S07.E06: Baptists, Catholics And An Attempted Drowning

[Chit Chat]

On 4/6/2024 at 8:28 AM, Yeah No said:

I remember when Amy would say something brilliant that really impressed him he would say something funny like, "Say that again and I'll take you on the table right here", LOL.

Or "you're so damn hot!"  I'm pretty sure he uttered those words when they were working on their asymmetry project.  I also remember when Amy put on a robe from the Harry Potter movie, and that seemed to float his boat too!!

 

[Yeah No]

10 hours ago, Sarah 103 said:

I know the spin-off has already been announced and was probably a done deal before this episode was written. That being said, did this episode feel a bit like a back-door pilot to anyone else? It's the network essentially saying "here's a taste of the Georgie and Mandy show, be sure to tune in next season for more."

Yup, I had the same impression.  While I love all the actors and this episode was a good one, I'm still not so keen on the Georgie and Mandy show, but I'm willing to give it a go.  Even if it's a little less interesting than this show has been I'm sure it will be better than 90% of the crap that passes for comedy these days.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, possibilities said:

I find Mandy's mother extremely unpleasant, enough that I really hope she's not on the spin off and was actually disappointed when she and Mandy reconciled during this episode.

Mary may  be dogmatic and unreasonable at times, but she is still warmer and more supportive and generally kind than Mandy's mother. When it really counts, Mary is there for the people who need her and she isn't a total downer,

True, but the upcoming spin-off does explain the mental whiplash I got when Mandy’s mother momentarily mothered Mandy.

[Chit Chat]

3 hours ago, Yeah No said:

While I love all the actors and this episode was a good one, I'm still not so keen on the Georgie and Mandy show, but I'm willing to give it a go. 

I'm having a hard time envisioning where the new show goes from here.  I'll give it a chance, but I'm not really expecting a lot from it.  I'm ready for YS to end and to close the chapter on the Cooper family.  Maybe the new show will surprise me, but I'm just rather 'meh' about it at this point.  

[Frost]

What is it that Mandy does/used to do for a living?  

[ams1001]

28 minutes ago, Frost said:

What is it that Mandy does/used to do for a living?  

TV Weathergirl.

I think now she's just helping in the video store/laundromat/illegal gambling establishment, if she's not just staying home with the baby.

[Tom Holmberg]

On 4/6/2024 at 4:01 PM, hoodooznoodooz said:

I am sure that you all have covered this in your discussions of Chuck Lorre, but this episode annoyed me in how all of the male partners seem henpecked. 

Henpecked and ineffectual.  Typical Chuck Lorre.

[proserpina65]

I hated this episode.  It was everything I hate about Mary's character, plus Mandy's equally unpleasant mother.  I'm with Mandy about neither of them being at the wedding.

On 4/5/2024 at 10:25 AM, joanne3482 said:

As a longtime atheist (however former Catholic) I wouldn't care if my parents baptized my kid because it doesn't mean anything to me.

I'd be pretty angry about them doing it behind my back.  Just like I would if they did other things with my child without asking my permission.

[ams1001]

9 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

I'd be pretty angry about them doing it behind my back.  Just like I would if they did other things with my child without asking my permission.

If I had kids, and my parents felt strongly about having them baptized, I would do it for them (raised Methodist; it didn't stick). But I would be upset if they did it behind my back.

[Ziggy]

23 hours ago, proserpina65 said:

I hated this episode.  It was everything I hate about Mary's character, plus Mandy's equally unpleasant mother.  I'm with Mandy about neither of them being at the wedding.

I'd be pretty angry about them doing it behind my back.  Just like I would if they did other things with my child without asking my permission.

I think they definitely downplayed Mandy’s reaction. Most parents I know it would’ve been absolutely livid!

I thought the baptisms were unrealistic - at least the Catholic one. I don’t know any priest who would baptize a baby without first meeting with the parents. Most priest would want to have a couple of different sessions with them before the baptism.

But, Young Sheldon is a sitcom, and in general, the seriousness of everything was downplayed.

[proserpina65]

16 hours ago, ams1001 said:

If I had kids, and my parents felt strongly about having them baptized, I would do it for them (raised Methodist; it didn't stick). But I would be upset if they did it behind my back.

I wouldn't do it and I'd be furious if they did it behind my back.  Raised Episcopalian and that didn't stick, but any kids I'd have had wouldn't have gotten baptized until/unless they were old enough to make the decision for themselves.  I would refuse to do something which endorses a religion in which I don't believe.

[DoYouLikeMutton]

On 4/8/2024 at 9:20 AM, proserpina65 said:

I hated this episode. 

