Baby baptized without knowledge--valid?

[TheAdvocate]

Let’s say there is a nurse in a hospital who works in a maternity ward, and she baptized a baby that she thinks is going to die. As a Catholic, she thinks she is doing the right thing; after all, death is imminent in her mind, and there is no priest around. She doesn’t ask the parents, or even know them. She just performs the emergency Baptism.

As it turns out, the baby survives. As it turns out also, the parents are agnostic, and they of course have no intention of raising their child in the Catholic faith (of course!).

So…was the baby validly baptized? Did the baby become regenerated as an adopted child of God? Was the baby’s original sin wiped away?

 

[Gorgias]

Canon 868 §2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

So yes, the baby is validly and licitly baptized.

 

[1ke]

Let’s say there is a nurse in a hospital who works in a maternity ward, and she baptized a baby that she thinks is going to die. As a Catholic, she thinks she is doing the right thing; after all, death is imminent in her mind, and there is no priest around. She doesn’t ask the parents, or even know them. She just performs the emergency Baptism.

This is both a valid and licit baptism.

As it turns out, the baby survives. As it turns out also, the parents are agnostic, and they of course have no intention of raising their child in the Catholic faith (of course!).

The nurse should inform the parents AND the pastor of the parish in whose boundaries the hospital resides. The baptism needs to be recorded in the sacramental register.

So…was the baby validly baptized? Did the baby become regenerated as an adopted child of God? Was the baby’s original sin wiped away?

Yes. Yes. And Yes.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Canon 868 §2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

So yes, the baby is validly and licitly baptized.

If the child is subsequently not raised in the faith, and learns nothing about Christ, I have to wonder what the point is.

 

[devoutchristian]

If the child is subsequently not raised in the faith, and learns nothing about Christ, I have to wonder what the point is.

The point is that living as an Apostate is better than dying as an infidel.

 

[TheAdvocate]

The point is that living as an Apostate is better than dying as an infidel.

An apostate is someone who abandons his or her previously accepted faith. In this case, the person in question never voluntarily accepts Jesus to be begin with.

And what if the nurse doesn’t tell anyone about the baptism? Seems like the Baptism would have no spiritual value.

 

[AdamP88]

If the child is subsequently not raised in the faith, and learns nothing about Christ, I have to wonder what the point is.

The point is that the child has received the grace that comes with the sacrament of baptism. They are a member of the body of Christ, the Church and even if they do not know this, the very fact that they are baptised means that they have that grace for later in life when perhaps they will make the journey into the Church for themselves.

The Lord will work in their lives…the best you can do is pray for them.

 

[devoutchristian]

An apostate is someone who abandons his or her previously accepted faith. In this case, the person in question never voluntarily accepts Jesus to be begin with.

And what if the nurse doesn’t tell anyone about the baptism? Seems like the Baptism would have no spiritual value.

The validity of sacraments does not depend on whether or not anyone knows about them. An Apostate is a baptized person who rejects the Christian faith.

 

[R_C]

Let’s say there is a nurse in a hospital who works in a maternity ward, and she baptized a baby that she thinks is going to die. As a Catholic, she thinks she is doing the right thing; after all, death is imminent in her mind, and there is no priest around. She doesn’t ask the parents, or even know them. She just performs the emergency Baptism.

As it turns out, the baby survives. As it turns out also, the parents are agnostic, and they of course have no intention of raising their child in the Catholic faith (of course!).

So…was the baby validly baptized? Did the baby become regenerated as an adopted child of God? Was the baby’s original sin wiped away?

The Baptism was valid. She thought he was in danger of death, and this requires permission from nobody: only to pour water and pronounce the words, intending to do what the Church does.

 

[R_C]

If the child is subsequently not raised in the faith, and learns nothing about Christ, I have to wonder what the point is.

As a Catholic, do you really have to wonder what the point is?** Really?**

Seems like the Baptism would have no spiritual value.

Baptism is a Sacrament that acts ex opere operato: it is God who infuses Sanctifying Grace into the soul, regenerating it unto life and light, and washing away the stain of Original Sin, and sealing it perpetually with an indelible Christian character. This is the work of God, not of man.

Once the baptismal grace is upon the soul, God will graciously lead that soul towards the Church and sanctification. The soul is no longer held captive. The soul can obviously resist grace.

 

[TheAdvocate]

As a Catholic, do you really have to wonder what the point is?** Really?**

Baptism is a Sacrament that acts ex opere operato: it is God who infuses Sanctifying Grace into the soul, regenerating it unto life and light, and washing away the stain of Original Sin, and sealing it perpetually with an indelible Christian character. This is the work of God, not of man.

Perhaps then, we should just walk into Muslim maternity wards and secretly baptized all the babies who are in danger of death. Why not?

