I’m trying to defend the Church’s stance on baptism. My detractor of the Church’s administration of baptism rails against the Church’s refusal to baptize children whose parents are not Catholic, or are otherwise living in sin.
First, what I get: I get that the Church has a right to defer baptism if a child is not likely to be raised in a Catholic manner. We both get that. That’s what this whole problem is about.
I also get that no one has a natural claim to the beatific vision, and therefore it’s not a deprivation to such children (per se) to be relegated to some unknown fate that the theologians assume is outside of Heaven proper and yet devoid also of sensory pain-- perhaps even attaining to the fullness of natural happiness, though empty of supernatural happiness.
Here’s the beef she has. Why? She (and really, I myself, although I submit in all things to the Church) does not comprehend why the Church doesn’t simply baptize these souls anyways, why they even have a right to defer.
What seems to be the harm in it? There is infinite reward-- the child is guaranteed (should they perish before the age of reason) the beatific vision! Such infinite reward seems like it should take place over any risk-- excepting that we may not choose evil that good may come of it. Therefore, the baptism of children not of Catholic families must be in some way evil- at least this is the only logical reason that I can think of to explain why we would avoid doing something with such infinite reward to it. …but… why??
What is the evil in it?
Please remember to try to appeal this to a cafeteria Catholic, if possible. Simply saying “it’s evil because it’s against what the Church teaches” is insufficient. The Church does not create laws and call them good, they identify truths that are good because God has made them so, and declares them unto us (or so I believe).