The trajectory of this series is making it very easy for me to bid adieu to this show.  The interesting story lines were never fully developed, and the cringeworthy scenarios have continued. It was fun while it lasted, and I truly am glad some people are still enjoying it.

Edited April 9 by DoYouLikeMutton
typo

[ams1001]

2 hours ago, DoYouLikeMutton said:

The trajectory of this series is making it very easy for me to bid adieu to this show.  The interesting story lines were never fully developed, and the cringeworthy scenarios have continued. It was fun while it lasted, and I truly am glad some people are still enjoying it.

Yeah, I'll watch to the end but I can't say I'll miss it.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, DoYouLikeMutton said:

The trajectory of this series is making it very easy for me to bid adieu to this show.  The interesting story lines were never fully developed, and the cringeworthy scenarios have continued. It was fun while it lasted, and I truly am glad some people are still enjoying it.

This is how I feel as well.  I enjoyed the first few years of the show and I was ok with them softening George's character but when it became just another Chuck Lorre show where most of the women are shrews and the men are henpecked I lost interest.  It's background TV for me now and I am curious to see the finale but I doubt I'll ever rewatch the last few seasons in reruns.  Once was enough.

[Yeah No]

4 hours ago, ams1001 said:

Yeah, I'll watch to the end but I can't say I'll miss it.

I'll miss it.  Warts and all it's still better than most of the crap on TV these days in my opinion.

[januaryman]

17 hours ago, DoYouLikeMutton said:

The trajectory of this series is making it very easy for me to bid adieu to this show.  The interesting story lines were never fully developed, and the cringeworthy scenarios have continued. It was fun while it lasted, and I truly am glad some people are still enjoying it.

They could have done amusing stories with adolescent Sheldon instead of wasting time with databases, gambling dens, creepy pastors and pregnancies. 

[aqusdealer]

1 hour ago, januaryman said:

They could have done amusing stories with adolescent Sheldon instead of wasting time with databases, gambling dens, creepy pastors and pregnancies. 

This is exactly it in a nutshell. Also, many interactions between Sheldon and Dr. Sturgiss were lost to the more adversarial relationship between Sheldon and Dr. Linkletter. 

[Ziggy]

19 hours ago, Yeah No said:

I'll miss it.  Warts and all it's still better than most of the crap on TV these days in my opinion.

Me, too!  I love this show.  I really do!  It is absolutely better than most of the shows on TV these days.  Sure, there are parts that don't perfectly mesh with me, but overall, I love it!

[Yeah No]

On 4/10/2024 at 9:59 AM, januaryman said:

They could have done amusing stories with adolescent Sheldon instead of wasting time with databases, gambling dens, creepy pastors and pregnancies. 

I agree with this but I'm beginning to think it shows that a non-Sheldon focused sequel was the plan all along given that this show had a built-in limited run from the start.

[proserpina65]

On 4/10/2024 at 9:59 AM, januaryman said:

They could have done amusing stories with adolescent Sheldon instead of wasting time with databases, gambling dens, creepy pastors and pregnancies. 

I'd rather watch all of that than have even 5 more seconds of Sheldon.

[chediavolo]

On 4/5/2024 at 9:40 AM, Yeah No said:

I think Mandy's mom's rush to baptize the baby as a Catholic was because if they didn't get married in the Catholic church they would not have to promise to raise the child as a Catholic, while non-Catholics marrying Catholics have to make that promise if they get married in the Catholic church.

I think he might mind if he were to be made to promise to raise the child as a Catholic.

Babies are baptized because if they die without being baptized, they don’t get into heaven, original sin. 

[Ziggy]

On 4/13/2024 at 11:49 AM, chediavolo said:

Babies are baptized because if they die without being baptized, they don’t get into heaven, original sin. 

Many Christians do believe that the unbaptized will not go to Heaven, but the Catholic Church does not teach that.

Although, I supposed it's possible that Mandy's mom didn't know that.

Edited April 15 by Ziggy

[chediavolo]

34 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

Many Christians do believe that the unbaptized will not go to Heaven, but the Catholic Church does not teach that.

Although, I supposed it's possible that Mandy's mom didn't know that.

We were taught in the Roman. Catholic church,  that infants who die without being baptized, go to limbo they do not go to  heaven. 

[Tom Holmberg]

58 minutes ago, chediavolo said:

We were taught in the Roman. Catholic church,  that infants who die without being baptized, go to limbo they do not go to  heaven. 

