To be cross that my MIL is STILL angling to have DS christened?

[MamaHobgoblin]

Ooh, my first AIBU post. Does madness this way lie?

My husband and I are not religious, not so's you'd know it, anyway. He's atheist and I'm as near as dammit. We never intended to have our 6 month baby christened - no point, we're non-believers and have no intention of taking DS to church, sunday school etc. He can make up his own mind when he's at the age of reason. I have a big beef about people who aren't churchgoers, having dc christened just because 'it's done', or to conform, for the party, etc.

MIL is very religious. Apparently she still prays that DH will see error of his ways etc and get confirmed! :-) She would v much like her grandson to be christened. To be fair to her, I don't think it's because she wants to control him, I honestly think she believes it's best for his spiritual welfare. In turn, I am quite offended that she thinks he's in some way 'incomplete' without it (he is PFB, ffs, he is PERFECT!) or that she subscribes to (insert adjective) belief system whereby unchristened babies are cast into outer darkness, whatever.

Last weekend we stayed with them. She and DH took DS to watch her bellringing while I caught up on some sleep. Afterwards, while DH was other end of church, she went up to vicar and introduced her grandson, saying that we didn't want him christened but that she was working on it. Vicar commiserated and said he'd give poor godless DS a blessing anyway. Which he did, without asking DH.

AIBU to be cross at this, and at viewing it as a precedent being set, or should I just chill about it? Should I have a word with her, since apparently 'she's working on it'?

I've not read any of the other replies yet but I just wanted to check that you aren't me and did I write that post this morning???! I really could have written it as we are in the exact same situation. I am not religious at all, DH was brought up a Catholic but doesn't practise it and has no intention of going to mass etc, but MIL is very religious and has pushed the christening thing with us too, in a kind of round about way. She has said to DH that she would love to have DS christened, that children develop morals through religion (hello? Does that mean I have no morals???), that childrens prayers are lovely and she even bought DS an 'outfit' and said 'oh it's actually from the christening outfit section of the shop'! He did wear it but only one day visiting to show her with him wearing it (it was a lovely linen sailor suit). She also seems worried what will happen to him in the 'afterlife' so to speak if he's not christened but I just said to her he'll be happy wandering about in limbo with his mummy who's not been christened either LOL!

I know she'd LOVE him to get chrsitened but I see it as very hypocritical to do it if we have no intention of following the Catholic faith afterwards. I have been to Christenings and carefully listened to the priest and made my mind up then we wouldn't have our kids christened as we just wouldn't fulfill what's expected of us (to lead by example, go to church every week etc). I'd prefer it if DS chooses what to do himself when older, I'd be all for it if he wanted to be christened then but in the meantime I won't force him.

Sorry I've gone completely off tangent! Just wanted to say I understand and YANBU at all for being annoyed with MIL and the blessing. I know she meant no harm but he is your DS and she needs to respect that.

Ilikeyoursleeves, I think some interesting views have been raised on this thread. It might be helpful to you to read them.

Also,
"I just said to her he'll be happy wandering about in limbo with his mummy who's not been christened either LOL!"

doesn't really help your mil with her fears, does it. Seems a bit dismissive.

If your MIL was a better Catholic, she'd know that limbo is no longer official teaching The current Pope got rid of it (not sure how that worked, but it's true.)

I think it was Ilikeyoursleeves that mentioned limbo.

And I don't think most people go on 'update your religion' courses very often
My gran kept her head covered out of respect long after it had been okayed not to. Tut-tutted for a while at women who didn't.

No but I'm sure you get time off purgatory for subscribing to the Pious Post, or whatever that blue topped paper is called that you get through the church. It's bound to have done an article.

Limbo or not. I think you can only go to heaven if you have been baptised.

As for the hair thing, boy does St.Paul have a lot to answer for. A woman's 'Crowning Glory?' Not with my split ends it isn't

Hair thing? Don't think we did that at school.

Unbaptised babies can go to heaven now. They can also be buried in consecrated ground.

I think that the covering heads thing went out with Vatican 2 (the big review thing). I've not seen it in the UK. It was still very much the done thing with the older women in churches in Spain when I was a child though.

Isn't that because they are too young to have a voice themselves and go on the strength of their parents faith....or something like that.
As they get older wouldn't they need to opt for baptism themselves?
Sorry going off track a bit here.

I do think that a lot of older people still follow the old teachings.