Baptism is a sacrament of faith. That’s why if a couple goes to a priest and requests that their child be baptized, but tell the priest they are only doing it for cultural reasons or that grandma is forcing them to, the priest will not baptize the baby. If there is no reasonable expectation that the baby will be raised in the faith, the baby will not be baptized.

That is precisely the counter-argument we have against Protestants who object to infant Baptism: they don’t have the faith now, but they will have it later–hence it is still a sacrament of faith.

 

[R_C]

Perhaps then, we should just walk into Muslim maternity wards and secretly baptized all the babies who are in danger of death. Why not?

Canon Law 868§2: “An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents can be baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents”

It does not say: must. It is not a duty. But we can.

Baptism is a sacrament of faith. That’s why if a couple goes to a priest and requests that their child be baptized, but tell the priest they are only doing it for cultural reasons or that grandma is forcing them to, the priest will not baptize the baby. If there is no reasonable expectation that the baby will be raised in the faith, the baby will not be baptized.

The Baptism is to be deferred if there isn’t a founded hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith. But the Baptism is, according to the same chapter of Canon Law, valid and licit even without parental permission if the child is in danger of death - even if the parents are not Catholic.

That is precisely the counter-argument we have against Protestants who object to infant Baptism: they don’t have the faith now, but they will have it later–hence it is still a sacrament of faith.

That’s not the counter-argument that the Church Fathers had against the heretics of their days.

Cyprian of Carthage:

"As to what pertains to the case of infants …] we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born. …] If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another. "

Gregory of Nazianz:

"Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? …] Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly …] better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated. "

John Chrysostom:

"You see how many are the benefits of baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors …] For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by [personal] sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his [Christ’s] members. "

Augustine:

"What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond.

The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic.

By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his [Christ’s] body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants.

Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too. If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this. The sacrament of baptism is most assuredly the sacrament of regeneration. "

 

[TheAdvocate]

Canon Law 868§2: “An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents can be baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents”

It does not say: must. It is not a duty. But we can.

The Baptism is to be deferred if there isn’t a founded hope that the child will be raised in the Catholic faith. But the Baptism is, according to the same chapter of Canon Law, valid and licit even without parental permission if the child is in danger of death - even if the parents are not Catholic.

That’s not the counter-argument that the Church Fathers had against the heretics of their days.

None of the quotes from the Fathers address the issue of the reasonable expectation of the child to be raised in the faith. They’re all just saying, “don’t refrain from baptizing children.”

 

[bobbyhillisabro]

If the child is subsequently not raised in the faith, and learns nothing about Christ, I have to wonder what the point is.

The point is that she did the will of God. That’s like saying what’s the point of sharing the faith if the person you are sharing it with doesn’t convert.

 

[R_C]

None of the quotes from the Fathers address the issue of the reasonable expectation of the child to be raised in the faith. They’re all just saying, “don’t refrain from baptizing children.”

To begin with: I think the proper wording is founded hope. I do not think that “reasonable expectation” is found anywhere in Canon Law.

Second: they do mention “why” they are not to refrain from baptizing infants. And indeed, none mention the “founded hope”. All of them mention of the washing away of the stain of original sin and many other benefits. Neither mentions whether or not the infant will grow to be a Catholic. The point being: while clearly it is not wrong to postpone Baptism if there isn’t a founded hope that the child will grow up Catholic (otherwise the Church would not do it this way), we do not baptize “because although they do not have faith now, they will have it later”. We baptize because we want them to be washed of original sin and regenerated and justified and infused with sanctified grace and sealed with an indelible mark of the soul.

 

[TheAdvocate]

To begin with: I think the proper wording is founded hope. I do not think that “reasonable expectation” is found anywhere in Canon Law.

Second: they do mention “why” they are not to refrain from baptizing infants. And indeed, none mention the “founded hope”. All of them mention of the washing away of the stain of original sin and many other benefits. Neither mentions whether or not the infant will grow to be a Catholic. The point being: while clearly it is not wrong to postpone Baptism if there isn’t a founded hope that the child will grow up Catholic (otherwise the Church would not do it this way), we do not baptize “because although they do not have faith now, they will have it later”. We baptize because we want them to be washed of original sin and regenerated and justified and infused with sanctified grace and sealed with an indelible mark of the soul.

We baptize because we want them to be washed of original sin and regenerated and justified and infused with sanctified grace and sealed with an indelible mark of the soul

Yes, but without a founded hope, we shouldn’t do it at all.

