N
NoAvailableName
Guest
What is fundamentally different about baptism that it cannot be annulled, while marriage can?
- Status
B
bilop
Guest
An annullment is not the cancelling of a valid marriage, it is saying no marriage ever existed, b/c some fundamental element was lacking.
A baptism can be declared invalid. A case happened recently in Australia where a heterodox parish was baptizing in “The name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier” instead of “the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.
The bishop ruled all these baptism were null, and must be re-done correctly.
The clearest difference is there are very few essential elements to Baptism, and they are quite visible: the threefold pouring of water, the above words, and the consent (for an adult). It’s really hard to mess this up unless you try.
For a marriage, all sorts of non-visible things can cause nullity. Previous marriages. Inability to consent due to mental illness or addiction. Intentions against permanence, faithfullness or openness to life.
Therefore, a lot more marriages are deemed null than baptisms.
Hope that helps!
God Bless!
N
NoAvailableName
Guest
This is the key point that I think would often be missing. There are plenty of non-practicing Catholics that get their children baptized to appease parents or because of some lingering commitment to the faith, without ever truly having the desire to raise their children in the faith.
B
Bookcat
Guest
they would still be valid…
G
Genesis315
Guest
Baptisms are declared null all the time. For example, folks baptized by Oneness Pentacostals who become Catholic have to be baptized again. Their first baptism was not a true one–it had a defect which made it invalid.
C
Chi_Rho_Joe
Guest
Genesis315 and bilop are right on the money!
Parents absolutely should baptize their child -regardless of age- with the intent of raising them in the faith: the RIGHT reason to baptize. However, their intentions or failure to fulfill those right intentions in no way invalidates the gift of a correctly applied baptism itself.
I think withholding God’s wonderful awesome gift of baptism is cruel - regardless of the intentions (good, bad, misguided). I’m thankful beyond belief I was baptized as an infant - considering how many times I almost died as a toddler. Once a valid baptism always a valid baptism. Can’t take it back or have a “do-over”. I can’t think of a reason to withhold that gift because of man-made “yea-but”'s unless it’s guaranteed the baby WILL live to the “age of consent” or “knowledge” or whatever.
While on the topic …
Christ said
Baptism is God’s gift that wipes away ALL sin (original sin and any personal sin*if *there is any but there will not be in the case of a baby) and makes us the adopted children of God (God only had 1 “biological” Son).
Whew!:coolinoff: K. Your turn.
Um… baptizing to appease anyone but God is misdirected, but happens… although when done correctly, cannot be undone. Your attempt to convolude baptism of babies with a misguided reason is showing. Let’s stay focused.
Parents absolutely should baptize their child -regardless of age- with the intent of raising them in the faith: the RIGHT reason to baptize. However, their intentions or failure to fulfill those right intentions in no way invalidates the gift of a correctly applied baptism itself.
I think withholding God’s wonderful awesome gift of baptism is cruel - regardless of the intentions (good, bad, misguided). I’m thankful beyond belief I was baptized as an infant - considering how many times I almost died as a toddler. Once a valid baptism always a valid baptism. Can’t take it back or have a “do-over”. I can’t think of a reason to withhold that gift because of man-made “yea-but”'s unless it’s guaranteed the baby WILL live to the “age of consent” or “knowledge” or whatever.
While on the topic …
Christ said
Hmm… “all nations”… includes all cute little bundles of joy! Good thing Jesus doesn’t say in Scripture, “Baptize all nations …” only if he reaches the age of “consent” or “full knowledge” or has at least a 700 SAT score".:tsktsk:
Baptism is God’s gift that wipes away ALL sin (original sin and any personal sin*if *there is any but there will not be in the case of a baby) and makes us the adopted children of God (God only had 1 “biological” Son).
Whew!:coolinoff: K. Your turn.
B
bilop
Guest
No, I meant an adult being baptized would have to consent. For an infant being baptized, presenting the infant is sufficient.
God Bless
N
NoAvailableName
Guest
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here, but I think you were suggesting I was attacking infant baptism. I wasn’t doing that – I was baptized as a baby, and have no intention of getting re-baptized.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
I think I see what is being asked here. It is about the things that are required for any sacrament to “work”.
In a marriage the consent of the person being married is required. And not just any consent, but reasonably informed consent. If the person had a substantial misunderstanding - say believed divorce was possible - it could invalidate the marriage. Also for a lack of intent- never really intending to be faithful, or have children, for example. Plus things like the inability to consent, being married already, or being forced at gunpoint.
In baptism of an adult, it seems on the face of it that the requirements would be similar. The person would require a reasonable understanding of what was being undertaken, (so I think of some cases where people were told that baptism would heal them from sickness as being problematic), and also they need real intent. (I think of a fellow I know who was told as a joke he’d been baptized, obviously impossible without his intent.)
In cases with infants, the parents take over the job of making the promises, so it could be understood that if they are lacking in these things it could be an issue. Not intending to actually fulfill the baptismal promises, which would make them a lie, comes to mind as a difficulty.
