A thought experiment about Baptism

[Brendan_64]

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.

Canon law has been broken, but I do not think that that makes the sacrament invalid. Illicit probably, but I don’t think it is invalid. The difference I think is between whether someone should do something and whether they can do something.

Another point is that as it is Canon Law, is an atheist bound by it, or are only Catholics bound by Canon Law?

 

[Annie]

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.

I have been under the impression that in a case like this, the baptism would be valid, that the “intention to do what the Church does” is to clarify that it is all right to “perform” a baptism in a play or movie as in this situation, the intention to baptize, or to do what the Church does, is lacking.

Have I been wrong about this?

 

[TheLittleLady]

The Priest, also more than a little annoyed, turns to Ms Catholic and says…

We will complete the Rite, providing what was lacking in this valid but illicit baptism.

He will then anoint the child and have the baptism recorded in the parish records.

 

[Gorgias]

The Priest, also more than a little annoyed, turns to Ms Catholic and says…

…“why did he do that? I didn’t tell him ‘you baptize validly’! I told him ‘bring the baby to church to be baptized!’”



(Simplistic thought experiments are so fun to derail!)

But, for the sake of argument, it’s not “emergency”, it’s “in danger of death.” In this case, that’s not present. So, I can’t see why anyone (let alone a priest on a home visit) would – in the same breath – say “come and have your baby baptized, but you don’t really need to do so, since in danger of death, you can baptize him yourself.”

In other words… it’s a pretty implausible thought experiment.

But… even with that caveat, we can take it a step further: the priest would invite the family to bring the baby to church, in order to supply the rest of the rites of baptism.

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.

“should”, not “can only”. Well-meaning (but poorly catechized) Catholic grandparents do this all the time with their grandchildren.

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.

Hmm… I was always under the impression that it was presumed valid. And, in fact, the grandparent is to be advised to tell the parents what he did, and the child should be entered into the register, since he’s a validly baptized person!

How do non-Catholic ecclesial communities validly baptize infants (and adults) who are not in danger of death?

They aren’t subject to canon law. So, they baptize validly by virtue of the act itself (with the usual caveats about matter, form, and intention).

Have I been wrong about this?

Yep; I’m of the same mind as you.

 

[Titivillus]

Titivillus:

How do non-Catholic ecclesial communities validly baptize infants (and adults) who are not in danger of death?

They aren’t subject to canon law. So, they baptize validly by virtue of the act itself (with the usual caveats about matter, form, and intention).

Ding! Ding! Ding!

Nor is Mr Atheist subject to Canon Law.

 

[JimG]

Why would someone who objects to having the child go through the ritual of baptism, then himself provide the ritual of baptism for the child?

 

[Rau]

Why would someone who objects to having the child go through the ritual of baptism, then himself provide the ritual of baptism for the child?

His objection was to the hassle of going to the church etc

 

[JimG]

The priest should congratulate him on his newly baptized Catholic child, and remind him of his obligation to ensure that the child is raised in the Catholic Church, receive the other sacraments of initiation and attend Mass. By baptizing the child, he has given the child the responsibility of living a Catholic life, aided by his parents.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Stranger things have happened.

I’ve known of a family where new baby was not baptized. Older child was very much into church, took water and poured it on the baby, said the proper words. Their priest talked to the child, determined that was a valid baptism, completed the Rite and recorded it as such.

 

[InThePew]

Hmm… I was always under the impression that it was presumed valid. And, in fact, the grandparent is to be advised to tell the parents what he did, and the child should be entered into the register, since he’s a validly baptized person!

It may or may not be valid; it may even be presumably valid but a conditional baptism puts the matter beyond doubt. Besides this, the legal effects and sacramental effects of baptism are two different things. Baptism, while obviously being the gateway for salvation, also brings with it certain legal effects (rights, privileges, duties, etc) and so shouldn’t be entered in the register until sorted.

I have been under the impression that in a case like this, the baptism would be valid, that the “intention to do what the Church does” is to clarify that it is all right to “perform” a baptism in a play or movie as in this situation, the intention to baptize, or to do what the Church does, is lacking.

When someone is baptised, it’s about more than just pouring water over them (ensuring that it touches and flows…) and saying the trinitarian formula. Consent is obviously important and, in the case of children this is expected to be supplied by their parents. This isn’t just consenting to the act of baptism, it’s consenting to being baptised into the faith of the Church (which is why we have the profession of faith immediately beforehand) with all that that entails. This is why “secret” baptisms by well-meaning grandparents (or siblings) are questionable in terms of their validity. Of course, danger of death is another matter and not the time to be worrying about legal niceties!

