Christening/ baptism should I or shouldn't i?

GracieP

JBD wrote: »

Sorry, I have just read Gracie P's post. I was speaking from the perspective of the Cof E. I agree that is a different situation.

From the perspective of the CofE it definitely is different. If someone wants to leave the Anglican church they can. If when the OP said Catholic she meant the Reformed Catholic church, ie Anglicanism, then yes it's very different. But if she meant what most people do when the say Catholic, ie Roman Catholic, then it does matter because the baptised may never be able to (politically) leave.

POPPYOSCAR

January20 wrote: »

LilacPixie, I am from a RC family - but non believers really. My parents don't go to church and I went to Sunday School (or rather French equivalent until I was 11). I think it was more tradition that belief that made my parents get us all christened. We didn't do our communion either. I did feel a little left out of it at the time as all my other friends were doing theirs but it didn't scar me for life.

I now wish my parents hadn't got me christened because as an adult I consider myself an atheist but there is nothing I can do to revoke my christening. The church won't allow it. I will forever be part of the RC church and it bugs me no end as I had no choice in the matter, and my anti-religion beliefs now are very strong.

If you get your children christened you remove any choice from them.

ETA: Hopefully, your dd will make friends with all kind of children from all kind of religious and cultural backgrounds, so feeling excluded shouldn't be a problem unless you raise her solely in a RC environment.

This is interesting.

I was also raised as a Roman Catholic,did all the usual and went to catholic schools.

However, I do not call myself a catholic and it means nothing to me that I was brought up in that faith.

Surely all that matters is what is in your own heart not that you were put through some pretty meaningless rituals?

poet123

Person_one wrote: »

I think GracieP's post was very interesting.

Religions are a lot like political organisations these days. Imagine if your parents signed you up to be a member of their political party when you were a baby and you couldn't come off the 'books' as an adult! It might not have any major impact on your life but it would still be galling to know that officially, your name is forever associated with something you want no part of.

Not really, membership of a political party is dependent on paying dues, renewing membership etc not a ritual/rite.

Being baptised as a baby is a choice made for you and it not a final choice until you are confirmed at 15ish. If you have only been baptised and not confirmed you have not personally made the choice and for all intent and purposes you are not a full member of the church.

Data on Christenings is used for demographic purposes, rather than political purposes. How many new church schools/class places etc.

Lotus-eater

GracieP wrote: »

No it's wrong factually, lotus-eater made a statement that was incorrect in saying a baptism is of no consequence. It does make a difference because once you have been baptised you are a number which they use for political influence and you can never make them stop using you thus. That's an objective situation with nothing subjective about it.

I said it was of no consequence to THEM. I wish everybody would stop nit picking on this forum, it really gets up my nose.

It's great for you that you hate and want to attack the Catholic church. Maybe start your own thread.

Lotus-eater

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Well duh , you would have to know first whether they were or weren't, otherwise it wouldn't work would it? :rotfl:

Why? Probably because the majority of religious people I've met have been lovely people, who have good morals and a strong belief in doing the right thing.
Their right thing, usually fits in with my right thing.

Person_one wrote: »

Your first sentence is the clue as to why that's a pretty stupid idea.

My first sentence?

You mean where I say you'd have to know????

So why would that make my choice a silly idea? If I didn't know I couldn't pick.

GracieP

poet123 wrote: »

Not really, membership of a political party is dependent on paying dues, renewing membership etc not a ritual/rite.

Being baptised as a baby is a choice made for you and it not a final choice until you are confirmed at 15ish. If you have only been baptised and not confirmed you have not personally made the choice and for all intent and purposes you are not a full member of the church.

Data on Christenings is used for demographic purposes, rather than political purposes. How many new church schools/class places etc.

Sorry but your post is incredibly naive and also factually wrong in 2 parts.

1. The baptismal register is relevant as far Catholic member numbers is concerned, the confirmation register is irrelevant in that regard.

2. In most regions confirmation is made at 12.

3. The baptismal figures are regularly used by Papal Nuncios for political negotiations. For example, as I have outlined they are used as a bargaining chip in the Church's refusal to pay the damages they have been court ordered to pay against their victims. They are used to prevent prosecutions of abusers and conspirators. This is why the Church has amended Canon Law to stop defections. They don't want to amend the baptism register because doing so reduces their influence.

GracieP

Lotus-eater wrote: »

I said it was of no consequence to THEM. I wish everybody would stop nit picking on this forum, it really gets up my nose.

So it's of no consequence to anyone if they are used to influence political decisions they disagree with against their will? You have a very strange definition of consequence.

Lotus-eater

GracieP wrote: »

So it's of no consequence to anyone if they are used to influence political decisions they disagree with against their will? You have a very strange definition of consequence.

Look we get it, you hate the Catholic church. I think you have a very strange definition of consequence tbh and I can't see many people worrying about it. But well done for bringing it to the fore.

poet123

GracieP wrote: »

Sorry but your post is incredibly naive and also factually wrong in 2 parts.

1. The baptismal register is relevant as far Catholic member numbers is concerned, the confirmation register is irrelevant in that regard.

2. In most regions confirmation is made at 12.

3. The baptismal figures are regularly used by Papal Nuncios for political negotiations. For example, as I have outlined they are used as a bargaining chip in the Church's refusal to pay the damages they have been court ordered to pay against their victims. They are used to prevent prosecutions of abusers and conspirators. This is why the Church has amended Canon Law to stop defections. They don't want to amend the baptism register because doing so reduces their influence.

You consider my post niave and I consider yours tainted by your familial experiences.

On a personal level you are not a full member of the church until confirmed at whatever age is deemed appropriate. It is around 14 here. At that point you make a choice. If you choose not to take the religion any further you are free to do so.

It is not possible to "undo" a rite or ritual, it has happened, the baptism register reflects that event. Its existence does not bind you to the church.

Anything beyond that is immaterial to most people. You are obviously not most people and it matters to you personally. My point was that in general it does not matter to others who are now atheist but were once baptised. As has been shown on this thread.

I see no merit in broadening the discussion to the issues raised in point 3 as I personally see no correlation.

Person_one

poet123 wrote: »

I see no merit in broadening the discussion to the issues raised in point 3 as I personally see no correlation.

What? That's the most important bit? :eek: