Full-immersion infant baptism
November 08, 2012
One winter afternoon, fourteen years ago, I got a call from the religious education director at our Catholic parish (Father C's church). She, and some people at the church, had been talking about starting full-immersion infant Baptism. We were a very helpful and always agreeable family so she probably thought we'd be good ones to start with.
Ummmm...
No.
Now, I'd never seen a full-immersion infant Baptism, but, from her description, I didn't like it. First, the baby is naked - in front of a congregation of strangers (some familiar to us, all unfamiliar to the baby). I'm pretty much a modest person so I wasn't doing that with my baby. Second, it sounded miserable for the baby. I'd already had two kids with colic (soon to be three). Having spent many hours with screaming babies, deliberately making my child unhappy for anything beside health reasons was not something I was going to do. Third, as much as I liked Father C, I don't have enough trust in other adults, no matter how much practice they've had, to have any of them dunking my baby underwater.
The fourth reason, and the one I emphasized to her, was the peeing factor. Having had one baby boy already, I knew that, if exposing a baby boy's chest and tummy to the cold didn't make him pee, putting him in water certainly would! From the ultrasound, we knew very definitely that the third child was going to be a boy. I told the religious ed director that I was not going to be the first mother at church to have her baby pee on Father C - a lovely arc landing in the center of his priestly robes - and not just at any Mass, but at the Easter, 11 am Mass! I really played up the "I would be SOOOOOOO embarrassed" bit and, after a few volleys, she gave up.
If the Catholic Church had required it, I suppose I would have done full-immersion, but I wouldn't have done it happily. Fortunately, they didn't.
I can understand that full-immersion Baptism is more Biblical, but infant Baptism isn't Biblical anyway, and I don't see that a baby is more Baptised if they're immersed than if they're sprinkled or poured. If only full-immersion Baptism is valid, than nobody in our family has been Baptised (so I can sleep in on Sundays).
I don't know what I would have done if I'd had another baby at our current, Episcopalian church, where full-immersion infant baptism is the way it's done. Everyone, except, of course, the baby, gets very excited.
I've actually never seen an infant Baptism at our church. Most people crowd around the Baptismal font, and I'm only 5' 2" so there's no way I could see. I don't crowd anymore; I just stand in the choir section. However, last weekend, there were Baptisms at the Sunday, All Saints Day celebration (I couldn't go because of the incense and my current asthma trouble). Someone posted a photo of a previous infant Baptism on the church Facebook page. They took the photo in mid-dunk, and it looks like the priest is holding the baby underwater.
That's what prompted this post - remember, it's the first I've ever seen of that. I know that the baby is lifted right out, generally crying, but the mid-dunk photo really weirds me out.
Now, I'm not judging those who do practice infant, full-immersion baptism. I'm just explaining why it weirds me out. I know the baby isn't going to remember it later. I enjoy seeing the baby after the Baptism is over, when the priest wraps the baby in a large towel and carries him/her around the Nave.
That being said, however, the one thing that does anger me is when someone says to me, "What a good baby!" when the rare baby doesn't cry much after immersion. Babies aren't "good" or "bad," they're just babies doing the natural things that babies do. When people say that a baby is "good," what it really means is that the baby is convenient to the adults around them. That's not a baby's purpose.
Have to disagree with you on this one. I do judge. It's cruel and it borders on abuse. Babies may not remember in the same way we do when we're older, but they remember the feeling. They remember a stranger held them, naked, underwater while people crowded around and watched. They remember they had no idea it was coming and no choice about it happening. They remember the feeling of that experience.
If somebody stripped me naked and dunked me underwater, there's be some hell to pay. Same with my baby.
I can't believe there's a loving god who requires such a thing. Just can't buy it.
Posted by: Reticula | November 09, 2012 at 03:12 PM
I was thinking about this some more during the weekend. Babies, at the usual Baptismal age, don't have object permanence yet - so, when they're underwater, and everything, including breathing, is taken away, that's all they know.
I don't think God does require it - not for babies.
I think you're right about the remembering. There are so many things that we do for babies and little kids that they'll never consciously remember - the games, the snuggles, etc. - but I think that it all does build up in them somewhere. These things build who they are and how they view the world, even if they can't remember why.
Posted by: M Light | November 11, 2012 at 08:47 PM
Our parish doesn't require immersion baptism; it's just the norm. I've seen lots of babies sprinkled or aspersed (poured on), some clothed and some not.
Infant baptism is biblical because whole households including babies and children were baptized together. But it didn't become a normative practice until the 4th/5th centuries.
There have always been options in baptism: sprinkling, pouring, or dunking. The requirements include water and the formula of being baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
There are a lot of good reasons for immersion baptism, but it's not for everyone. Thus the options.
Posted by: Summer | November 15, 2012 at 03:26 PM