Imagine a nurse is going around to dying babies in a maternity ward. She baptizes Jane, and Cathy, and Robert, but before she can get to Susan, and Kate, and Michael, they die. How sad that Jane, and Cathy, and Robert get regenerated and justified and infused with sanctified grace and sealed with an indelible mark of the soul, while Susan, Kate, and Michael do not–all because they didn’t happen to be closest to the door from which the nurse entered the room.

 

[Phemie]

We baptize because we want them to be washed of original sin and regenerated and justified and infused with sanctified grace and sealed with an indelible mark of the soul

Yes, but without a founded hope, we shouldn’t do it at all.

Imagine a nurse is going around to dying babies in a maternity ward. She baptizes Jane, and Cathy, and Robert, but before she can get to Susan, and Kate, and Michael, they die. How sad that Jane, and Cathy, and Robert get regenerated and justified and infused with sanctified grace and sealed with an indelible mark of the soul, while Susan, Kate, and Michael do not–all because they didn’t happen to be closest to the door from which the nurse entered the room.

So she should let them ALL die unbaptized? I don’t think so.

 

[R_C]

We baptize because we want them to be washed of original sin and regenerated and justified and infused with sanctified grace and sealed with an indelible mark of the soul

Yes, but without a founded hope, we shouldn’t do it at all.

Imagine a nurse is going around to dying babies in a maternity ward. She baptizes Jane, and Cathy, and Robert, but before she can get to Susan, and Kate, and Michael, they die. How sad that Jane, and Cathy, and Robert get regenerated and justified and infused with sanctified grace and sealed with an indelible mark of the soul, while Susan, Kate, and Michael do not–all because they didn’t happen to be closest to the door from which the nurse entered the room.

I think now you are trying to reason out the mystery of predestination and of divine providence. That’s not the point here.

The issue is that we do not have a mandate to go and baptize children behind their parent’s back, nor does the Church support such a practice. All we have is a green light: if there is an infant in danger of death, we do not commit sin or anything invalid if we take the initiative of baptizing them without their parent’s consent, even if their parents are not Catholic. Because we are trying to pave their way to heaven through the ordinary means of salvation, given that the child is in true danger of death and there is no time left. Children in maternity ward, I hope, are quite frail, but not “in danger of death”…!

If the nurse sees that there is an infant or a child about to die, and on her own initiative she baptizes him, what she did is both valid and licit. That is all the Church tells us.

If she could only reach one child and not another one, and one dies baptized and the other doesn’t, that is part of the mystery of life and divine providence, and we can neither understand nor judge what has taken place. We can only accept it and trust in God.

Note that I am not arguing that your statement is wrong: but for a child in danger of death, the founded hope argument is null, because there is no hope - he will die shortly. The least we can do is pave the way for him or her towards Christ.

 

[TheAdvocate]

I think now you are trying to reason out the mystery of predestination and of divine providence. That’s not the point here.

The issue is that we do not have a mandate to go and baptize children behind their parent’s back, nor does the Church support such a practice. All we have is a green light: if there is an infant in danger of death, we do not commit sin or anything invalid if we take the initiative of baptizing them without their parent’s consent, even if their parents are not Catholic. Because we are trying to pave their way to heaven through the ordinary means of salvation, given that the child is in true danger of death and there is no time left. Children in maternity ward, I hope, are quite frail, but not “in danger of death”…!

If the nurse sees that there is an infant or a child about to die, and on her own initiative she baptizes him, what she did is both valid and licit. That is all the Church tells us.

If she could only reach one child and not another one, and one dies baptized and the other doesn’t, that is part of the mystery of life and divine providence, and we can neither understand nor judge what has taken place. We can only accept it and trust in God.

Note that I am not arguing that your statement is wrong: but for a child in danger of death, the founded hope argument is null, because there is no hope - he will die shortly. The least we can do is pave the way for him or her towards Christ.

Best reply so far. Thanks.

 

[chimo]

Let’s say there is a nurse in a hospital who works in a maternity ward, and she baptized a baby that she thinks is going to die. As a Catholic, she thinks she is doing the right thing; after all, death is imminent in her mind, and there is no priest around. She doesn’t ask the parents, or even know them. She just performs the emergency Baptism.

As it turns out, the baby survives. As it turns out also, the parents are agnostic, and they of course have no intention of raising their child in the Catholic faith (of course!).

So…was the baby validly baptized? Did the baby become regenerated as an adopted child of God? Was the baby’s original sin wiped away?

There was an incident with St. Maria Faustina when an elderly Jewish woman was dying in the same hospital where Maria was staying. At an opportune time when this woman’s relatives thought the time of the woman’s death was certain to come they left the room to find the doctor. This is when Maria went over to baptised this woman just immediately before she had died. As soon as she died Maria was able to see this woman’s soul sore like a eagle. It seems whenever this baptism comes it is valid!