Catholic baptism of naked baby???

[bookworm14]

Is it a new thing now to strip a baby (8 month boy) stark naked at his baptism? I am apalled at this. I know the family and they say it is a new "dogma" of the Catholic Church. The baby had new clothes etc for his baptism, yet was stripped naked for his baptism by the priest. They don't even do immersion in that church, the last I heard. So what is behind this stripping? I suggested child abuse---perhaps the priest just wanted to see somebody naked and the baby was a likely target. The family knew about this in advance. :confused:
bookworm14

[Pavlov's Dog]

Not a big deal to me. Out of all the things Catholics do, naked baptisms do not even register on my radar.

[Teshi]

Call me crazy, but I'm guessing they just didn't want to get the clothes wet.

[mac_philo]

I see no problem here. You're being really judgmental and unfair.

Appalled? Abuse? Because a baby was naked? Uh...

I hope you don't literally mean you suggested abuse, as in you articulated this thought at an actual baptism.

[Revolutionary]

(1) It cannot possibly a dogma. A dogma is an authoritative truth claim, such as that Jesus was resurrected. This is a practice, like kneeling during the consecration.

(2) It's not a universal practice. It varies from church to church, from individual to individual. It's been happening for at least a decade, probably longer.

(3) Accusing the priest of perversion and child abuse is unfounded. There are plenty of sickos out there, but there are also a lot of good priests, too. Silly, but decent people.

[bookworm14]

Thanks for the comments. "Dogma" was the word the family used, I only repeated it here without comment. As for another point, suppose the person baptized was an 18 years old. Would the priest strip him/her naked for baptism? No? Then why do it to a baby?
bookworm14

[Pavlov's Dog]

As for another point, suppose the person baptized was an 18 years old. Would the priest strip him/her naked for baptism? No? Then why do it to a baby?
bookworm14

Because they want to do it that way.

[seebs]

I'll confirm that it's definitely not a dogma. I haven't heard anything like this before, but it sounds to me like they're just unclear on the concept.

The Catholics have an exceptionally thoroughly-developed set of teachings, as a result of which, most laymen have no clue what the Church teaches.

[premjan]

At 8 months, babies probably prefer to be without clothes.

[EthnAlln]

When I lived in Moscow 20 years ago, I attended Orthodox services. All children were baptized naked. I remember seeing a group of young women waiting to be baptized (this was a time of great upsurge for the church in Russia), so I thought it might be worth my while to hang around for a few more minutes. But they uncovered only their heads. :devil1:

[EthnAlln]

Is it a new thing now to strip a baby (8 month boy) stark naked at his baptism? I am apalled at this. I know the family and they say it is a new "dogma" of the Catholic Church. The baby had new clothes etc for his baptism, yet was stripped naked for his baptism by the priest. They don't even do immersion in that church, the last I heard. So what is behind this stripping? I suggested child abuse---perhaps the priest just wanted to see somebody naked and the baby was a likely target. The family knew about this in advance. :confused:
bookworm14

I really can't share your indignation. People ought to get used to seeing naked babies, and stop associating nudity with sexuality.

[Godless Dave]

While the Catholic Church as an institution has sheltered and enabled child molesters for decades, you're totally barking up the wrong tree here.

[BigJim]

The call of "child abuse" is definitely unfounded. The only people who would be traumatized by a naked 8-month old are non-parents who are insecure about their own sexuality.

[No Robots]

But dig the nekkid Confirmation. Rowwrr!

[Space Chef]

There are plenty of sickos out there, but there are also a lot of good priests, too. Silly, but decent people.

I'd like to believe this. Really.

[BigJim]

But dig the nekkid Confirmation. Rowwrr!Still a bit young for me. At least you didn't say "first communion".

[Matty]

hey shit. If you're willingly indoctinating your kid into the catholic church its only a matter of time, a couple years of sunday school say, before the priest will get their clothes off anyway.

Might as well get it out of the way early and in the open eh.

[No Robots]

Still a bit young for me. At least you didn't say "first communion".

I read from the book of Joel (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Only-The-Good-Die-Young-lyrics-Billy-Joel/956D520953E906A248256870001B64DD):

Come out Virginia, don't let me wait
You Catholic girls start much too late

[No Robots]

All jesting aside, Christian baptism was originally in the nude.

