When news happens, text LT and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.
REGISTER NOW TO POST YOUR COMMENTS ON THESE STORIES
It's free and only takes a few seconds. Click here to go to the registration page.
9:30am Wednesday 17th March 2010 in
A FAMILY was left ‘humiliated’ when a priest refused to christen their son minutes before the service was due to start.
As 50 family and friends sat waiting in St Joseph’s Church, Audley Range, Blackburn, Father David Chinnery discovered neither parent was a Roman Catholic.
He told Janine Wood and partner Andrew Craig this meant he could not baptise their five-year-old son Jamie, a pupil at St. Antony's RC School.
The couple said they felt left humiliated at having to tell their guests to leave the church.
They believe Fr Chinnery should have taken more stringent steps earlier to find out if they were Catholics.
Fr Chinnery said it was a very difficult situation but it would have been against the Catholic Church to christen the child.
The priest said he would now request to see certificates before agreeing to baptism in future.
The couple, of Shadsworth Road, Blackburn, had held meetings with Fr Chinnery, and attended the church every Sunday for mass.
Janine, 30, said although she had been born into the Church of England, she had attended Catholic schools and the Catholic church most of her life.
She said she did not want anyone to have to go through the same experience.
The full-time mum said: “I’m appalled.
“It was chaos. Everybody was asking what was going on.
“I have since spoken to friends who have had children christened and their priests have written to them in advance to confirm everything but he didn’t ever do that.
“It is important to me that Jamie is christened because I want him to have the same schooling as me.
"Father Chinnery asked if I wanted to baptise Jamie, he asked if I was a Catholic and I attended a Catholic school.
"I was born into the Church of England but he didn’t ask if I was baptised.
“We attended the church two weeks before the christening and everything was fine and that was the last time we spoke to him until the christening.”
Father Chinnery made the discovery ahead of the service on Sunday when he asked God parents Janine’s brother Keith Wood, 35, and Andrew’s sister Karen Craig, 38, which denomination they were and it transpired both Andrew and Janine were also Church of England.
Andrew, a window cleaner, added: “I felt so embarrassed and ashamed. It was an absolute shambles.”
Father Chinnery, who has been at the church since October, said he had presumed they were Catholics.
He said: “If I had gone on and baptised Jamie it would have been illegal in the Catholic church and it would have caused a bit a scandal. You just cannot do it.
“Once I knew Janine was not a Catholic I could not do it.
“It was very hard for me to walk out and tell them all and that’s what I had to do.
“They’re regular as regular can be so I can understand why they are so upset."
Lee Siggs from the Universe, the weekly Catholic Church newspaper, said that the incident was 'highly unusual'.
He said: "One of the most important aspects of a Catholic baptism is that the parents agree to bring up their child as Catholic.
"It is hard to imagine how that would happen if they were both Church of England.
"The priest should have made sure in the run-up to the baptism that everything was in order because the situation that arose is not ideal."
Catholic priest Father Jim McCartney of St Anne's church, said he had not heard of a baptism being cancelled at such short notice before.
He said it 'probably would' be normal practice to refuse to carry out the ceremony if neither parent was a Catholic.
He said: "There may be exceptional circumstances, and if she wanted to become a Catholic, that could be a way forward.
"I can understand where the priest is coming from, but at the same time it maybe should have been dealt with earlier."
A spokesman for the Salford Diocese said: "Since neither parent is Catholic, such a commitment would clearly have been impossible to make.
"There seems to have been a misunderstanding on this point.
"If either parent would like to become Catholic, then that possibility is always open to them."
Comments(95)
Akki
says...
10:22am Wed 17 Mar 10
wackyracer
says...
11:01am Wed 17 Mar 10
burner
says...
11:06am Wed 17 Mar 10
wackyracer
says...
11:09am Wed 17 Mar 10
A Darener
says...
11:18am Wed 17 Mar 10
disgusted tunbridge wells
says...
11:25am Wed 17 Mar 10
mikebuk
says...
12:38pm Wed 17 Mar 10
kaotic kaos
says...
12:38pm Wed 17 Mar 10
spoonfullofsugar
says...
12:47pm Wed 17 Mar 10
rjdarwen
says...
12:50pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Mike Costa
says...