Yep. "The Roman Catholic view is that baptism is necessary for salvation and that it frees the recipient from original sin. Roman Catholic tradition teaches that unbaptized infants, not being freed from original sin, go to Limbo (Latin: limbus infantium), which is an afterlife condition distinct from Hell."

[Ziggy]

49 minutes ago, chediavolo said:

We were taught in the Roman. Catholic church,  that infants who die without being baptized, go to limbo they do not go to  heaven. 

There were definitely Catholics who were taught about Limbo, but it has never been an official teaching of the Catholic Church.

There was also a time when Catholics were also taught that anyone who was not Baptized could not go to Heaven, but officially the Church says that we don't know but hope that they can be saved by the Grace of God.

I wish the Church would go a step further and admit that they have no business definitively saying what happens after we die and that God can do whatever God wants to do.  I've always been a bit put off by humans claiming to have that authority.

But I'll try to get off my soap box and remind myself that Young Sheldon is a sitcom and a show that I enjoy and that I should try to stop taking those things so seriously :-)

[Ziggy]

8 minutes ago, Tom Holmberg said:

Yep. "The Roman Catholic view is that baptism is necessary for salvation and that it frees the recipient from original sin. Roman Catholic tradition teaches that unbaptized infants, not being freed from original sin, go to Limbo (Latin: limbus infantium), which is an afterlife condition distinct from Hell."

This is absolutely a common myth, but Limbo is not (and never has been) an official teaching of the Catholic Church.

If you want to read about it, here is the link from the Vatican website:

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

But this is the relevant information:

The teaching of Limbo was "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium"

"in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), the theory of limbo is not mentioned. Rather, the Catechism teaches that infants who die without baptism are entrusted by the Church to the mercy of God, as is shown in the specific funeral rite for such children. The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism (cf. CCC, 1261)"

Edited April 15 by Ziggy

[Tom Holmberg]

25 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

The principle that God desires the salvation of all people gives rise to the hope that there is a path to salvation for infants who die without baptism

Basically, this translates as, if you're not baptized we HOPE you'll be saved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_of_infants

 

The myth can be blamed on the nuns who taught it. 😉

Edited April 15 by Tom Holmberg

[Tom Holmberg]

28 minutes ago, Ziggy said:

The teaching of Limbo was "never entered into the dogmatic definitions of the Magisterium"

"...even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council."

[Ziggy]

1 hour ago, Tom Holmberg said:

Basically, this translates as, if you're not baptized we HOPE you'll be saved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_of_infants

 

The myth can be blamed on the nuns who taught it. 😉

You're not wrong!

1 hour ago, Tom Holmberg said:

"...even if that same Magisterium did at times mention the theory in its ordinary teaching up until the Second Vatican Council."

True.

[Yeah No]

On 4/13/2024 at 12:49 PM, chediavolo said:

Babies are baptized because if they die without being baptized, they don’t get into heaven, original sin. 

Oh of course, I know that, but that wasn't Mandy's mom's primary motivation here.  In this case the rush to baptize in secret without anyone knowing was to beat the other "side" to the punch.  After the baby was baptized by Pastor Jeff, Mary gave him a high five and said, "Take that, Roman Catholics!"  I'm sure Mandy's mom also thought she was beating Mary to the punch.  It was about beating the other one to baptizing the child in their particular faith so they can claim it is of their faith. 

It wasn't even as much about salvation with either of them to do it so fast behind everyone's back.  I think both of them thought they would be able to claim the child was already baptized in their faith first so that the other one would have to back down and accept it. They didn't know that they were both doing the same thing so close together.  And Mary knew that it would have to happen soon or else the Baby might get baptized a Catholic first, otherwise she wouldn't have been in such a rush.   This way she can say to herself that she got there first so the baby is what it was baptized first and what she says it is.  She thought she could steamroll her way through this.  Of course Mandy's mom wouldn't see it that way and even if she knew the child was baptized by Mary first she will still think the child is a Catholic.  She just didn't want to argue about it and not get her way about baptizing the child a Catholic.

Edited April 16 by Yeah No

[aemom]

My mother was a staunch Catholic who converted to Orthodox when she married my father.

My husband and I were uninterested in religion and we married in a reception hall by a Unitarian minister. We went that route because we didn't want to go to the courthouse and we were ok with what the Unitarians stood for.

After child #1 was born, my mother asked about a baptism. I said no. She said "you're going to let you're kids grow up to be heathens?"

Sigh.......

I called the Unitarians and asked if they did any sort of thing for babies. They do "naming ceremonies"

So we did naming ceremonies and everybody was happy.

But had we not? I would not have put it past my mother to do a secret baptism.