THE Synod declined a chance to admonish clergy who refused to baptise children born out of wedlock, on Friday evening, when it voted down a non-public member’s motion.
The motion from Dr Patricia Barker (Dublin & Glendalough) stated that priests must not refuse or unduly delay the baptism of an infant on the grounds of the marital status of the kid’s parents.
Before Dr Barker could introduce her motion, nonetheless, an attempt was made to rule it out of order as contravening common law. The Archdeacon of Dromore, the Ven. Mark Harvey (Down & Dromore), quoted Canon 26, which said that if a priest refused to baptise a baby, the parents could apply to the bishop for a resolution. Archdeacon Harvey said that this created a constitutional right for clerics to disclaim or delay baptism in accordance with their conscience. He suggested that Dr Barker’s motion would contravene this right, in addition to disregard the authority of the bishop to resolve such disputes.
The Archbishop of Armagh, the Most Revd John McDowell, as president of the Synod, ruled that the motion didn’t contravene the meaning of Canon 26. He did, nonetheless, note that the motion didn’t have any power to affect the discipline of baptism, which was controlled by the liturgy and by Canon 26. These couldn’t be modified except by a separate synodical process, through a two-year Bill. He also informed the Synod that when the motion was put to the vote it will be by orders, with a 50-per-cent majority needed amongst each the clergy and the lay members.
Introducing her motion, Dr Barker said that there had been several accounts of priests’ refusing to baptise children born out of wedlock, or to single parents in recent times. Her motion asked the Synod to affirm what she believed was already a part of canon law regarding the baptism of infants.
Quoting the previous Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Williams, she said that the Church’s law should be consistent and clear. If some babies in certain parishes couldn’t be baptised because their moms were single, that was neither consistent nor equitable, she argued. She also quoted the Anglican Communion’s Principles of Canon Law, which state that “no minister may without lawful cause refuse or unduly delay baptism of a baby of their cure, whose parents or guardians desire baptism.”
The motion was seconded by Lynn Wright (Kilmore, Elphin & Ardagh), who said that she was “passionate” concerning the rights of youngsters born out of wedlock, and was saddened some were denied the “sacrament of baptism”. “Jesus wouldn’t have refused a baby baptism,” she said.
Lucy Michael (Dublin & Glendalough) said that baptism didn’t simply initiate children into the Church, but in addition worked to cleanse them of original sin. “A toddler’s innocence is barely guaranteed in our faith through baptism,” she reminded the Synod. How, then, could any child be refused baptism? The Early Church baptised entire households, regardless of gender, parentage, or marital status. As the kid of non-believing parents, she had herself been baptised only due to her grandmother and a priest who gad asked no questions on her parents. A toddler turned away by a parish before having the ability even to walk or talk would never return to church, she warned.
Joe Deverell (Meath & Kildare), backing the motion, said that, even when it required two years of Bills to amend the canons, the Synod should do it. “Just remember, none of us got to decide on who our parents were.”
Canon David Gillespie (Dublin & Glendalough) said that he was troubled that such a motion was required, as no parish he knew would refuse any child baptism. “We should welcome all families that come, whatever shape that family takes,” he said.
The Revd Sam Johnston (Down) said that, while the motion got here from good pastoral motives, it will upset the fragile balance between pastoral care and theological doctrine. The existing regulations offered a pathway for clergy to navigate complex baptismal issues, trusting their wisdom and discernment, he argued. Refusal of baptism was not prohibited by the Church.
The Revd Mark Lennox (Down & Dromore) said that he had never refused any child baptism in 15 years of ministry, but still had doubts over the motion, which, he feared, might bring clergy into conflict with their ordination vows.
Janet Bray (Tuam, Limerick & Killaloe) announced that she had been born out of wedlock in 1953, in an Ireland that was very hostile to single moms. Despite this, her mother had had her baptised before she was given up for adoption. “I couldn’t imagine a Church that will refuse any child baptism, or any woman the comfort of that,” she concluded, receiving an extended round of applause.
Joy Little (Kilmore, Elphin & Ardagh) told the Synod how two of her grandsons had been born close together, and were baptised together, despite one having single parents. Had the rector had refused to baptise the boy born out of wedlock, she was confident, her entire family would have left the Church.
The Revd Catherine Simpson (Down & Dromore) said that baptism was offered to infants on the presumption that their parents would bring them up within the church fellowship and teaching of the gospel. That was why parents were asked serious questions within the liturgy about submitting to Christ as Lord. “I’m concerned that we should be really clear about what we’re asking people to commit to,” she said. The motion was asking clerics like her to baptise “without due diligence”, which could possibly be “pastorally reckless”. She would vote against the motion.
Phyllis Grothier (Cashel, Ferns & Ossory) said that nothing within the motion would take away a priest’s ability to have conversations with parents before and after baptism and expect an ongoing relationship with the Church. Baptism of babies created good opportunities for outreach, she argued.
Responding to the talk, Dr Barker told the Synod about her time working at a rape crisis centre, and helping a lady who had fallen pregnant after a rape. She carried the child to full term, and approached a rector for baptism, fearful and unsure concerning the response that she would have. But the priest listened without judgement, without asking whether she was married to the child’s father, and easily accepted her and her baby. “He did more for her healing journey in a single afternoon than we now have done in months of therapy together with her. That is the Church that I need to belong to.”
The motion was lost by 469-72 among the many clergy, and 144-83 among the many laity.
