By Marie Mulvenna

Commenting on many questions raised by the baptismal controversy in Marlboro, Mass., Father Edward Dillon, Officialis of the Archdiocese of Atlanta., said the entire topic hinged on the necessity of a faith commitment on the part of the parents that the child to be baptized be brought up in the Catholic faith.

Several weeks ago, the infant son of Mrs. Carol Morreale, was denied baptism by the priests of the parish, because the mother allegedly had taken a public stand backing an abortion advocate who was attempting to open an abortion clinic in the community. The decision of the parish clergy was upheld by Cardinal Humberto Medeiros, although the infant was later baptized in a widely publicized ceremony by Jesuit Father Joseph O’Rourke who now faces possible dismissal from the Society of Jesus for his actions.

Father O’Rourke is reported to be a member of the board of directors of Catholics for a Free Choice, a group promoting freedom of choice in the matter of abortions. He is not a member of the Boston archdiocese, nor of the province of Jesuits serving in the archdiocese and made the trip from New York for the baptismal rite.

Father Dillon, who is also a member of the Board of Governors of the Canon Law Society, said the issue had elicited a very emotional response with most persons feeling it was wrong, or at least questionable, to prevent the baptism of the child. “Actually,” Father said, “it is not the Church keeping the child from God. It is the parents.”

Father Dillon explained that a requirement for baptism is a guarantee, or at least a strong indication, that the child would be brought up according to the teachings of the Catholic Church. This aspect of the sacrament, Father said, is clearly outlined in various Church canons and documents as well as in the documents of Vatican II. Back in the 1950s,” he said, “the French bishops issued a pastoral statement directing priests to refuse baptism where the priest was certain that the child would not be brought up in the faith.”

In the present rite of baptism, Father pointed out, the focus on parental involvement is very clear and throughout the rite itself the Catholic parents must indicate their adherence to the faith of the Church. “Ignoring this fact is this particular case would make the wording of the ritual, whereby the sacrament is conferred, meaningless. It would actually be a contradiction to what is actually so in the conferring of the sacrament itself.”

Father Dillon said it would be almost impossible to make a definitive statement on the Morreale case because all the facts involved have not been made public. He said conversations between the mother ant the priests of the parish, as well as the background of the family in question, would be factors influencing the action determined by the priests.

Reportedly, Mrs. Morreale has now said she wanted the sacrament “removed” from her child, an action which is impossible according to the Boson archdiocese which said it could not revoke her initiation into a Christian life that is baptism. Her request for the revocation hinged on her hope that disciplinary action against Father O’Rourke might be withdrawn. Father O’Rourke performed the baptism despite the specific orders of his community not to do so.

In most cases, where some reasonable doubt exists as to the future upbringing of the child, Father Dillon said the sacrament would be conferred based on the hope of conversion. This, he explained, is in direct accord with the statement made by the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda in 1796 which called for the baptism of such an infant based on the hope of conversion of such Catholics.

In the Constitution on the Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council, Father Dillon said the document called for a new rite for baptism clearly underlining the role and duties of the parents and the godparents. “This was to bring out more specifically the faith element involved in the sacrament.”

In Vatican II’s document on ecumenism baptism is describe as “thus oriented toward a complete profession of faith, a complete incorporation into the system of salvation such as Christ Himself willed it to be, and finally, toward a complete participation in the Eucharistic Communion. The document also states that baptism is “only a beginning, a point of departure, for it is wholly directed toward the acquiring of fullness of life in Christ.”

Father Dillon said he could only speculate on the Massachusetts case, lacking the complete factual background, but he believed the refusal for the baptism must have been based on firm ground such as discussions with Mrs. Morreale.” It is quite possible, Father Dillon said, “that she indicated to the priests that she did not intend to bring up her child to adhere to the Church’s beliefs on the right to life and on the matter of abortion specifically. Otherwise the sacrament would no doubt have been conferred by the priests in question.”

“It is theoretically possible and probably advisable in some particular case to refuse baptism but you would have to be pretty certain of your ground before doing so,” Father Dillon said.