1:09pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Darwendude
says...
1:25pm Wed 17 Mar 10
TheReason
says...
2:05pm Wed 17 Mar 10
ste.g
says...
3:46pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Mike Costa wrote:i couldnt agree more.
Mike Costa says: Call me cynical but, as is nearly always the case, this will have little to do with religious feelings and everything to do with getting a child into a preferred educational establishment. Its a shame the parents didn't have enough education, or they would have realised that you can't have your child christened in an RC Church if that isn't your own religious leaning.
Ken Shuffles
says...
3:56pm Wed 17 Mar 10
anneyates
says...
4:12pm Wed 17 Mar 10
archibold
says...
4:40pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles
says...
4:52pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles
says...
4:57pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles
says...
5:00pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Totally
says...
6:29pm Wed 17 Mar 10
TheReason wrote:Hello my friend!! For once I've got to partly disagree with you. I had a Catholic upbringing and my kids have been through baptism, confirmation & communion but don't attend a Catholic school. Not because of the "abuse" concern but because I preferred Westholme to Stonyhurst. Obviously there is evidence of what you refer to and I am not disputing that, but I don't think its rife in regular RC primary and secondary schools.
The point is being missed here. NOBODY gives a toss about the childs religious upbringing. The parents are doing it for the schools and the priest was going to it for numbers. I think the family got away lightly! It would seem that by joining the Catholic cult, your child owes it's seniors a series of sexual encounters. Look it up, it might as well be in the fine print.
Michael@ClitheroeSince58
says...
6:36pm Wed 17 Mar 10
blueandwhitey79
says...
6:54pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Veritas10
says...
7:15pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Davidoff
says...
7:50pm Wed 17 Mar 10
icannotrace
says...
8:07pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Veritas10 wrote:The Parents have a good case to sue for damages and emotional distress. They should consult a solicitor......
The priest failed in his duty according to canon 851 to instruct the child's parents and godparents. He was also wrong to stop the ceremony a few minutes before it was to start. Canon 868 says that there only has to be a reseaonable hope that the child will be raised as Catholic. The Parents have a good case to sue for damages and emotional distress. They should consult a solicitor. Clearly, the priest concerned did not have a good seminary formation and perhaps needs a refresher course in Church Law.
SammyJ
says...
8:08pm Wed 17 Mar 10
grumpyoldlady
says...
8:08pm Wed 17 Mar 10
icannotrace
says...
8:13pm Wed 17 Mar 10
archibold wrote:Amen to that brother
How refreshing that a debate about religion where there is one faith that has been criticised and not one sniff of the word 'racist'. Even though C of E and other faiths have clearly made their views known...not one person from the Catholic faith has said - racist bigots....God bless the Catholics!
bluerover
says...
8:38pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Veritas10 wrote:"the priest...didn't have a good seminary formation" Spouting canon law you sound a bitter seminarian!!
The priest failed in his duty according to canon 851 to instruct the child's parents and godparents. He was also wrong to stop the ceremony a few minutes before it was to start. Canon 868 says that there only has to be a reseaonable hope that the child will be raised as Catholic. The Parents have a good case to sue for damages and emotional distress. They should consult a solicitor. Clearly, the priest concerned did not have a good seminary formation and perhaps needs a refresher course in Church Law.
Where's_the_beef?
says...
8:39pm Wed 17 Mar 10
huggles
says...
9:21pm Wed 17 Mar 10
burnleyite
says...
10:12pm Wed 17 Mar 10
manitou
says...
11:39pm Wed 17 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles
says...
10:17am Thu 18 Mar 10
Veritas10
says...
11:57am Thu 18 Mar 10
Veritas10
says...
12:10pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Veritas10
says...
12:24pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Mison
says...
12:43pm Thu 18 Mar 10
bwithd
says...
3:12pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Veritas10
says...
3:23pm Thu 18 Mar 10
bwithd
says...
3:39pm Thu 18 Mar 10
BarneyHK
says...
3:53pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Mison
says...
4:06pm Thu 18 Mar 10
BarneyHK wrote:Why 2000 years just a number in your head or r u referring to something more significant.
