A thought experiment about Baptism

[InThePew]

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

The difference is that, in confecting the Eucharist, the priest (believing or unbelieving) is not the one doing the work rather Christ is. So, (fortunately some might say) confection of the Eucharist isn’t dependent on me or my level of faith; I’m simply an instrument.

 

[poche]

If I were the priest I would ask her to make an appointment so that we could talk later.

 

[Elf01]

The difference is that, in confecting the Eucharist, the priest (believing or unbelieving) is not the one doing the work rather Christ is. So, (fortunately some might say) confection of the Eucharist isn’t dependent on me or my level of faith; I’m simply an instrument.

Is the same not true of baptism?

 

[Titivillus]

Digitnomy:

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

The difference is that, in confecting the Eucharist, the priest (believing or unbelieving) is not the one doing the work rather Christ is. So, (fortunately some might say) confection of the Eucharist isn’t dependent on me or my level of faith; I’m simply an instrument.

Ex
Opere
Operato

 

[QwertyGirl]

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.

That has no validity to an atheist.

 

[JimG]

Well, if the atheist’s baptism is valid, and it can be, he has initiated a new Catholic into the Church, which provides priveleges and obligations. And if the child is too young to follow the obligations, that falls on the person who took the initiative to provide the baptism.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Well that may be the way you see it, but an atheist will not see it that way at all.

 

[Titivillus]

That has no validity to an atheist.

What makes you say so?

 

[QwertyGirl]

Atheists don’t subscribe to Catholic teachings anymore than Catholics subscribed to the teachings of other non-Catholic religions. Why would they?

 

[Titivillus]

But an atheist can intend what the church intends, even if he does not believe the church is effective.

 

[QwertyGirl]

But atheists don’t acknowledge or submit to Church authority. So telling an atheist they are responsible for raising a child in the Catholic faith will not carry any weight.

 

[Rau]

So telling an atheist they are responsible for raising a child in the Catholic faith will not carry any weight.

If said atheist is the father of said child and husband of the catholic mother, then he may have agreed to take on that responsibility.

 

[InThePew]

Is the same not true of baptism?

In the case of our friend Mr Atheist, the issue isn’t his lack of faith but the circumstances which give rise to some doubt as to his intentions. Granted, that may not matter as far as the spiritual effects of baptism are concerned (the Holy Spirit is helpful like that) but because of the legal effects of baptism it’s better to be sure and that’s what a conditional baptism would do.

 

[QwertyGirl]

If said atheist is the father of said child and husband of the catholic mother, then he may have agreed to take on that responsibility.

The only responsibility a non-Catholic takes when marrying a Catholic is to understand their spouse is agreeing to raise any children Catholic, and to not stand in the way of that effort.

 

[Gorgias]

Mike_from_NJ:

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.

That’s not true. A grandparent’s “bathtub baptism” is valid, albeit illicit.

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

LOL!

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

If he does not do what the Church intends, then he does not confect the Eucharist.

The difference, among other things, is that the two sacraments are distinct and so, not all that applies to one applies to the other.

So, (fortunately some might say) confection of the Eucharist isn’t dependent on me or my level of faith; I’m simply an instrument.

On the other hand, if you don’t intend what the Church intends…

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?

That’s a different situation altogether. You’re conflating the situations of a non-Catholic Christian and a Catholic. Canon law applies only to the latter.

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.

It specifies the matter and form, doesn’t it? So, it does discuss validity.

The only responsibility a non-Catholic takes when marrying a Catholic is to understand their spouse is agreeing to raise any children Catholic, and to not stand in the way of that effort.

Almost right. He simply affirms that he’s heard what his fiancee has promised.

Yet, even so, getting in the way of a baptism at church seems to fly in the face of any arrangement one would expect that they may have had. (On the other hand, they may not have had an arrangement at all…)

 

[Titivillus]

Titivillus:

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?

That’s a different situation altogether. You’re conflating the situations of a non-Catholic Christian and a Catholic. Canon law applies only to the latter.

