of Baptism is required on the part of the one baptized?
 
The claim that the baby is not forced into God's kingdom for it cannot care one way or the other is strange in the light of the Christian doctrine of original sin that we all have an innate opposition to God that we must fight all our lives.
 
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.
 
Religionists often say they get their babies baptised but will not force the religion on the child though they will try and influence the child to live up to the baptism and believe what baptism obligates the child to believe. If they are really concerned about treating the child fairly, if they really believe the child should decide when old enough, then it must be wrong to impose a religion on that child to give that child the bother of perhaps renouncing the religion later on! They claim that baptism confers an obligation on the child to believe and obey the faith that baptises it. They are making out that if a child rejects the baptism or church membership that the child is letting them down and breaking loyalty and has no sense of duty to the faith. They are urging the child to live up to the baptism on pain of sin and everlasting torment in Hell. In other words, they are acting like spiritual bullies. They are bigoted.
 
You can be validly initiated into a political group against your will - but only in a legal sense. This initiation is only a social or legal construct. It is not a true initiation unless your heart is in it. It is just like we have to legally pretend that a marriage still exists when the husband and wife hate each other. When they get a divorce we can stop pretending. We need the pretending to make life smoother. We can't declare a marriage over or at least temporarily non-existent every time the husband and wife fall out - though it is true! Our social and legal constructions involve pretending. It would be mad to say that God needs to pretend that a baby is a Catholic just because we have to pretend that a man and woman are married though they hate each other. It would be insulting him!
 
You might receive a provisional or assumed initiation at baptism as a baby but it doesn't become real until you grow up and accept it. And naturally if you can accept it, you can reverse this acceptance as well. You can undo the initiation.

Christians continually chant how we must love the sinner and hate the sin. Without that doctrine there is no point in having religion. And it would follow that God does not love all people and loves nobody if all are sinners as Jesus said. This is really saying you must hate the sinner while not admitting it. If they separate the sin from the sinner they are pretending that the sinner is not responsible for the sin. They don't really believe this for they say that when a good person does wrong that they have seen another side to that person! In other words, they admit that there is no such thing as sin really but only sinful persons. Sin describes what a person has become, it describes their character. The hypocrisy that is intrinsic to Christianity and the pretending they do that God loves sinners and hates sins shows that any consent to accept that faith is invalid.  The doctrine is pure virtue signalling and it tries to sweeten you up by treating you as an identity or thing not as a personality.  Loving sinners means loving sins for sinners are personalities.

If you get confirmation when you are asleep, the rite has to be repeated for you were asleep. You can't get communion, you can't get confession, you can't get ordained, you can't get any sacrament barring baptism unless you are awake. With extreme unction, if you pass into a coma before you are anointed, the sacrament will not work if you went into the coma set against the idea of being anointed. So it depends on what your state of mind was before you passed into the coma. So consent is still necessary for it. So you need to give consent to get a sacrament and so it's a violation of your rights if you can't give it and are granted the sacrament. If it is a violation to give you a sacrament without your conscious consent at the moment of the rite imagine how big a violation baptism of a baby is.
 
Extreme unction is an exception for it is a sacrament for the sick or dying and so one might not be conscious. But it still requires your consent though, just that your conscious consent is unnecessary if you can't give it. Baptism violates the rights of the baby. It cares not a whit for consent. It cares even less when it can be given when the baby is asleep. At least if the child was awake it would be closer to the power to make consent. 

No canon decrees that baptism binds Catholics to Church Law. Canon Law merely assumes it. No canon says that Protestants are exempt from Canon Law though their baptism engrafts them into Jesus' Church. But it is taken for granted that they are exempt until they formally enter the Catholic Church. You could say Protestants think they are Protestants and don't realise they are Roman Catholics and bound to Roman Catholic law. The Church doesn't say that which amounts to a denial that baptism really confers membership in Catholicism. It is not fair to class a baby as Catholic for being baptised in the Church of Rome and Protestant if baptised in say a Presbyterian Church. An unfair law is to be opposed and disobeyed. Thus Catholics are not made Roman Catholics in reality or legally.

Also, suppose Canon Law did decree that baptism makes you a subject of the Pope in Roman Catholicism. This is based on the assumption that Roman Catholicism is the only Church that the sacrament of baptism really belongs to and the Church it is really meant for. If Roman Catholicism is not the only Church authorised by Christ then the Canon is invalidated.
 
The Church takes away the right to Catholic marriage if you are baptised and become Catholic and commit apostasy or have not repented of apostasy. It is a block to real marriage and gives the spouse the right to separate. Apostasy is reasonable for Catholicism is a false religion.

The law in many countries allows transgender people to legally change the gender stated on their birth certificate to the gender they believe themselves to be. Clearly there is a right to have your baptism to be declared to be a farce. One must be allowed to have it declared invalid and not a true baptism. Transgender people have the right to change birth certificates so we have the right to have baptismal certificates declared useless. We have a right to declare that we were never validly baptised and were never made true Catholics.
 
If enrolling your baby in the gym cannot make it a true member of the gym but only a nominal or pretend one, surely trying to enrol him or her in the Church is far sillier if it is true that our nature is to live without God? It is really down to a refusal to accept your baby as a person, they have to be accepted as a Catholic.