I don't know. I know my Grandma who was incredibly religious had to have her stillborn baby buried in a different part of the cemetary to the rest of the family as he died before he could be baptised. She died believing his soul was in limbo. Now apparently that's gone because the Pope changed his mind. Can you tell why I'm lapsed yet!

Anyway, hijack over.

My grandmother baptised me herself behind my mum's back! Apparently you could do that back in the day

Afaik anyone can baptise a baby, especially if the baby's life is in danger. It's just normally done the usual way if that is an option.

That's so sad, Combustible.
I think limbo was a church made up thing anyway which is why they could get rid of the idea when they wanted to. I don't think it's mentioned in any of Christ's teachings.

The trouble is that the superstitious (and Christians are the absolute worst for this) often cannot leave the rational alone. They bleat on about their idiot mythology, pointless rituals (and conventianetly shut up about all the misogyny, homophobia, genocide and child abuse their assorted cults have been responsible for) being harmless and well-meant and how rational people should just give in to the demands of the spuerstitious and deluded 'because it won't hurt you': how would you feel if someone insisted on giving your child BNP literature to read despite your objections, or taught them bizarre racist sectarian songs?

Solidgoldbrass, I think most people have agreed that getting the baby christened is the OPs choice and they just have to keep reiterating that to MiL. The debate seems to centre more on whether it was unforgiveably rude for the vicar to bless the child, in passing, when DP took the child to the church with MiL.
So, on BNP (great example by the way), as a South African who deeply loathes any form of racism but has often had to put up with it as so many old school South African think it's okay (it's changing, and it's a whole different discussion) or because racist people often assume that as a South African in London I must have left because I'm also racist (ditto, different discussion), I have been known to be pretty vocal when people make racist comments. Having said that, my MIL who is definitely at least mildly racist, probably will make those comments around any children I may have, and it will annoy me intensely. However, until my child is old enough to tell Granny to stop, I will have to accept she'll make those comments when I'm not there to shut her up. And in the meantime, I'll be using eye rolling, tongue clacking and other more mature methods to let my child know that granny is NOT right and that while he/she has to make the decision ultimately, both his/her parents think she's an idiot for these thoughts.

[sighs - wish I actually already had those DCs to avoid PC his/her . ]

But solidgoldbrass, leaving aside the enormous sweep of the generalisations in your post, there was nothing remotely akin to racist literature involved in the OP's ds getting a blessing. It is just a gesture of well wishing. What is the problem?

Oooh, actually, although I accept MILs annoying racism and the issues that will bring, this really is a great example because I can imagine myself getting more worked up about it than a casual blessing. Although I still think I don't get to go completely ballistic if she's making racist comments in front of DC when I'm not there.

But as DP has the same attitude to religion I have to racism, it's entirely possible he'll be entirely in OPs corner.

Note, I'm not changing my mind about how bad it was, just realising that I can see a little more clearly why it would be annoying for OP.

IN general, a bit of brainless mumbo jumbo muttered at a child with good intentions is harmless and can/should be expected as a gesture of goodwill. But given that the OP's MIL is pushing superstition at the OP's family, it was (on this specific occasion) rude and disrespectful and were it me I would say, please don't peddle any more of this crap at us, we don't want it and we are not putting DS through a stupid meaningless ceremony just to pander to your delusions.

One of the erroneous assumptions on this thread is that atheism is a laissez-faire position, that it is sinmply the absence of religious fervour. Au contraire, atheism can be just as firmly rooted, intellectually and emotionally as Christianity or any other brand of supersition. As such, a committed atheist might be as horrified and freaked out by a Christian blessing being said over a child without parental permission as the child being circumcised or having its ears pierced or being the subject of a black mass or any other bizarre activity deemed acceptable by followers of a different belief system.

The bottom line is that the OPs spiritual welfare is his parents responsibility, not his grandmother's, and the MIL had no business insidiously wangling an act of religious ritual for the child (albeit not on the scale she would have liked, but a religious ritual nonetheless). The "I'm working on it" bit is downright undermining and wrong. And I would be bloody livid. Christians aren't the only ones who can spit blood and feathers over the violation of their spiritual beliefs, although I bow to their superior record in that department

His father was with him.
He didn't stop any of this happening.
It would appear he was okay with it.

The OP says that her DH was at the other end of the chucrch at the time and that neither the vicar nor the MIL consulted him.

I agree, Snarky, it seems people can be intolerant of others whether they are religious or not.

They were in church.
Mil was holding baby.
Surely dh knows what his mother is like. If he suspected anything and was worried, wouldn't he have stayed with them?
I just get the feeling that dh is more relaxed about the whole thing.