The RC church is a farce from top to bottom. This institution has no credibility at any level. This family got off lightly with 'embarrassment'. Hundreds of thousands of others were not so lucky. This anachronistic organisation which for decades condoned the rape and abuse of children should never be forgiven. Even the present pope is having to duck for cover. No surprises here. Better to get off your knees of a Sunday morning and take a brisk walk in the country. Clear your head of superstition and nonsense and understand that your life today has everything to do with biology and nothing to do with 2000 year old codswallop.
Ken Shuffles
says...
4:07pm Thu 18 Mar 10
BarneyHK
says...
4:10pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Veritas10 wrote:Yes - they may indeed have a cause of action but in which forum? The civil courts don't have locus standi over church law. On the other hand they could bring an action in tort on the basis that the priest had a duty of care to ensure that the costs the family were to incur for the christening were not unreasonably wasted by making sure the chil was 'eligible' to be a part of the ceremoney. Emotional distress - uhmmm - not sure if that would have legs. If I were representing the priest I'd argue that the RC church is incapable of inflicting emotional distress for such a low level negative act when their reputation for paedophelia, child rape and emotional torture so clearly sets out their moral benchmark. The most this family would likely win would be the taxi fares and the cost of the do afterwards, but even then damages mitigation would suggest that they had to eat lunch anyway!! Hardly worth it - but then again, why are we surprised. The RC would easily be dismissed as a joke if their real crimes were not so bloody serious.
The priest failed in his duty according to canon 851 to instruct the child's parents and godparents. He was also wrong to stop the ceremony a few minutes before it was to start. Canon 868 says that there only has to be a reseaonable hope that the child will be raised as Catholic. The Parents have a good case to sue for damages and emotional distress. They should consult a solicitor. Clearly, the priest concerned did not have a good seminary formation and perhaps needs a refresher course in Church Law.
Ken Shuffles
says...
4:34pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Veritas10
says...
4:54pm Thu 18 Mar 10
jakdekipper
says...
5:55pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Veritas10
says...
6:03pm Thu 18 Mar 10
jakdekipper
says...
6:12pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Veritas10
says...
6:26pm Thu 18 Mar 10
jakdekipper
says...
6:38pm Thu 18 Mar 10
jh372
says...
6:53pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Totally
says...
7:59pm Thu 18 Mar 10
blylad
says...
9:12pm Thu 18 Mar 10
e=mc
says...
9:47pm Thu 18 Mar 10
bwithd wrote:Maybe because John the Baptist was Jewish and he was baptising Jews. Jesus himself was baptised in the river Jordan by John the Baptist.
john the baptist baptised all, all day long ,refused none and not one of them was catholic. when is a church not a church..when they go against the true teachings and meanings that are written in the good book. some churches may look like a church and sound like a church but be ye not deceived for they deceive many so that ye shall not know ye truth and ye shall not be set free and their coffers fill with more gold and their robot converts grow all the more in number, ye hath been warned.
Veritas10
says...
11:14pm Thu 18 Mar 10
jakdekipper wrote:Baptism and Christening are just different names for the same sacrament. In fact the Roman Catholic Church recognises the validity of Baptisms conducted according to the rites of the Anglican Church. I find it hard to believe that the Priest phoned the bishop for his advice. He would have mentioned that he was carrying out the bishop's instructions to the parents. The parents have every right to be aggrieved, they were humiliated in front of the friends and family, and were sincerely looking forward to the baptism of their son. It is even more ridiculous when the priest had the authority to go ahead with the ceremony, but his misinterpretation of the Church's code of canon law prevented him from doing so.
sorry c of e dont get baptised they get christened, and as for being cristened c of e then being allowed and RC holy communinion thats a no go. and my final comment on the subject is, if the parents wanted to be honest they could have been honest in the interview for the paper and told them that, the priest actually phoned the bishop to ask for his advise. it was the bishops who said that he couldnt carry on with the service
Veritas10
says...
11:18pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Totally
says...
11:32pm Thu 18 Mar 10
Veritas10
says...
12:31am Fri 19 Mar 10
aussie odg
says...
9:27am Fri 19 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles
says...
1:51pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles
says...
1:57pm Fri 19 Mar 10
michael106
says...
7:34pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles
says...
9:16pm Fri 19 Mar 10
BarneyHK
says...
