Former president Mary McAleese. Only if spiritual communion with God were a bad thing would infant Baptism be a bad thing, writes Dr Gaven Kerr
Former president Mary McAleese has again taken aim at the issue of infant Baptism. In a recent address, she indicated that she believed that the practice of infant Baptism within the Church is problematic because it contracts the infant into the Church for life. In such circumstances the obligations placed on the infant are taken to be inconsistent with the infant’s inability to make any choice over being baptised.
It is telling that Dr McAleese speaks of the ‘Christening contract’ and envisages the Sacrament of Baptism as a contract between the baptised and the Church. This conjures affinities with the contractarian view of society. According to the latter, society is formed based on a contract that all members are taken implicitly to affirm. It is interesting that Dr McAleese thinks of Baptism in this way, not only because it is false, but also because on a contractarian view it is accepted (and taken to be acceptable) that infants born into society do incur obligations on the basis of an implicit affirmation to the social contract. Such obligations typically involve adherence to criminal law, accessing and remaining in education, involvement in the tax system etc. If Dr McAleese has no issue with society at large placing obligations on its members at whatever age and capability, then it is unclear why she would take issue with the Church placing obligations on its members.
Dr McAleese’s understanding
I noted in the previous paragraph that Dr McAleese’s conception of Baptism is interesting because it is false. Nowhere in the reports of her address is grace or sin mentioned. The very section of the Catechism which discusses the obligations of the baptised (n. 1269) does so within the context of the grace enjoyed by the one who is baptised. Such grace removes original sin and all personal sins up to that point (though of course for infants no personal sins have been committed). Not only that, the baptised individual is transformed into a new creature and is thereby better able to enter into a spiritual life with God.
Dr McAleese speaks of the obligations placed on the baptised. If we turn to the relevant canons in the Code of Canon Law (canons 208 – 231), these primarily indicate the various rights and privileges that the baptised have within the Church. Aside from the obligation to live a life of holiness, it is not the case that these canons place any kind of onerous obligations on the baptised, certainly no more onerous than those placed on an infant by the society into which he is born.
Let us consider a mundane example to bring out the force of this reasoning”
Dr McAleese speaks of these obligations as if they were inescapable. But this is simply incorrect, many of the baptised have unfortunately failed to live up to their Baptism and in turn ceased to practice their faith. Such individuals have done so with no consequence to their daily lives (though the consequences for the spiritual life is a different matter). By contrast, a person living in society cannot abandon his civil obligations to criminal law, education, taxation etc., without consequence.
Whilst Baptism is not a contract, and certainly not a social contract, it is the case that the baptised person enjoys some clear benefit in being baptised, i.e. freedom from sin and spiritual communion with God. These are goods that all humans are offered the privilege to enjoy. Given such goods, it is difficult to see how the Baptism of infants could not be a good thing. Let us consider a mundane example to bring out the force of this reasoning.
Spiritual communion
It is undeniably the case that parents should feed their children; failure to do so would be neglectful on the part of the parents. The infant precisely as infant is unable to feed or care for himself in this manner, and so the parents undertake to look after the child and make such choices for the child. Often parents do this not only because otherwise they would be neglectful, but because they love their children and even with something as mundane as eating, they seek to give their children what is best.
Similarly, then, in seeking out the good for their children, parents often seek to bring them into spiritual communion with God and to nourish that communion. This is done initially through the Sacrament of Baptism and maintained and nourished by the other sacraments. Only if spiritual communion with God were a bad thing would infant Baptism be a bad thing. But just as a good diet is something that parents seek to provide, so too Baptism leading to spiritual communion with God is a good that parents seek for their children at the earliest age. In providing for the Baptism of infants, the Church acts as a fundamental support and ally to parents in enabling their children to enjoy all the goods that come from spiritual life with God. In light of all of this, I must disagree with Dr McAleese’s assessment of infant Baptism, and give thanks to the Church and to God for my own Baptism and that of my children.