Any advice on how or whether to proceed? I'm thinking moral obligatgion

[Is_it_okay_to]

I need help in knowing how to proceed in this case. A few years ago in a casual conversation at a social gathering in our parish, an acquaintance of mine, a practicing Catholic who has been active in the parish for some 40 years or so now, was recalling his baptism. He was brought up in a Protestant family who delayed his baptism until he was something like 13 years old. But at that time, he says, he didn’t want to be baptized (although earlier in his childhood he may have been more agreeable). Basically, his parents insisted on it and he was baptized. He entered the Catholic Church later on after he married his Catholic wife with the usual process in the Church before RCIA, and he has been an active Catholic ever since. I am thinking, was this baptism valid? Should anything be said at this late date? This question apparently has never occurred to them. Does the baptism enjoy the presumption of validity much as a marriage would? Would the age of this minor doing what his parents told him to do even against his will make any difference? I really don’t know what was going on in anyone’s mind at the time or what was done at the time of his entering the Church. Is this any of my business? Need anything be said, or do we leave it alone? (I am a member of an RCIA team, but was an “innocent bystander” to this situation.)

 

[puzzleannie]

no nothing needs to be said or done. the priest who received him into the Church had the responsibility of ascertaining the facts and providing what was necessary. we assume that was done.

 

[markomalley]

The best course of action is for him to speak privately about this with his pastor.

The following is my considered opinion as a layperson. I am not an expert, but just try to be a well-read layman. The person involved should consult an expert (ie, his pastor, a canon lawyer, or somebody else who is qualified to render an authoritative judgment on the issue).

From my humble opinion, the validity of a baptism is important enough that if there is any question as to the validity of his baptism in the Protestant community, they may wish to privately perform a **conditional **baptism and conditionally perform confirmation after that conditional baptism.

The Code of Canon Law says:Can. 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.
In your post, you said: He was brought up in a Protestant family who delayed his baptism until he was something like 13 years old. But at that time, he says, he didn’t want to be baptized

Canon Law also says the following:Can. 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.
§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.
Because of the statement that he made to you (at that time, he says, he didn’t want to be baptized), there may be an issue as to the baptism’s validity, according to Can. 869 §2 (note the bolded and underlined text above).

Note the text of Can 869 §1, above. If there is a doubt as to the validity of the baptism, baptism is to be conferred conditionally. A conditional baptism doesn’t hurt anything. If the person was baptised validly before, he just gets his head wet. However, if he wasn’t, it could be the state of his eternal soul.

As for conditional confirmation, Canon 889 says that only a baptized person can validly receive confirmation. If he wasn’t validly baptized in that protestant community, then he could not have been confirmed when he was received into the Church.

**LET ME STRESS AGAIN THAT THE ABOVE ARE OBSERVATIONS FROM A LAY PERSON. THIS INDIVIDUAL NEEDS TO GO TO SOMEBODY WHO IS LEGITIMATELY QUALIFIED TO RENDER AN AUTHORITATIVE OPINION ON THE MATTER. **

But I think the question does need to be asked.

 

[St_Francis]

My understanding of baptism is that if it performed in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, with the intention of baptising (as opposed to doing something in a play or similar), then it is valid. The things around it are more to protect to proposed baptised person from having the mark of baptism on his or her soul without the proper support for upholding that.

So, except in case of imminent death, babies are not to be baptised unless there is a good chance that they will be raised Catholic, even if you are the baby’s relative and fear for the eternal destiny of the child…

Adults, even those in danger of death, are not to be baptised unless they have given some indication that they want that to heppen (so actually don’t baptise a dying stranger…)

Your friend would have had to bring in proof that he was properly baptised (some non-Catholic communities do not baptise correctly) or he would have already been conditionally baptised.

So I don’t think you really need to worry about this.

 

[06convert]

Lucky are we as Catholics to have more than just one sacrament of initiation.

He would have had confirmation. The confirmation affirmed his baptism making it 100% valid.

Had he never affirmed his baptism and spent his life rejecting God and thinking he never wanted to be baptised. That may have been a different story. Not realizing the importance or the necessity of the baptism at 13 was just the result of immaturity in his case.

But he obviously realized that baptism was right and affirmed it in confirmation during which he would have renewed his baptismal promises.