Yet we often here about marriages being declared invalid for such reasons, but not baptisms. There seem to be three possibilities to me:
I suspect there may be a real problem with some baptisms that are done without real intent by the parents. I don’t think the argument that this is not fair to the baby is sensible - Surely it is not fair if the parents decide not to get the baby baptized at all, but we don’t go around baptizing them secretly. (Actually, I know someone that did this - was this baptism valid is an interesting question.).
And I think marriage is being held up to a standard way out of proportion to what is held for any other sacrament, one that is really not at all justifiable to my mind.
In a marriage the consent of the person being married is required. And not just any consent, but reasonably informed consent. If the person had a substantial misunderstanding - say believed divorce was possible - it could invalidate the marriage. Also for a lack of intent- never really intending to be faithful, or have children, for example. Plus things like the inability to consent, being married already, or being forced at gunpoint.
In baptism of an adult, it seems on the face of it that the requirements would be similar. The person would require a reasonable understanding of what was being undertaken, (so I think of some cases where people were told that baptism would heal them from sickness as being problematic), and also they need real intent. (I think of a fellow I know who was told as a joke he’d been baptized, obviously impossible without his intent.)
In cases with infants, the parents take over the job of making the promises, so it could be understood that if they are lacking in these things it could be an issue. Not intending to actually fulfill the baptismal promises, which would make them a lie, comes to mind as a difficulty.
Yet we often here about marriages being declared invalid for such reasons, but not baptisms. There seem to be three possibilities to me:
- Baptisms are probably happening invalidly more than is realized.
- There is something qualitatively different about baptism and marriage. (what?)
- There are marriages being declared invalid that aren’t because the standard has been somehow inflated.
I suspect there may be a real problem with some baptisms that are done without real intent by the parents. I don’t think the argument that this is not fair to the baby is sensible - Surely it is not fair if the parents decide not to get the baby baptized at all, but we don’t go around baptizing them secretly. (Actually, I know someone that did this - was this baptism valid is an interesting question.).
And I think marriage is being held up to a standard way out of proportion to what is held for any other sacrament, one that is really not at all justifiable to my mind.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
the confusion expressed here about the validity of a sacrament based on intent is rooted in misunderstanding of what is required for a valid sacrament. The person seeking the sacrament must ask for it–and in the case of an infant (child under age 7) the parents or those legally acting for them must give that consent and request. For baptism, it is open to any unbaptized person who requests it. There must also be, in canon law, a good faith assurance that the newly baptized child will be brought up in the Faith, and that the adult intends to practice the faith, and that judgement is made by the pastor. For the sacrament to be valid the Minister (bishop, priest or in the West, deacon) must use valid matter and form and intend what the Church intends for the sacrament.
It is lack of valid matter, form and intent on the part of the minister that would invalidate the sacrament of baptism, not any lack of good faith or intent on the part of the recipient. That is why even though a child is baptized without the legal consent of parent or guardian (as in a recently publicized case) is still validly baptized, and why such care has historically been taken to make sure a child, of say Jewish parents, is not baptized without their consent, because canonically the Church still has the duty to see that child is raised in the Faith. (highly publicized cases in the past give examples)
In marriage there must also be free will consent and capacity to exchange vows that is to give consent, but as (in the West) the bride and groom are the ordinary ministers of the sacrament to each other they must have proper intent as ministers, and the presider (bishop, priest or deacon) who is also the official witness of the church assures that they use proper form. That is why the standard appears “sticter” in marriage, as consent, capacity and intent apply to the couple both as recipients and as ministers of the sacrament, on two levels as it were. Since the essence of the marriage vocations requires capacity, intent and free consent, absence of any of those invalidates the marriage from its inception as well.
As far as how sacraments “work” they work because they work, as they work (there is a Latin phrase which I have forgotten) in other words they do what they say which is why the matter and form must be specific and proper.
It is lack of valid matter, form and intent on the part of the minister that would invalidate the sacrament of baptism, not any lack of good faith or intent on the part of the recipient. That is why even though a child is baptized without the legal consent of parent or guardian (as in a recently publicized case) is still validly baptized, and why such care has historically been taken to make sure a child, of say Jewish parents, is not baptized without their consent, because canonically the Church still has the duty to see that child is raised in the Faith. (highly publicized cases in the past give examples)
In marriage there must also be free will consent and capacity to exchange vows that is to give consent, but as (in the West) the bride and groom are the ordinary ministers of the sacrament to each other they must have proper intent as ministers, and the presider (bishop, priest or deacon) who is also the official witness of the church assures that they use proper form. That is why the standard appears “sticter” in marriage, as consent, capacity and intent apply to the couple both as recipients and as ministers of the sacrament, on two levels as it were. Since the essence of the marriage vocations requires capacity, intent and free consent, absence of any of those invalidates the marriage from its inception as well.
