Two months ago media Reported an article by erstwhile Irish president Mary McAleese on the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, which would violate the rights of the kid enshrined in the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the kid (UNCRC) of 1989. Both Ireland and the Holy See as members of the United Nations should so respect their records and, in Mary MacAleeze's opinion, break them by giving Baptism to infants. For apparent reasons, they cannot give their consent to the sacrament, and according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, baptism has invariable consequences. Her writing met with answers I find exhausting. However, it seems interesting to compose articles with specified mediocre ones, and is it worth the effort at all? Eventually, in a time of liberalism and spiritual freedom, 1 might say, “You do not want the Baptism of infants, then you do not take them to him.” But possibly there is simply a good reason (of course not in Catholic perspective) and it is worth protecting abroad children from being included in the Church before they can consciously consent?
Responses to the article
One of the Catholic bishops referred to the erstwhile president. And to quote, The river basin portal.pl :
Bishop Alphonsus Cullinan, average of the Diocese of Waterford and Lismore, explained in an interview with the EWTN station News that baby baptism is simply a common practice in most Christian denominations and has been practiced in the Church since the first century. “Jesus gives us the command to go and baptize. So the Church baptizes in obedience to a clear command that is based on the Bible. Therefore, the baptism of infants, which incorporates them into the Body of Christ, or the Church, making them children God is very good," he said.
The same article besides reads a passage of the answer given by Mahon McCann, a philosopher, an ethic from the University of Dublin. Raised in an atheistic household and baptized last year after his own conversion, he argues:
“My parents simply ‘canned in their heads the fact about the Resurrection’ and stopped going to Mass, etc., as many Catholics today. The Church has no legal means to force anyone to prosecute holiness... alternatively of judging baby baptism by the prism of “laws”, 1 should ask: “Are human rights the right ethical standard to measure Catholic moral theology? ” ” "The answer is no," he said. "Catholic moral theology has a teleological character, it is aimed at the holiness of the person. Therefore, what leads to holiness is “good” and what draws distant from it is “bad”. The ethics of human rights is not aimed at achieving holiness and so is not the right framework for assessing Catholic sacraments or practices."
And here is the question, why the criticism? In the end, raising children involves giving them patterns, showing them good and bad, and preparing for a future life of their own, including measuring the consequences of their actions and decisions. Leaving their children with their spiritual life to choose and direct is any bizarre breach in the logic of parenting. At the same time, a kid must be taught the right attitudes, but only in human relations, in relation to the state and society, but not religion. Can parents be trusted with politics, but not religion? Is baptism the only problem? And what follows, another sacraments, like Holy Communion (also should be for adults?). possibly you can talk about religion, but without giving your children what is most crucial in it? It seems completely incomprehensible. It is the Church who teaches about the inalienable consequences of baptism. No 1 can make anyone believe that. Could any philosophical strategy or another religion condemn a convert from Catholicism, if he had previously accepted Catholic Baptism? I don't think so. So I do not realize why the criticism of the sacrament is so strong, if its effects are spiritual, and in Catholic optics, alternatively than the UN declaration referred to by MacAleese.
Real reasons?
It seems that this is simply a simple propaganda attack on the Church, like many others, which, creating the appearance of any philosophical cohesion, is only expected to give effect and strengthen the long-established stereotypes of KK. No reasonable individual will argue that a kid should decide for himself or all subjects that do not affect his biological endurance should be addressed only after he has reached maturity. People have different views on many things, and this is besides due to accepting their parents’ views or to their conscious rejection. Each view can be changed whether it is based on reasonable and logical reasons, as well as completely unreasonable or emotional. Raising a kid doesn't take distant his freedom. Everyone can live after non-Catholic or formally execute apostasy. A single man is not traumatized that any strangely dressed man poured water on him erstwhile he was a fewer months old, since that's all baptism would have been for him.
The reasons may be different, but this does not seem like a sincere concern for children. It gives fuel to anti-cleric movements and a reason for seemingly rational reasoning, for those who do not plan to baptize the kid or do so not for spiritual reasons. Furthermore, as Bishop Collinan noted, baby baptism is not only a Catholic custom, but it is KK that is portrayed as ignoring the rights of the child. Is it a coincidence that MacAleese is referring to him? possibly so. She raised herself as a Catholic, so she refers to what she knows. Yet, it is the Holy See that should adapt to the UN Convention and adapt its own practices to its explanation of these documents. Even if it were interpreted decently and baptism violated the rights of the child, as defined by UN documents, they would not bind them. The full argument of the erstwhile president is that she is giving any dogmatic value to the papers of an global organization, while taking distant the right to the KK dogmas if they agree to legal files that are determined by people. And it's all due to the effects that Baptism gives and that only Catholics believe. As I wrote, it looks like another propaganda attack, with apparent content. And yet I decided to mention it even though the case is not fresh.
Satan’s Alternative
Yesterday St. Patrick's Day is simply a good excuse to bring up the subject late, after all, it is the festival of Ireland and its patron, who baptized it. I thought that possibly the consequences of baptism in the Catholic Church could be a problem for any people who do not want to have any communication with him. I full theoretically imagined that individual could realize the Catholic faith, agree that the planet "works" as described by the Church in accordance with Revelation, and yet rejects life seeking to save its soul. If a individual has free will, he can reject actual religion even by believing it. It is said that apart from Catholics, Orthodox and possibly respective more groups, the real presence of Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament must besides believe Satanists, since consecrated hosts are intercepted by them for desecration. Theoretically, this is how people may reason, not necessarily Satanism, who would deliberately reject the graces of Baptism. It could be in their interests to fight the Baptism of infants so that they may not receive graces that might aid them to save themselves, which they do not wish.
I do not want to build an atmosphere of horror here, but it is virtually Lucifer, or Satan, who deliberately chose the way against God's plan, even though better than people knew and understood what it meant. In this sense, knowingly rejecting the graces of Baptism would be satanic.
Does president MacAleese think in Satanic? most likely in the sense that all evil is his small victory. But I think it's just another attack on the KK dressed in man-care robes. As usual. Yet, dissuadeing people from the sacraments may make it hard for them to walk to salvation. So there's something to fight. And although on a higher level it's a spiritual struggle, it's just an intellectual effort and honesty. And it's worth it.