10:16pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles wrote:Hear hear!
Belief ? you mean the Priest was trying to impress a Papal regulation. I don't see anything resembling any Truth in a Catholic Rule being followed or not followed. What are all these thousands of rules for anyway ? Can't be much integrity left if Gods Grace depends first on someone following the right rule. It seems to me, all those rules have ever resulted in is a lot of misery and confusion and struggle.
Ken Shuffles
says...
10:37pm Fri 19 Mar 10
BarneyHK
says...
10:50pm Fri 19 Mar 10
BarneyHK
says...
10:53pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Veritas10
says...
11:04pm Fri 19 Mar 10
michael106 wrote:The problem was that it was a subjective decision based on his own personal views, not the objective teaching of church law which would have permitted the baptism. Perhaps the parent's thought that the main thing to being a catholic is going to a catholic school and church now and again. It was the priest's duty to instruct the parents as to the demands of baptism. Not to simply say, turn up in two weeks time at noon! Instruction sessions are designed to check the parent's level of understanding, and to supplement what is lacking. If the priest had done his job then none of this would have happened. Finally, the priest should have gone ahead with the baptism, and informed the school so that extra provision could be made to educate the child and his parents in the faith. That would have been the pastoral approach, and the one favoured by Our Lord. To humiliate them like this in front of friends and family for his own error was abhorent. I hope he apologises to the family, and reaches out to them.
It is good that the Priest made a decision based on what he felt to be correct. It is a historical fact that Jesus was Crucified for doing this. Ignorant and unjust judges condemmed him to death for it. How is it that the family did not know they were not Catholics before the morning? This can not be the fault of the Priest alone. It also sounds like the only reason they are trying to have the child Baptised is to go to a school similar to the one the mother went to - This is another reason why the Priest should not have continued. It makes me see the Catholic church in a very positive light to think decisions are made based on belief, truth and integrity - rather then for popular demand or to increase favour!
BarneyHK
says...
11:25pm Fri 19 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles
says...
11:59pm Fri 19 Mar 10
lady88
says...
12:01am Sat 20 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles
says...
12:14am Sat 20 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles
says...
12:28am Sat 20 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles
says...
12:45am Sat 20 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles
says...
12:50am Sat 20 Mar 10
BarneyHK
says...
10:14am Sat 20 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles wrote:Ken: WA +8 QLD +10. A bloody long way away from St Joseph's on Audley Range. I still have my baptism certificate!! (the old draughty one, not the hi-tech centrally heated one there now). The child needs pipes not popes!
:))))))..... The Child could quite easily have been spiritualy confused for an eternity!!!! Your a very wise soul Barney. (when will they learn, we are just supposed to delight in ourselves)
are you ten behind or ten in front, I can never remember.?
Veritas10
says...
11:27am Sat 20 Mar 10
lady88 wrote:So that's the extent of his preperation for the gateway to christian life?
this is silly as my son was christened at this church and Fr Chinnery is a lovely man. When you arrange a date with the Fr he asks if one of the parents is RC and also one of the godparents are too. SO this woman lied to him. Its her own fault !!
michael106
says...
12:15pm Sat 20 Mar 10
Veritas10 wrote:Dear Veritas10, you are full of judgment and quite clearly have issues with either the priest in question or the Catholic Church. This was illustrated quite clearly when you brought the ridiculous argument to the debate yesterday about celibacy of catholic priests being linked to paedophilia. Your superficial attack on another catholic tradition suggests that all single people are potential paedophiles and conversely that all married people should not be paedophiles. What does this say about your line of reasoning to debate these issues? All the main world religions hold that sex outside of marriage is not ideal. Therefore all unmarried people are as celibate as a catholic priest. And just for your information, not all marriages prove to demonstrate fidelity. Hence the start of the Church of England! But it is good that everyone can see the depth of your augment is not personal to this priest in Blackburn but is clearly just an opportunity for you to have a bash at the Catholics! Keep going if it makes you feel better.
Yes I know what you mean Barney - our area has had a few nasty priests, and I couldn't think why anyone would want to do the job now. A senior canon in Blackburn was done for drink driving - the former hospital chaplain about 10 years ago was done for child ****. A priest at nearby Stoneyhurst done for child abuse, and recently a catholic priest next door in Preston was done for waving his bit around in a public toilet. They should let them get married !
