In the context of a broader article that claims that the rates of baptism in all Christian churches are falling, USA Today states a clear falsehood, at worst, or oversight, at best. It quotes a Fr. Paul Sullins, a sociologist at Catholic University of America, as saying that the Church no longer requires the Catholic in a mixed marriage to promise to have the children baptized.
Fewer Catholics are choosing to marry in the church, and Sullins says they may be less “attached to the sacraments.” And, since a change in church law in 1983, Catholics who marry non-Catholics no longer must promise to baptize and rear their children as Catholics.
Now the church requires only “a general recognition by the couple that the Catholic partner’s faith will be respected.”
That is clearly wrong. Canon 1125 says that before a Catholic can enter into a marriage with a non-Catholic Christian, he must receive the permission of the bishop who is to require certain conditions to be met, including the following: “The Catholic party ... makes a sincere promise to do all in his or her power to have all the children baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church.” Canon 1059, regarding marriage with a non-baptized person would seem to apply the same requirement to children of that marriage.
The whole article appears to be a mish-mash anyway, mixing up the Catholic sacrament with the practices of Protestant denominations. Even the this statement seems confused:
The Catholic Church has more than doubled in size in the past half-century, but its rate of infant baptism steadily has fallen, Sullins says.
Which means what? In order to become a Catholic one must be baptized, either upon entry or previously in a non-Catholic church or ecclesial community. So if the size of the Church doubled, then a fall in the rate of infant baptism only speaks to the method by which people are entering the Church, not the overall health of the Church. By definition, 100 percent of Catholics are baptized.
Well, except one of the principal means for people to become Catholic in the past has been by being born to Catholic parents and being baptised as an infant.
The number of people we take in through the front door is highly misleading I think. We lose huge numbers out the back, including many new Catholics every year. They slip out and are not counted, althought they are still on the books as Catholic.
I think the number of actual Catholics we have is fairly represented only by the number who show up on holy days, which are not big cultural hooplas (Aug 15th etc)—and it’s rather small.
I think the article implies that through immigration (probably hispanic immigration) the number of Catholics has doubled in this country while the number of infant Baptisms have declined.
Liam: Irrelevant. Sullins said the law has changed. It has not.
Christmas is interesting around here. There are a LOT of clearly non-Catholic visitors. While that is generally good because they’re in Church, I am troubled about it at times because they get up and get in the Holy Communion line almost without fail. No one seems willing to explain to them from the front of the Church what’s the proper way to proceed under the circumstances.
A few years ago, on Christmas eve, I found a host in a hymnal at Midnight Mass. Interesting. I suspect it was received by someone who didn’t quite know what to do…..
And this last Palm Sunday I’m almost sure that the couple next to me were unchurched but they went to Holy Communion……
I put the post above in this thread because I think it’s germaine to the conversation in this way: I believe that a fair share of the people we see are sort of intermittently in and out of the church and some are frank visitors.
It would be interesting to find out exactly how many practicing (mass every sunday and holy day + confession at Eastertime) people there are.
Yes, Oremus. It is very hard to tell.