I don’t think so? I think you are conflating Mr Atheist with a Catholic (to whom Canon Law would apply).
Details
(I am making an analogy between Mr Atheist and the Rev Mrs Episcopalian, in the face of those who claim that non-ordained-Catholic-clergy may only baptize someone in danger of death. I’ll stop being Socratic now and say out loud: No, even heretics and atheists, among other non-ordained-Catholic-clergy, can baptize, regardless whether or not there is danger of death, if they use proper form, matter, and intend what the Church intends

At least that is my understanding.)

 

[Brendan_64]

It specifies the matter and form, doesn’t it? So, it does discuss validity.

But it doesn’t determine validity. The nature of the sacraments are not bound by Canon Law. And valid matter does not extend to cover the nature of the person carrying out a baptism. If somebody who is not permitted by Canon Law carries out a baptism, that does not make the baptism invalid, even if the action has been carried out illictly.

If I drove from London to Liverpool in a vehicle that I was not licenced to drive, I would have broken the law, but I still would have driven to Liverpool.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t think so? I think you are conflating Mr Atheist with a Catholic (to whom Canon Law would apply).

I’m not. Let’s see what you’re asserting:

I am making an analogy between Mr Atheist and the Rev Mrs Episcopalian, in the face of those who claim that non-ordained-Catholic-clergy may only baptize someone in danger of death.

Nope. The “in danger of death” constraint that you mention, applies only to baptisms of Catholics, not every baptism everywhere. The Catholic Church doesn’t legislate in that way, with respect to non-Catholic Christians. Canon law only applies to Catholics.

No, even heretics and atheists, among other non-ordained-Catholic-clergy, can baptize, regardless whether or not there is danger of death, if they use proper form, matter, and intend what the Church intends

At least that is my understanding.

Your understanding is correct in the context of Catholics. Your invalid extrapolation comes into play when you extend it to non-Catholic Christians.

But it doesn’t determine validity. The nature of the sacraments are not bound by Canon Law.

It actually does discuss what makes a valid baptism. Moreover, I would argue that canon law regulates the sacraments, which is reasonable, since the Church has the authority to regulate the sacraments.

If somebody who is not permitted by Canon Law carries out a baptism, that does not make the baptism invalid, even if the action has been carried out illictly.

If I drove from London to Liverpool in a vehicle that I was not licenced to drive, I would have broken the law, but I still would have driven to Liverpool.

Not sure why you’re asserting this, as if I’d disagree with it, since it highlights the same distinction between ‘validity’ and ‘liceity’ that I’d been making.

 

[Brendan_64]

Not sure why you’re asserting this, as if I’d disagree with it, since it highlights the same distinction between ‘validity’ and ‘liceity’ that I’d been making.

I must have misunderstood you then. I thought you were implying that for a baptism to be valid it needs to be carried out as prescribed by Canon Law.

 

[Titivillus]

One of us is expressing himself poorly.
It might even be me.

Titivillus:

I am making an analogy between Mr Atheist and the Rev Mrs Episcopalian, in the face of those who claim that non-ordained-Catholic-clergy may only baptize someone in danger of death.

Nope. The “in danger of death” constraint that you mention, applies only to baptisms of Catholics, not every baptism everywhere. The Catholic Church doesn’t legislate in that way, with respect to non-Catholic Christians. Canon law only applies to Catholics.

Right. I am only mentioning the “in danger of death” part to refute those who are asserting that Mr Atheist may not baptize for (at least, perhaps among other mistaken notions) the reason that the recipient is not “in danger of death”.
I say: Yes, he can.

(Also: When you write “baptisms of Catholics”, which I have underlined above, do you mean “baptisms by Catholics” (with which I would concur)? Or “baptisms of [recipients intended to be made] Catholics” (with which I am not sure)? Or something else?)

Titivillus:

No, even heretics and atheists, among other non-ordained-Catholic-clergy, can baptize, regardless whether or not there is danger of death, if they use proper form, matter, and intend what the Church intends

At least that is my understanding.

Your understanding is correct in the context of Catholics. Your invalid extrapolation comes into play when you extend it to non-Catholic Christians.

Are you asserting that the Rev Mrs Episcopalian does not validly baptize??

Repeat: One of us is expressing himself poorly.
It might even be me.