BarneyHK
says...
12:27pm Sat 20 Mar 10
michael106 wrote:Excellent! Lots of stuff for us to get our teeth into here! Bring it on guys!
Veritas10 wrote:Dear Veritas10, you are full of judgment and quite clearly have issues with either the priest in question or the Catholic Church. This was illustrated quite clearly when you brought the ridiculous argument to the debate yesterday about celibacy of catholic priests being linked to paedophilia. Your superficial attack on another catholic tradition suggests that all single people are potential paedophiles and conversely that all married people should not be paedophiles. What does this say about your line of reasoning to debate these issues? All the main world religions hold that sex outside of marriage is not ideal. Therefore all unmarried people are as celibate as a catholic priest. And just for your information, not all marriages prove to demonstrate fidelity. Hence the start of the Church of England! But it is good that everyone can see the depth of your augment is not personal to this priest in Blackburn but is clearly just an opportunity for you to have a bash at the Catholics! Keep going if it makes you feel better.
Yes I know what you mean Barney - our area has had a few nasty priests, and I couldn't think why anyone would want to do the job now. A senior canon in Blackburn was done for drink driving - the former hospital chaplain about 10 years ago was done for child ****. A priest at nearby Stoneyhurst done for child abuse, and recently a catholic priest next door in Preston was done for waving his bit around in a public toilet. They should let them get married !
disgusted tunbridge wells
says...
2:05pm Sat 20 Mar 10
bbarrett
says...
2:10pm Sat 20 Mar 10
bbarrett
says...
2:28pm Sat 20 Mar 10
Veritas10 wrote:Cannon law has to be applied in the context to the situation. In this case, to bring all the family into the church on that day contradicts your argument. completely. 'Reasonable hope' does not apply in this case, on THE day there appeared to be no evidence that the child was to be raise a Catolic in the true sense of the word. To explore the family intentions further could take a long time, not a quick chat. Fr Chinnery had no option by acll alccounts. I suspect you know this already but you appear to have a personal grievance with the preist concerned by how emotive your messages are.
The priest failed in his duty according to canon 851 to instruct the child's parents and godparents. He was also wrong to stop the ceremony a few minutes before it was to start. Canon 868 says that there only has to be a reseaonable hope that the child will be raised as Catholic. The Parents have a good case to sue for damages and emotional distress. They should consult a solicitor. Clearly, the priest concerned did not have a good seminary formation and perhaps needs a refresher course in Church Law.
bbarrett
says...
2:28pm Sat 20 Mar 10
Veritas10 wrote:Cannon law has to be applied in the context to the situation. In this case, to bring all the family into the church on that day contradicts your argument. completely. 'Reasonable hope' does not apply in this case, on THE day there appeared to be no evidence that the child was to be raise a Catolic in the true sense of the word. To explore the family intentions further could take a long time, not a quick chat. Fr Chinnery had no option by acll alccounts. I suspect you know this already but you appear to have a personal grievance with the preist concerned by how emotive your messages are.
The priest failed in his duty according to canon 851 to instruct the child's parents and godparents. He was also wrong to stop the ceremony a few minutes before it was to start. Canon 868 says that there only has to be a reseaonable hope that the child will be raised as Catholic. The Parents have a good case to sue for damages and emotional distress. They should consult a solicitor. Clearly, the priest concerned did not have a good seminary formation and perhaps needs a refresher course in Church Law.
Ken Shuffles
says...
12:42pm Sun 21 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles
says...
12:43pm Sun 21 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles
says...
1:53pm Sun 21 Mar 10
BarneyHK
says...
1:57pm Sun 21 Mar 10
Ken Shuffles
says...
2:07pm Sun 21 Mar 10
BarneyHK
says...
2:09pm Sun 21 Mar 10
Totally
says...
11:21pm Sun 21 Mar 10
BarneyHK
says...
11:34pm Sun 21 Mar 10
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Search jobs in and around Lancashire
Search Now »
Find the right person for you
Search Now »
Search houses, flats, and all properties
Search Now »
Search new & used cars in and around Lancashire
Search Now »
Little Diamond says...
10:15am Wed 17 Mar 10