Child’s faith goes to court

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently ruled in a custody battle

involving a divorced couple and their daughter. In short, the mother

-- who was raised Roman Catholic and attended an Assemblies of God

church while married -- married a Russian Orthodox man and wanted to

have her daughter (who attended the father’s Assemblies of God church

three weekends a month and the mother’s church the other weekend)

baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church. The father opposed the

baptism, saying the daughter shouldn’t have to be baptized until

she’s old enough to decide for herself.

A judge in the Court of Common Pleas in Mercer County, Pa., ruled

last year that the daughter should be allowed to decide which church

to be baptized into when she turns 13. The Superior Court overturned

that decision, saying that confusion of religion did not constitute

enough risk to delay the daughter’s baptism to the age of 13.

Disregarding the idiosyncrasies of what baptism symbolizes in each

denomination, when should a child be allowed to make decisions

regarding what church or religious group they attend or are baptized

in?

Battles have been waged over making similar decisions for, and

such initiation into, religious groups. This is true not only in

families like the one in Pennsylvania, which has unfortunate

parallels locally, but for historical religious communities. Various

groups with roots in 16th century Europe, and comprehensively known

as “Anabaptists,” have refused to allow their children to be baptized

and reinstituted the baptism of believers. When one is able to truly

“believe” has always been debated, even among those of us who are

confident that true belief is a lifelong journey.

When baptism is viewed as “the sacrament by which God adopts us as

his children and makes us members of Christ’s Body, the Church, and

inheritors of the kingdom of God,” (Book of Common Prayer, 858),

belief begins not with the believer but with God. For those of us who

so believe, responsible persons initiate others into faith

communities and provide opportunities for them to claim those

decisions for themselves later in their lives.

In the Episcopal Church, people express a mature commitment to

Christ and affirm decisions made for them at their baptism when they

receive the sacrament of Confirmation.

When people should be confirmed is the issue on which

Episcopalians differ. American Anglicans have never held an “age of

reason” to be 8 to 9 years old, as I was taught in my Roman Catholic

high school, but we used to regularly and normally confirm when

children were 12 or 13. (I was confirmed with my dad when I was 11.)

After studying adolescent development, many of us now think that 15

or 16 is more age-appropriate.

In this Parish Church, when desire is expressed for those who are

younger than 15 to receive the laying on of hands by a bishop in

Confirmation, I ask the candidate to write a short letter to me about

what their Baptismal Covenant means to them and why they want to

confirm it; “because Dad and/or Mom want me to” is the only surely

incorrect answer.

Clearly, we grow and mature differently, and individuals should be

encouraged to make important decisions for themselves at times in

their lives that are necessarily right for them.

For Episcopalians/Anglicans, this concern is most often raised as

we question at what age people should receive the outward and visible

signs of the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving in the Holy

Eucharist, the Holy Communion, the Body and Blood of Christ given to

his people and received by faith. When adults protest, “But ‘they’

don’t understand what it is!” my “And what do you understand it to

be?” usually stops the debate.

Once, when someone challenged my giving the sacrament to very

young children, my then 3-or 4-year-old son was standing beside me

and I risked asking him, “Don, what does it mean to you when I put

the bread from the altar into your hand?”

He responded simply, “Jesus!”

All who heard this were astonished and delighted.

(THE VERY REV’D CANON)

PETER D. HAYNES

Saint Michael & All

Angels Episcopal Church

Corona del Mar

Oh, how unfortunate! This poor girl, and the spectacle of the body

of Christ being used as a weapon between two families. Forgive us,

Lord! It seems odd to me that the mother was OK with the girl being

raised in the Assemblies church for so many years while she was

married, and only decides it is a bad influence after her divorce.

Contrary to some of the claims, these are not “contradictory”

religions. Their foundations are identical. It is not as if she were

converting to Islam or Buddhism, which have totally different views

of Jesus and his purposes on Earth.

I was baptized as an infant in the Episcopal Church because it

made my grandparents feel better. I had nothing to do with the

choice. I chose to be baptized again at age 17 because I made a

conscious decision about the faith I wanted to follow.

According to this father’s beliefs, he could let his daughter be

baptized in the Orthodox faith and have no fear because baptism is

only symbolic and has no efficacious value. She could (and will,

regardless of what any of them decide) later make her own decision.

However, her mother is afraid if the daughter is not baptized before

she dies, it will affect her eternal destiny.

My uncle asked me years ago if he should succumb to the family

pressure to have his daughters baptized. I told him that as far as I

could see, the Bible didn’t give baptism any miraculous power to save

people, and that the decision was best left to his daughters when

they were capable of making the decision themselves.

Today, I am wearing a wedding ring symbolizing the commitment I

made to my wife and our Lord. I lost my original ring. That ring held

no mystical powers, so I replaced it. If someone else takes my ring

and puts it on their finger, it does not mean that they are married

to me or anyone else.

The power is not in the ring, but in the commitment made. The ring

is just a symbolic reminder of that decision. Baptism works the same

way. It is merely a symbol of the commitment we make to follow Jesus.

Whether they like it or not, the girl will make her own choice of

faith and practice someday. It may be none of the three expressions

of Christianity her family is involved in. The best they can do is

raise her faithfully according to the teachings of Scripture.