As far as how sacraments “work” they work because they work, as they work (there is a Latin phrase which I have forgotten) in other words they do what they say which is why the matter and form must be specific and proper.
B
Bluegoat
Guest
My understanding though is that the minister’s understanding may be flawed, so long as he intends to do what the Church has always done. Would that not also be the case in a marriage?
O
otjm
Guest
Neither baptisms nor marriages are “nullified” or “annulled”, as those words imply that something was done to the marriage or the baptism.
Both can be declared null.
The process of marriage is more detailed as there are more issues to be considered, and that process goes through a tribunal (actually, two tribunals). the Tribunal if it ifnds an impediment will declare the marriage “null”, that is, there was an act, but it did not result in a sacrament occuring.
The process of declaring a baptism “null” is much less complicated. The Church has reviewed the theology, for example, of the LDS church and their understanding of baptism and of God, and declared that their act which they may call baptism does not confect a sacrament. It does not require a hearing of a tribunal for each instance, because the Church has issued a blanket statement that none of the acts of the LDS church in baptizing result in a sacrament.
So it is incorrect to say that baptisms are not declared null; but they do not have to go through a tribunal to be determined as such.
J
JReducation
Guest
To the best of my knowledge consent is not required for a valid baptism. The baptism is valid, but illicit. The same applies to baptizing children without the permission of their parents, if you know who the parents are. The baptism is valid, but illicit.
For validity, we’re assumimg that they used water and the Trinitarian formula: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Some Reformation communities baptize in the name of Jesus. This is invalid.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
M
markomalley
Guest
As others have said, it is true that the annulment of a marriage is a statement that the marriage never really existed for one reason or another…and it is possible that a baptism may not have been validly performed, in which case the person wasn’t actually baptized in the first place.
One thing I haven’t heard mentioned is that in sacrament of baptism, there is a fundamental change in the character of the individual who is baptized. The Church refers to this as an “indelible spiritual mark.” St Peter calls it, in his first epistle, “imperishable seed.” That indelible change in his/her character cannot be removed once its there, regardless of any action the person takes.
A person can formally defect from the Church, which is basically renouncing his/her baptism, but that does not change the indelible change in character that has occurred: it just means that the person regrets having that indelible change (sort of like a “wrongful birth” lawsuit that a kid brings against his parents – the kid may regret being born, but it doesn’t change the fundamental fact that he was born).
On the other hand, in the sacrament of holy matrimony, there is not a fundamental change in the character either the man or the woman, but the two become as one flesh. They are bonded to each other. Once that happens, it cannot be undone with the members of the couple being re-bonded to other people. If you take a look at the specific impediments to a valid marriage listed in the Code of Canon Law, they make sense if you keep the above in mind. Those impediments involve some variety of the spouses holding something back from another, which means they were never truly bonded to each other.
Like a formal defection from the Church, a couple can be divorced one from another; however, that doesn’t change the fundamental fact that they are married.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
yes. but as recipients of the sacrament the spouses cannot assent to what the Church intends if they have not been taught. The priest is there to assure proper matter and form are present. In fact most annulments are based on lack of form (a much simpler process than a full investigation) because the parties did not follow the Church law.
and the other point if it has not already been made is that “annulment” does not dissolve a valid marriage. For any sacrament the canon law tribunal makes an investigation and issues a judgement. If a defect in matter and form in the actual administration of the sacrament, or in the case of marriage defect in the capacity, free will and/or intent, is found, then the marriage is declared null, the judgement is that no valid sacrament happened. No action or authority on earth can dissolve a valid marriage. In the case of marriage there has to be no only, as ministers of the sacrament, intent by both parties to do what the Church intends, there also has to be intent as recipients of the sacrament to assume all the rights, duties and ends of marriage.
If you want to go further into the topic of annulment please pursue the resources linked so many times on those threads. It is a topic that can easily overrun 90% of the capacity of this forum, and there is no need to restate what has already been said. If anyone has a specific situation about your own marriage your best recourse is your pastor.
J
JReducation
Guest
There is one more point that has to be made about marriage, which has not been made. There is the case where a marriage is valid and indissoluble, but it is not a sacramental marriage. In other words, the couple is truly married, but there is no sacrament. Since they are validly married, it cannot be dissolved.
In the case of Baptism, there are no alternative situations, such as marriage. You are either baptized or you’re not. A decreee of nullity in the case of baptism is a statement that the sacrament never took place and if the sacrament never took place, the act is not valid.
Whereas in marriage, you can have a situation where there is no sacrament, but the marriage is still valid.
In baptism, the validity and sacramentality cannot be separated, which can happen in marriage.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
In the case of Baptism, there are no alternative situations, such as marriage. You are either baptized or you’re not. A decreee of nullity in the case of baptism is a statement that the sacrament never took place and if the sacrament never took place, the act is not valid.
Whereas in marriage, you can have a situation where there is no sacrament, but the marriage is still valid.
In baptism, the validity and sacramentality cannot be separated, which can happen in marriage.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
- Status