Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby won't know dad wasn't there.
Sometimes parents have to divide and conquer.

It's unfortunate but, I agree with your husband here.

The christening of your child isn’t something only one parent can conquer.

No? Single parents aren’t allowed to baptize their children? Didn’t know that.

When a single parent baptizes their child, ALL of the child's parents are there. You need ALL of the child's parents present.

Not necessarily. I have been to three Catholic baptisms over the years where mom was single. The father was present at one of them. There is nothing in the catechism that says both parents must be present. Per Canon Law, only one parent needs to consent.

This makes no sense. If the father was there she wasn't a single mom. A single mom means there is no father in the picture. All the parents were present.

Why does DCUM insist on this bizarre definition of single mom? A single mom is a mom who is single, i.e. not married.

Many unmarried couples are still getting their children baptized in the Catholic church. 15 years ago I was talking to the priest at my brother's wedding in Ireland, and he was telling me that most of the baptisms he performed were to babies of unwed parents. That was 15 years ago, and I'm sure it's still the case (if not more so!) now.

Anonymous wrote:Your husband is starting his favoritism a little early.

I’m surprised the church agreed to baptize a baby with one parent choosing not to attend.

Why would they deny a sacrament to an innocent child?

Your husband’s priorities are outrageous. But you’re stuck with him now.

I would not engage in any further conversation about it, unless he wants to grow up and reconsider his selfishness. You know where you stand.

Please slap some sense into you husband. This is a silly kid’s soccer game. It should not even be a discussion.

What about your son? Does he not want to be with his family? If religion is an important part of your family wouldn't he want to put it first? Do you not feel you can tell your son he is expected to attend and skip the games?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby won't know dad wasn't there.
Sometimes parents have to divide and conquer.

It's unfortunate but, I agree with your husband here.

The christening of your child isn’t something only one parent can conquer.

No? Single parents aren’t allowed to baptize their children? Didn’t know that.

When a single parent baptizes their child, ALL of the child's parents are there. You need ALL of the child's parents present.

Not necessarily. I have been to three Catholic baptisms over the years where mom was single. The father was present at one of them. There is nothing in the catechism that says both parents must be present. Per Canon Law, only one parent needs to consent.

This makes no sense. If the father was there she wasn't a single mom. A single mom means there is no father in the picture. All the parents were present.

Why does DCUM insist on this bizarre definition of single mom? A single mom is a mom who is single, i.e. not married.

Because that's an insult to actual single moms. If you have someone to coparent with, you're not a single mom. You a mom who is has an ex.

Nope sorry, you don’t get to change the definition of words so you can win the suffering Olympics.

I'm not a single mom and I'm allowed to define terms however I want, even if it bothers you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby won't know dad wasn't there.
Sometimes parents have to divide and conquer.

It's unfortunate but, I agree with your husband here.

The christening of your child isn’t something only one parent can conquer.

No? Single parents aren’t allowed to baptize their children? Didn’t know that.

When a single parent baptizes their child, ALL of the child's parents are there. You need ALL of the child's parents present.

Not necessarily. I have been to three Catholic baptisms over the years where mom was single. The father was present at one of them. There is nothing in the catechism that says both parents must be present. Per Canon Law, only one parent needs to consent.

This makes no sense. If the father was there she wasn't a single mom. A single mom means there is no father in the picture. All the parents were present.

Why does DCUM insist on this bizarre definition of single mom? A single mom is a mom who is single, i.e. not married.

Because that's an insult to actual single moms. If you have someone to coparent with, you're not a single mom. You a mom who is has an ex.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby won't know dad wasn't there.
Sometimes parents have to divide and conquer.

It's unfortunate but, I agree with your husband here.

The christening of your child isn’t something only one parent can conquer.

No? Single parents aren’t allowed to baptize their children? Didn’t know that.

When a single parent baptizes their child, ALL of the child's parents are there. You need ALL of the child's parents present.

Not necessarily. I have been to three Catholic baptisms over the years where mom was single. The father was present at one of them. There is nothing in the catechism that says both parents must be present. Per Canon Law, only one parent needs to consent.

This makes no sense. If the father was there she wasn't a single mom. A single mom means there is no father in the picture. All the parents were present.

Why does DCUM insist on this bizarre definition of single mom? A single mom is a mom who is single, i.e. not married.

Your husband is starting his favoritism a little early.

I’m surprised the church agreed to baptize a baby with one parent choosing not to attend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't the church require the parents to present the child? How is that going to work?

Surely the church has baptized children of single parents before.

Yes, and in that case ~all~ the baby's parents are in attendance.

+1

I mean, even their Jewish nonparticipating parent was at my children’s baptisms.

When you make the choice to baptize, even if it’s not a big deal to you, then you as the parent attend!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, the sports tournament would not happen in my family. Full stop.

Years from now, you will remember the christening - you will have family pictures and talk about the day. I guarantee you that your child and husband will not remember that exact sports tournament years from now.

This exactly. The baby will ask where was dad. for sure. There will be MANY more soccer games, but only one christening.

If true your older child is seven, it is crazy to miss a Christening for a soccer game.

Maybe or maybe not. I can’t remember ever seeing photos of my baptism or caring to see them. I am not looking at old photos to see who was there or who wasn’t.

My husband and I grew up in strict Catholic families so you could say we are the same religion. Neither of us feel strongly about it now and I am definitely less religious than him. None of our kids are even baptized because we never got around to it. So yes, if he scheduled a baptism for a much younger child and we had a teen in a tournament I’d probably go to soccer. The baptism would be checking a box for extended family to me. My older kid would actually be missing out on something meaningful.

Do you know if your husband feels strongly about your religion or is just going along with the motions to keep peace?

OP, sorry you are getting dumped on when it is your husband who is ridiculous. Imagine having to explain over and over at the ceremony and luncheon/party afterward why husband isn't there. People will be talking and judging and you will be dealing with all the shade, just like this thread!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should have scheduled better. This was easily avoidable.

Not necessarily. Depending on OP's church--some church's only have specific days and times they perform christenings.

+1 I’m Episcopalian and there were only a few Sundays in the year when they did baptisms.

I’m Catholic and have been member of multiple parishes. Baptism times were all over the map and really varied by parish. Some were once a month, some allowed private Baptism, some were any Sunday after a particular Mass. We don’t know the exact conditions under which the date was picked. They could be really restricted depending on what their particular parish allows.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should have scheduled better. This was easily avoidable.

Not necessarily. Depending on OP's church--some church's only have specific days and times they perform christenings.

+1 I’m Episcopalian and there were only a few Sundays in the year when they did baptisms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The baby won't know dad wasn't there.
Sometimes parents have to divide and conquer.

It's unfortunate but, I agree with your husband here.

The christening of your child isn’t something only one parent can conquer.

No? Single parents aren’t allowed to baptize their children? Didn’t know that.

When a single parent baptizes their child, ALL of the child's parents are there. You need ALL of the child's parents present.

Not necessarily. I have been to three Catholic baptisms over the years where mom was single. The father was present at one of them. There is nothing in the catechism that says both parents must be present. Per Canon Law, only one parent needs to consent.