To try to put a “wedding ring” on her finger before she decides

who she wants to “marry” may condition her for rebellion more than

compliance. They should have faith in the promise of Scripture that

says, “Train up a child in the path they should go, even when they

are old they will not depart from it.”

SENIOR ASSOCIATE

PASTOR RIC OLSEN

Harbor Trinity

Costa Mesa

When does a child or youngster attain sufficient intelligence and

maturity to choose a religious faith? As in so many other areas of

development and aptitude, there can be no universally applicable,

one-age-fits-all answer.

Yes, a state can rule that a teen, one day before his 16th

birthday, is not qualified to receive a driver’s license, but that

one day later, he is sufficiently responsible to be entrusted with

one. So it is with voting rights, military service, marriage and

alcohol consumption. The Supreme Court this week rejected the death

penalty for juveniles. Religious insight, however, is much more

subjective.

A corollary issue has just surfaced, featuring a child-abuse

scandal in the Roman Catholic Church. No, not the scandal that has

been playing out over recent years, but a historical one.

During World War II, many Jewish children were placed by their

parents in European convents, monasteries and other Catholic

institutions to save them from death at the hands of the Nazis. Many

of these youngsters were baptized. If relatives found them after the

war, they were often told that the children could not be turned over

to them, as they were now Catholic.

In 1946, according to a newly discovered directive, the Vatican

instructed French authorities on how to respond to Jewish officials

who came to reclaim Jewish children.

“Children who have been baptized must not be entrusted to

institutions that would not be in a position to guarantee their

Christian upbringing,” the directive said.

It is further ordered to not allow Jewish children who had been

baptized Catholic to go home to their own parents.

“If the children have been turned over by their parents, and if

the parents reclaim them now, providing that the children have not

received baptism, they can be given back,” said the directive.

Even Jewish orphans who had not been baptized were not to be

turned over automatically to Jewish authorities.

“For children who no longer have their parents, given the fact

that the church has responsibility for them, it is not acceptable for

them to be abandoned by the church or entrusted to any persons who

have no rights over them, at least until they are in a position to

choose themselves,” the document said. “This, obviously, is for

children who would not have been baptized.”

“At least until they are in a position to choose themselves ... “

When would that be? We can only lament that such tugs of war over a

child’s soul between people of different faiths -- whether they be

Churchmen or spouses -- are often especially heart-rending, if not

tragic. Alas, the pain we so often cause in the name of religion!

RABBI MARK S. MILLER

Temple Bat Yam

Newport Beach

It’s a shame that the three parents involved -- father, mother and

stepfather -- could not resolve the matter of their child’s religious

affiliation among themselves, with the happiness and contentment of

the child being the most important concern.

It’s a difficult responsibility for parents to decide the degree

to which they will guide, mold or coerce their child into

participating in their chosen faith. Bringing these matters into

court in the context of custody proceedings is less than ideal, and

it’s likely the parents will have to answer for it when the child is

older.

My children are just now becoming adults, at ages 21 and 22. They

are involved in the critical process of following their spiritual

interests and making their own commitments. Their father and I began

our family agreeing that our religious choices and propensities need

not be our children’s, and that the most important point was to share

our values while letting our kids know they were completely capable

of finding their own way.

For this decision, we too have had to answer: “Why did other

children go to church and we didn’t?” etc.

They were told that in Zen, we don’t go to church, but we

meditate, sometimes by ourselves and often with others, and did they

want to do that? Their answers were sometimes mixed, but often were,

“No, not now. I’d rather (fill in the blank).” Nevertheless, our

children were raised in a Zen Buddhist household and community, and I

believe they have been deeply affected by it.

In Zen, there is not an infant baptism tradition, but there is a

Blessing Ceremony within, during which the child is welcomed into the

world and embraced in an atmosphere of love and caring. The ceremony

involves sprinkling water and offering incense in acknowledgment of

the great mystery, but equally important is the articulation of the

parents to accept the responsibility to care for the child as a

sacred being, and vowing to do their best.

In Zen, there is also a Refuge Taking ceremony, through which a

person formally becomes a Buddhist by taking the Buddhist precepts

(ethical principles), but we have not emphasized this at our center.

Our emphasis has been on the actual practice of Zen meditation and

its application in our daily lives.

When Zen practitioners learn the upaya, the skillful means of Zen,

they are able to see for themselves what the Buddha realized when he

saw the morning star while meditating under the Bodhi tree. They then

have the skills to be awake and appreciate any moment of life, no

matter whether we see the moment as happy or sad, ugly or beautiful.

This gradual maturing is called the “fiery baptism,” without which

Zen is only words.

Although some Zen Centers teach zazen, or Zen meditation, to

children, our youngest practitioners thus far have been teenagers.

This coming year, we will be exploring how to best include younger

children as well as families in the Zen meditative tradition.

In response to this question about whether the courts should allow

a mother to baptize her child against the father’s wishes, I believe

much can and should be done so that a situation doesn’t come to this

point, and the parents should set aside their religious preferences

for the happiness and contentment of the child. That, in itself,

would be a good baptism.

REV. CAROL AGUILAR

Zen Center of Orange County

Costa Mesa