[Monty]

A baptism is more likely to "take" if the baby is totally naked. Sprinkling is not enough, these days.

[steamer]

All jesting aside, Christian baptism was originally in the nude.

Is there a special day for 18-24 year old women to be baptized in the nude? This might perk up attendance, hell, I'd be tempted to go to church myself.

I seem to be hardwired to want to see naked young women.

[No Robots]

Is there a special day for 18-24 year old women to be baptized in the nude? This might perk up attendance, hell, I'd be tempted to go to church myself.

I seem to be hardwired to want to see naked young women.

Well, don't forget that early Christians used to delay baptism until late in life in order to lessen the temptation to ruin the new paint job. So, as a deacon, you would probably be dipping little old Mrs. Snappledry from across the street.

[steamer]

Well, don't forget that early Christians used to delay baptism until late in life in order to lessen the temptation to ruin the new paint job. So, as a deacon, you would probably be dipping little old Mrs. Snappledry from across the street.

Spoilsport.

[Revolutionary]

"Dogma" was the word the family used, I only repeated it here without comment.Then the family is ignorant about their own religion. Like most Catholics.

[Revolutionary]

I'd like to believe this. Really.How many have you actually met?

[bookworm14]

I withdraw my comment about "abuse". However, in light of the troubles the Catholic Church has had with gay priests and real abuse etc, one would think that somebody in that hierarchy would see naked baptism of infants as another point of concern. And a further point---if adults choosing baptism can elect to do so while clothed, why strip a baby merely because he/she lacks the strength, knowledge, and language skills to protest?
bookworm14

[Hazy Daisy]

A baptism is more likely to "take" if the baby is totally naked. Sprinkling is not enough, these days.
:D Aha, that's it. They have to give better baptisms now, what with all the atheists these days making such a fuss, spouting noisy blasphemies everywhere and threatening to lead good Catholic children down the path to eternal damnation.

[windsofchange]

I withdraw my comment about "abuse". However, in light of the troubles the Catholic Church has had with gay priests and real abuse etc, one would think that somebody in that hierarchy would see naked baptism of infants as another point of concern. And a further point---if adults choosing baptism can elect to do so while clothed, why strip a baby merely because he/she lacks the strength, knowledge, and language skills to protest?
bookworm14

Babies are stripped bare naked in public all the time - as every woman who's entered a public restroom during diaper changin' time can testify. ;)

[Monty]

:D Aha, that's it. They have to give better baptisms now, what with all the atheists these days making such a fuss, spouting noisy blasphemies everywhere and threatening to lead good Catholic children down the path to eternal damnation.

Personally, I think the baptism ceremony should last 2 weeks with a steady drip of water to the forehead.

Fool proof.

[Coleslaw]

I withdraw my comment about "abuse". However, in light of the troubles the Catholic Church has had with gay priests and real abuse etc, one would think that somebody in that hierarchy would see naked baptism of infants as another point of concern. And a further point---if adults choosing baptism can elect to do so while clothed, why strip a baby merely because he/she lacks the strength, knowledge, and language skills to protest?
bookworm14

As soon as they develop the strength and skill, most kiddies manage to embarass their parents at least once by stripping naked and getting out in public. You're projecting your own reluctance to appear naked in public on the baby, who probably would have peeled out of his clothes himself if he had the strength and knowlege to do so.

[wallflower1996]

Is it a new thing now to strip a baby (8 month boy) stark naked at his baptism? I am apalled at this. I know the family and they say it is a new "dogma" of the Catholic Church. The baby had new clothes etc for his baptism, yet was stripped naked for his baptism by the priest. They don't even do immersion in that church, the last I heard. So what is behind this stripping? I suggested child abuse---perhaps the priest just wanted to see somebody naked and the baby was a likely target. The family knew about this in advance.

Most people see naked babies as cute, not as sexual objects. You are way out of line and, if anything, your reaction might make one wonder whether you have some unresolved issues yourself.

(Not to hijack the thread, but the Catholic Church "sex abuse" scandal was itself an overblown bunch of media-driven hooey. Most of the "victims" were consenting teenagers, not little kids--and they kept quiet for years or decades right until they smelled money. The real "scandal" was how many people bought it.)

