Why Are There No Baptisms During Lent?

[anp1215]

Originally Posted by zenith15

Usually this is because the parish has a backup of baptisms needed and not enough priests to perform the function in a timely manner. Parents and godparents must take classes, godparents must be approved, etc. This can take time, depriving the infant of a timely baptism.

That's why all of this should be done during the pregnancy, not after the birth. Parents have enough to do/worry about when they have a newborn without coordinating the baptism. Unfortunately I think almost no one does these things during the pregnancy anymore.

[Joe Kelley]

Originally Posted by zenith15

Usually this is because the parish has a backup of baptisms needed and not enough priests to perform the function in a timely manner. Parents and godparents must take classes, godparents must be approved, etc. This can take time, depriving the infant of a timely baptism.

In this area they do group baptisms. I don't see anything to limit the number of baptisms that one priest or deacon can do in an afternoon. I would note that Peter and the apostles did three thousand baptisms that first afternoon [Acts 2:41]

[jwinch2]

Originally Posted by Tarpeian Rock

I have an idea that some pastors feel Baptisms during Lent (and possibly Advent) are inappropriate (being joyful and celebratory occasions) vs. what are considered penitential periods (more true of Lent than Advent).

That was the line of reasoning I thought of when I first saw the OP's post. However, we still have feast days during Lent so that really doesn't stack up when you think about it a bit deeper.

[Inego de Loyola]

Originally Posted by Tarpeian Rock

Except this is a directive that by definition cannot be enforced. What's the alternative -- if you delay your child's Baptism, we'll refuse to perform it? Self-contradictory, self-defeating, and inconsistent with the Church's emphasis on the importance of the Sacrament.

Wait a cotton pickin' minute here! We don't have to abide by the wishes of holy mother church because she can't enforce them?

I didn't say that we should excommunicate people for baptizing their kids at the age of 3 only that the church is unambiguous in her desire they be baptized in the first few weeks. Pardon me if I believe in following the laws of the church even if I can't be jailed for breaking them.

[Phemie]

Originally Posted by jwinch2

That was the line of reasoning I thought of when I first saw the OP's post. However, we still have feast days during Lent so that really doesn't stack up when you think about it a bit deeper.

I don't know how much it has to do with being a joyful occasion. This practice, or should I say 'avoidance', springs from the same type of thinking that comes up with removing the holy water from the fonts for Lent and replacing it with sand because "we are a desert people".

It would make some sense if all the babies were actually baptized at the Easter Vigil, but I don't know many parents who are willing to come to that celebration with newborns or 4 or 5 week old babies. In all my years attending the Vigil, I've seen infant baptism twice. Being involved in baptismal preparation I know that most families reject the idea immediately because the Vigil starts late and runs so long. Add a baptism and you've got another 20 minutes or so added to an already 'too long' ceremony, the reason usually given for cutting the OT readings to the mandatory 3.

[adstrinity]

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/02/quaer...g-during-lent/

Please read this.