How do non-Catholic ecclesial communities validly baptize infants (and adults) who are not in danger of death?

Typically, by water and the holy spirit! Presumably, they intend to baptise the child into the Christian faith so that part is simple enough. Form is another matter however and can be an issue depending on the particular ecclesial community. With the more structured communities (e.g. Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, AOG, Methodist, Presbyterian), their ritual books provide a reasonable amount of certainty that their practice is valid and we assume that the minister did what they were supposed to do. With others however (e.g. Mormon, JW, Unitarian, Salvation) it’s a different story and we don’t recognise their baptism, while others still (Pentecostal, Seventh Day Adventist) are dealt with on a case by case basis (basically asking questions to find out exactly what was involved).

 

[Zaccheus]

How do non-Catholic ecclesial communities validly baptize infants (and adults) who are not in danger of death?

For some such communities, the answer is: they don’t. They lack the power to administer the sacraments.

There are some Christian denominations that split away from Rome but retain the authority to administer the sacraments. Example: the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches, which are separated from us on some issues but remain in close enough communion with Rome that they still have the sacraments.
For those communities the answer is the same as for the Roman Catholic Church. it takes a priest to baptise except in emergences.

 

[Zaccheus]

Another point is that as it is Canon Law, is an atheist bound by it, or are only Catholics bound by Canon Law?

In one sense Mr. Atheist is not bound. We must attend Mass on Sunday. He is not expected to do that. We must go to Confession and receive the Eucharist once a year at absolute minimum. He doesn’t have to.

In another sense he is bound. He cannot perform a valid baptism except under the rules set by the Church. He is not permitted to receive the Eucharist at all.

Regarding baptism: Mr. Atheist cannot validly baptize except when the unbaptised is in imminent danger of death and there is no priest at hand.

 

[Annie]

This is why “secret” baptisms by well-meaning grandparents (or siblings) are questionable in terms of their validity

I did not know that a secret baptism like that might be invalid as well as illicit. I thought the main problem was that the child would not know he is bound to Catholic precepts and that if he grew up and came into the Church not knowing he had been baptized that that could cause a lot of problems.

Thanks for clarifying

 

[Vico]

…
The Priest, also more than a little annoyed, turns to Ms Catholic and says…

To the baptizer: “Please provide the date of baptism to the parish office, so that it can be recorded in the baptismal registry.”

 

[Zaccheus]

But the (atheist) father was not Catholic. How is this baby now Catholic?

His mother is Catholic and intends to raise him in the Church.
The issue of baptism is being addressed.

Remember there is such a thing as conditional baptism.
“If you have not already been validly baptized, then I baptise you now in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

 

[Zaccheus]

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.

“should”, not “can only”. Well-meaning (but poorly catechized) Catholic grandparents do this all the time with their grandchildren.

“Can only.” Nobody but a priest may validly baptise, unless the baby’s life is in imminent danger and unless there is no priest available.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

@Zaccheus @Gorgias @FiveLinden
After looking through this thread and the different sides, clearly what I thought was straightforward wasn’t

 

[Digitnomy]

Given that he…does not consider it to have any effects then this suggests serious doubt as to whether he truly intended what the Church intends.

How does this differ from an unbelieving priest, who validly confects the Eucharist despite his conviction that his words and actions have no effect?

 

[Titivillus]

Regarding baptism: Mr. Atheist cannot validly baptize except when the unbaptised is in imminent danger of death and there is no priest at hand.

That is not my understanding. Can you provide more detail?

For instance: How is it that Rev Mrs Episcopalian validly baptizes a healthy child in no mortal danger, even while there is a perfectly serviceable Catholic church (and priest) across the street?

 

[Brendan_64]

In another sense he is bound. He cannot perform a valid baptism except under the rules set by the Church. He is not permitted to receive the Eucharist at all.

Regarding baptism: Mr. Atheist cannot validly baptize except when the unbaptised is in imminent danger of death and there is no priest at hand.

I believe that “cannot” is the wrong word to use here, but it is the phrase “should not” that should be used.

My understanding is that the Catholic Church accepts as valid all baptisms carried out using the correct form of words, using water (pouring or full immersal) and carried out with the intention to baptise.

Think of all the Protestant baptisms carried out. Most of these people were not in danger of death and the baptism has been carried out by an unordained lay-person, yet the Catholic Church views most Protestant baptisms as valid.

My understanding is that, as regards baptism in such cases, Canon Law determines whether a baptism has been carried out lawfully, not whether a baptism is valid.