[Matty]

whilst i agree that the OP is a bit OTT. (I mean the indoctrination is the truly child abusive part of the story, not the nakedness) ) The stateroom above seems to fly in the face of multiple reports. heres the Wiki (i know) entry but a google search seems to throw up many such claims including multiple references to the same cases mentioned below.
Early reports came mostly from the United States and Ireland. The John Jay Report[1] found accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA, about 4% of all priests.

The first cases to earn widespread publicity involved abuse of pre-pubescent children.[2] The "overwhelming majority"[3] of the abused children were boys. Some of the implicated priests, such as Paul Shanley, had been openly promoting adult-child sex since the 1960s.[4]

There had long been charges that a significant minority of the clergy had been practising such behaviour for decades, alleging that a "homosexual collective" within the priesthood viewed child sex abuse as a "religious rite" and "rite of passage" for altar boys and young priests.[5] While the reported sexual abuse dates primarily from the 1960s to 1980s,[6] some cases occurred in the 1990s and sexual abuse has also happened in past centuries: it was the topic of Pope Benedict XIV's apostolic constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae in 1741.
if nothing else the bolded part and your "consenting teens" version are certainly irreconcilable. So, any evidence to present that it was all a bunch of overblown, media exaggerated high jinks,Wallflower?

Not that i doubt such a thing is feasible but it would seem to not be the case in this particular incidence. At least with a quick look.

[Smohg]

(Not to hijack the thread, but the Catholic Church "sex abuse" scandal was itself an overblown bunch of media-driven hooey. Most of the "victims" were consenting teenagers, not little kids--and they kept quiet for years or decades right until they smelled money. The real "scandal" was how many people bought it.)

Well, if you consider persons past the age of puberty to be adults, than you are indeed correct.

But in our country, a person isn't sexually available until age 18 (unless all participants are under 18).

While it might be natural to view a sexually mature person as "sexy," obviously, the law trumps nature and 4 billion years of evolution. Surely, we are evolutionarily designed to procreate, but if you are 18 years old or older, and you find a person younger than 18 to be attractive.....


You're a pedophile.

[wallflower1996]

if nothing else the bolded part and your "consenting teens" version are certainly irreconcilable. So, any evidence to present that it was all a bunch of overblown, media exaggerated high jinks,Wallflower?

They are most certainly not irreconcilable if you read carefully. As for the evidence, basically the gay magazine The Advocate had an article a few years ago (I don't have the link) that concluded, persuasively, that it was a 'gay thing', not a 'pedophile thing' going on in the Church.

[wallflower1996]

Well, if you consider persons past the age of puberty to be adults, than you are indeed correct.

But in our country, a person isn't sexually available until age 18 (unless all participants are under 18).

While it might be natural to view a sexually mature person as "sexy," obviously, the law trumps nature and 4 billion years of evolution. Surely, we are evolutionarily designed to procreate, but if you are 18 years old or older, and you find a person younger than 18 to be attractive.....

You're a pedophile.

This is a breathtaking post, in that there isn't an ounce of truth in any of your analysis. It's not simply wrong on every relevant point, it's also wrong on every collateral point. So I fondly hope it was a stab at humor. In point of fact (1) the age of consent is 16 in more states than it is 17 or 18, (2) in many states there is no exception for same-age sex partners, (3) "pedophile" is a medical, not a legal designation, (4) that designation refers to persons who are pathologically attracted to prepubescent children, not 'minors', (5) the law "trumps nature" in a legal context, but not any other context, and (6) whether I "consider" adolescents to be "adults" was not a point in any earlier post of mine. You're batting .000 tonight.

[Godless Dave]

Not to hijack the thread, but the Catholic Church "sex abuse" scandal was itself an overblown bunch of media-driven hooey. Most of the "victims" were consenting teenagers, not little kids--and they kept quiet for years or decades right until they smelled money. The real "scandal" was how many people bought it.

I can't believe you buy that Catholic Defense League propaganda.

[Godless Dave]

While it might be natural to view a sexually mature person as "sexy," obviously, the law trumps nature and 4 billion years of evolution. Surely, we are evolutionarily designed to procreate, but if you are 18 years old or older, and you find a person younger than 18 to be attractive.....


You're a pedophile.

Nope, you're a pederast. And the law doesn't care if you find a person younger than the age of consent to be attractive, it only cares if you act on it.

[wallflower1996]

I can't believe you buy that Catholic Defense League propaganda.

I've never seen a document by the Catholic Defense League.