To not want MIL to “redo” our baby’s name with her priest?

[Bobcomp]

Bit of a weird one. MIL is super Catholic, we’re not religious at all. DH was raised that way but doesn’t really practise anymore. We had a low-key christening for DD (2mo) at our local church - not mega religious, just more of a naming and welcome thing really. We chose her name together - it’s a bit modern but nothing out there. MIL smiled through gritted teeth at the time but didn’t say much.

Fast forward to now - she’s apparently gone and spoken to her priest (very traditional Catholic church she still goes to), and arranged for him to do a “proper” blessing in a couple of weeks. Only she’s told us she’ll be using DD’s middle name during it, because “it’s more suitable for a Christian child” and “closer to the saints”.

She says it’s not a big deal - that it’s just a personal thing between her and God and she’s not trying to change anything officially. But it feels really off to me. She’s literally taking it upon herself to get our daughter re-blessed with a different name because she doesn’t like the one we picked.

DH thinks it’s daft but harmless - says let her crack on, it’s just her being dramatic and it’s not like it’ll go on any documents. But I feel like it’s crossing a line? Like she’s trying to override us or pretend she’s the one naming our child? I don’t want this to turn into some weird power thing where she starts calling DD by her middle name and acting like that’s her “real” name.

Also worth saying - she didn’t even tell us until it was already arranged. Just dropped it in like an FYI on Sunday after church, said we’re “welcome to come” but it’s “mainly for the family and Father Liam”.

AIBU to think this is weird as hell and not ok? Or should I just ignore it and let her have her moment? It’s messing with my head more than it probably should.

"No matter what Rome says" does not seem appropriate when Rome says no one needs to be Baptised twice as long as the proper form is followed, which is actually pretty basic.

The only way to avoid being a hypocrite is to pay for private education. I disagree with both state and religious doctrines but if I have to choose between them I'll take Christianity.

She says it’s not a big deal - that it’s just a personal thing between her and God and she’s not trying to change anything officially. But it feels really off to me. She’s literally taking it upon herself to get our daughter re-blessed with a different name because she doesn’t like the one we picked.

Crossing a line that she shouldn't even be approaching. So entitled and domineering. It'd be a no for me and I'd be pulling away from her in a big way. No new blessing. Stand your ground - whatever next if you don't?!

Absolutely not. If anyone tried this with me I'd be fuming (DS had a baby blessing in my church, children don't get baptised till they're eight years old, when they can theoretically decide for themselves.) And it would be different, I don't agree with a lot of the concepts in the Catholic church (original sin, the Godhead, things like that.)

She's had her time of raising a child - she already got to do all this stuff she wanted to do - this is your time and your child to do with what you deem necessary and pleasing.

I'm surprised at First Confession at 5, I made mine a few days before my 7th birthday due to timing of my birth and when it was done in school year, so vast majority were already 7 and a very few would not quite be there. I've never heard of it happening younger than that and I'm in my 70s and have lived and worshipped in many parishes. Generally in England it seems to happen in year 2 or year 3.

Of course she doesn't but as the OP said herself this was less about religion and more about family and traditions.

She then picked her own families over that of her DH which she is of course free to do particularly if DH is not that interested but things go a lot smoother if both sides feel included and considered.

Agree with Sapphire about original sin. I find the concept grotesque to be quite frank. I don't think I even want to know about the Godhead. Amazing how many women want to keep this stuff going because they think it's nice.

What "state doctrines"? You're not required to endorse any supernatural or political beliefs in order to send your child to a secular school.

Put your foot down. Hard and loud. This is a slippery slope, not just with the entitlement of the MIL but with your husband enabling it.

the OP has posted about this....RTFT

"things go a lot smoother if both sides feel included and considered*

Spot on, @telestrations, except that this particular MIL doesn't just want that ... she wants to run the show and is quite prepared to go behind the parents' backs if she doesn't get exactly her own way

Enabling people like this can be risky, but fortunately OP and her DH have moved to shut it down and if MIL doesn't like that she'd do better to consider her own behaviour

he didn't! go and RTFT, or at least the Op's updates.

The Mil was included. She was invited to the baptism and celebration and went happily. As I have already pointed out, if she had ASKED for the child to go to her church, with her parents, to be blessed by the priest, they might have said yes....as it is she stands no chance now. Also things go more smoothly if people don't behave like crazies.

You have 100% done the right thing. Quite right to nip this in the bud now. It could have very much become a give an inch, take a mile situation.

Is your DH going to have a word with this mother to explain the situation kindly but firmly - very firmly? Not sure what she was thinking, but there will inevitably be some hurt feelings on her part, and for future peace, you don't want bad feeling and resentment festering.

Read the OP's most recent post in which the OP said "DH spoke to her earlier and told her (very firmly) that it’s not happening and that she’s massively overstepped."

Just confirm to interfering mother in law that it’s not happening and not up for further discussion. It’s not her baby, she’s had hers.

YANBU shes is bang out of order and this is likely the start of a slippery slope…

Is this another 'cancel the cheque!' thread where people haven't read OPs replies?

He said (his words): “It would be entirely inappropriate to proceed with any religious rite concerning a child without parental consent, especially when the child has already received Christian baptism. I will be speaking to [MIL] myself.

Perfect! And yes, you definitely have reason to be proud that you've stood your ground. Well done! 👏👏

It's good you had the foresight to contact the priest and he supports you .
It wasn't very godly of you mil to blantly lie to him ( or call it
economically with the truth ) about getting it done.
If it were me hell would freeze over before agreeing to go along with that.

Brace yourself for her wanting to take your child along to services when it's older .

Husband should have instantly had your back and not tried to minimise what was clearly appalling behaviour from his mother. Watch out for that in future, he needs to be absolutely clear that YOU and his baby are his main concerns now and if you are upset about something his mother does, he should definitely not try to dismiss that the way he originally did.

Because she didn’t say until her second post that they actually had water and “the right words,” and her first post said it was more of a welcoming and naming ceremony.

So, she did say it then. It's always best to read all the OPs posts before responding.

As I already told someone else in this thread, I commented after her first post and before her second post, and she didn’t clarify until the second post that it was an actual baptism.