A thought experiment about Baptism

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

FiveLinden

Guest
So I was thinking about Baptism, the ability of anyone to validly administer the sacrament and the very strong view of the Church that except in emergencies the sacrament should also be carried out in line with the proper procedures set out in canon law.

Here’s my made-up, not true, simply for discussion situation:

Mr Atheist and Ms Catholic marry, validly, and have a baby. The Parish Priest drops round for a discussion and explains Baptism. Mr Atheist does not want to go through with the ceremony although he has no objection to the baby being baptised in itself since to him it has no effect.

On hearing that anyone, even an atheist, can validly administer Baptism as long as they intend what the Church intends, Mr Atheist reaches for the water jug, pours water on the baby’s head and correctly utters the necessary words.

He clearly intends what the Church intends because the whole point is to avoid the proper ceremony of Baptism. He knows, from reading CAF, that Baptism can never be administered twice and that conditional Baptism is only possible where there is doubt about an earlier attempt at Baptism.

Ms Catholic is more than a little annoyed at this effort but scoffs at her partner saying she and the priest will simply go ahead with the proper ceremony in any case.

The Priest, also more than a little annoyed, turns to Ms Catholic and says…
 
One issue is that according to Canon law someone like Mr. Atheist can only administer the rights if the baby’s life is in danger.
 
FiveLinden said:
On hearing that anyone, even an atheist, can validly administer Baptism as long as they intend what the Church intends,
Click to expand...
That premise sounds impossible. Do you suggest the atheist is not really an atheist? Or perhaps you need to explain further.
 
FiveLinden said:
that except in emergencies the sacrament should also be carried out in line with the proper procedures set out in canon law.
Click to expand...
Not quite right. The sacrament must always comply with Canon Law. The difference is that in emergencies, the law automatically dispenses certain prerequisites, for lack of better phrasing.

In your example, like many other cases where a child has been baptized irregularly apart from the clergy and typical rites, when the child is brought to the church, those missing pieces are supplied. The baptism itself is not repeated (unless there’s something suspect about the original act).
 
Rau said:
That premise sounds impossible. Do you suggest the atheist is not really an atheist? Or perhaps you need to explain further.
Click to expand...
That is my understanding of the Church position. Anyone, even an unbeliever, can Baptise validly if they intend what the Church intends. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong!
 
FiveLinden said:
That is my understanding of the Church position. Anyone, even an unbeliever, can Baptise validly if they intend what the Church intends. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong!
Click to expand...
Do you see the difficulty with an atheist baptizing with the same intent as the Church? I don’t think they can share the intent. They can only copy the process.
 
It’s worth noting that if one uses the proper matter and form, the intention is presumed. If one uses proper matter and form, but internally positively excludes performing the sacrament, then it wouldn’t happen. But absent the actual intention, simply using the actions, words, and matter presumably are valid.

This is how an atheist who doesn’t even believe in baptism can baptize. So long as he doesn’t go through the motions while excluding the intention to baptize, it’s valid.

-Fr ACEGC
 
FiveLinden said:
What would your advice to Ms Catholic be Father?
Click to expand...
There isn’t anything to discuss or advise.

The baby is validly baptized. The priest can still supply the additional rites of baptism in a ceremony at the church, together with the parent or parents and god parents.

Also, the atheist need not participate in the baptism. It takes only one parent to present the child to the Church for baptism.
 
Last edited:
How is the following to be assessed:
edward_george1 said:
If one uses proper matter and form, but internally positively excludes performing the sacrament, then it wouldn’t happen.
Click to expand...
We have good grounds to suspect that the atheist’s sole motivation was to benefit himself by avoiding a more usual baptism ceremony. I can understand why one could seriously question the internal state of mind of the atheist. [“Let me do this nonsense so we get out of visiting the church”]. If this is our strong suspicion, could we not seek baptism at the church, or must we presume it is already done because we cannot prove otherwise? @edward_george1
 
Last edited:
I had a fairly similar situation arise not so long back, where the grandfather “secretly” baptised his grandson because he knew the parents weren’t interested. It was one of those “oh great what on earth am I supposed to do about this” situations! Basically, the child should be conditionally baptised in order to ensure validity and the rest of the ceremonies supplied at the same time. Until then, the baptism should not be entered into the register but a note can be made of the relevant details.
 
In the case I’m describing there is no doubt of the intent of the baptiser. Is a conditional baptism possible in those circumstances?
 
FiveLinden said:
In the case I’m describing there is no doubt of the intent of the baptiser. Is a conditional baptism possible in those circumstances?
Click to expand...
Tbh I think there is sufficient doubt as to his intentions - whether he was intending that the child become a member of the body of Christ or whether he was just doing it to be difficult. Given that he himself, as you described, does not consider it to have any effects then this suggests serious doubt as to whether he truly intended what the Church intends. In any event, a conditional baptism (as was required for the “secret baptism” problem I had) would put the question beyond doubt.
 
I think that since Mr Atheist did that in spite and not out of emergency, that baptism becomes non-valid
 
FiveLinden said:
Mr Atheist reaches for the water jug, pours water on the baby’s head and correctly utters the necessary words.

He clearly intends what the Church intends because the whole point is to avoid the proper ceremony of Baptism.
Click to expand...
If Mr. Atheist believes that Baptism has no real effect, he cannot be said to intend that effect. Further he’s doing it this was specifically because he wants to avoid the ceremony that the Church says should be performed.
So no. Mr. Atheist does not intend the proper effect of the sacrament.

Also the Church does not say that just anyone can baptise if they want to. The Church says that:
(A) if the unbaptised person is in imminent danger of death and
(B) if there is no priest available then
–others may administer the sacrament.

In this case there is no such danger and there is a priest right there in the room with them.
 
IRENESSPTPL said:
I think that since Mr Atheist did that in spite and not out of emergency, that baptism becomes non-valid
Click to expand...
Zaccheus said:
Also the Church does not say that just anyone can baptise if they want to. The Church says that:
(A) if the unbaptised person is in imminent danger of death and
(B) if there is no priest available then
–others may administer the sacrament.
Click to expand...
I repeat my question:
How do non-Catholic ecclesial communities validly baptize infants (and adults) who are not in danger of death?

🤔
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top