Baptism while sleeping

[davymax3]

One of my friend’s, Mike, has a friend, Brian. Mike is Catholic and fearing for his un-baptised and non-christian friend, baptized him while sleeping. While certainly illicit, is this baptism valid? I say no, because his friend is an adult and so the faith of someone else can’t be substituted for his as with infant baptism or that of the mentally disabled/insane. Any ideas?

 

[JPUSC]

One of my friend’s, Mike, has a friend, Brian. Mike is Catholic and fearing for his un-baptised and non-christian friend, baptized him while sleeping. While certainly illicit, is this baptism valid? I say no, because his friend is an adult and so the faith of someone else can’t be substituted for his as with infant baptism or that of the mentally disabled/insane. Any ideas?

A lesson to be learned - don’t fall asleep at a friend’s house as you are in danger of either getting drawn on with a sharpie by your drunk buddies or baptized by your crazy Catholic friends!

Yeah, I think it doesn’t count since it wasn’t an emergency and the dude didn’t ask for it. Next time, tell Mike to slip in a green scapular into his friend’s jacket - that would be a better alternative as opposed to unauthorized baptisms.

 

[dixibehr]

One of my friend’s, Mike, has a friend, Brian. Mike is Catholic and fearing for his un-baptised and non-christian friend, baptized him while sleeping. While certainly illicit, is this baptism valid? I say no, because his friend is an adult and so the faith of someone else can’t be substituted for his as with infant baptism or that of the mentally disabled/insane. Any ideas?

I would say yes it was valid, as Mike (the baptizer) had the intention of doing as the Church does.

However, all he did was to give his friend Brian spiritual credentials that may be to his damnation later.

 

[davymax3]

He certainly had the intention of doing what the church does and followed the correct and necessary form. This I don’t think is sufficient, as certainly, I can’t just start walking up to people and baptizing them if they don’t want me to. That would be absurd. The only reason infant baptism is allowed is because the guardian is able to make the act of faith on their basis. With an adult, I don’t think this is acceptable. The Catholic Encyclopedia says that if someone did not want to get baptized and then went insane, then they can’t be baptized since when they were sane, they did not accept baptism. This seems similar. Although, the Catholic Encyclopedia is wrong sometimes too.

 

[AJV]

No it is not valid. While adults do not require a full faith in the sacrament, they must have the intention of being baptized (at least of receiving the rite of the Church).

The thing is that many catechisms and manuals treat the issue of baptism and even some of the other sacraments largely from the perspective of the minister. But intention, matter and form on the part of the minister alone is not sufficient for all the sacraments. There are conditions for the recipient as well.

 

[davymax3]

Good point. As those sources are hard to come by, do you have any suggestions on where I can find that info expounded? Thank you.

 

[AJV]

I usually look in the dogmatic theology manuals which had them in some detail. For online resources, I would suggest beginning with the Pohle-Pruess series available at the Internet Archive. If you can read some Latin, then St. Alphonsus’ Theologia Moralis is very detailed even if it doesn’t reflect later majority opinions.

 

[cyberwolf001]

HOLY COW!!!

Okay this is probably among the wrongest of wrong things I’ve heard all night, it’s like attepted spirtual rape!

 

[JPUSC]

Can. 861 §2 If the ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or some other person deputed to this office by the local Ordinary, may lawfully confer baptism; indeed, in a case of necessity, any person who has the requisite intention may do so. Pastors of souls, especially parish priests, are to be diligent in ensuring that Christ’s faithful are taught the correct way to baptise.

Can. 862 Except in a case of necessity, it is unlawful for anyone without due permission to confer baptism outside his own territory, not even upon his own subjects.

intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P2V.HTM

Q. 668. What dispositions must adults or grown persons, have that they may worthily receive baptism?

A. That adults may worthily receive baptism:

1. They must be willing to receive it;
2. They must have faith in Christ;
3. They must have true sorrow for their sins, and
4. They must solemnly renounce the devil and all his works; that is, all sin.

baltimore-catechism.com/lesson14.htm

Unauthorized Baptism

An unauthorized lay person should not perform a baptism except in cases of imminent danger of death or other dire situations where not even an authorized lay minister is available.

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur145.htm

 

[celticsfan1983]

One of my friend’s, Mike, has a friend, Brian. Mike is Catholic and fearing for his un-baptised and non-christian friend, baptized him while sleeping. While certainly illicit, is this baptism valid? I say no, because his friend is an adult and so the faith of someone else can’t be substituted for his as with infant baptism or that of the mentally disabled/insane. Any ideas?

I say no. But I would have loved to have seen the conversation that followed when Brian woke up.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Yes, it was vaild. The person baptizing had the intention of doing what the Church does and I assume he followed proper form (I baptize you in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit while pouring water on his friend – who must be a heavy sleeper to not wake up from that).

But, this was illicit on so many levels.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

One of my friend’s, Mike, has a friend, Brian. Mike is Catholic and fearing for his un-baptised and non-christian friend, baptized him while sleeping. While certainly illicit, is this baptism valid? I say no, because his friend is an adult and so the faith of someone else can’t be substituted for his as with infant baptism or that of the mentally disabled/insane. Any ideas?

The Sacraments operate on their own when properly administered. Proper **FORM (**words), proper MATTER (water), Proper INTENT (of the proper minister.)

Notice in all the statements from the Church sources the words “Illicit”, “unauthorized”, etc, are used but never “invalid”. The things listed as being required of the adult person who is being Baptized are required for them to receive any personal benefit or Grace from the Sacrament. Brian would have received Baptism, his Original and personal sins would have been washed away. He would have received Sanctifying Grace only to the degree he was disposed to receive it. He is now Catholic, and subject to the laws of the Church.

Mike on the other hand has committed a grave error and abused a Sacrament, and should speak with his pastor ASAP about the matter.

 

[JMJ_coder]

No it is not valid. While adults do not require a full faith in the sacrament, they must have the intention of being baptized (at least of receiving the rite of the Church).

The thing is that many catechisms and manuals treat the issue of baptism and even some of the other sacraments largely from the perspective of the minister. But intention, matter and form on the part of the minister alone is not sufficient for all the sacraments. There are conditions for the recipient as well.

Ummm…yes it is. If someone to receive Communion doesn’t believe in the Real Presence, that doesn’t mean Mass didn’t really happen. It is the minister, acting in persona Christi, that effects the Sacrament.

What the intention of the recipient affects is their ability to receive the graces from the Sacrament. Again, if a communicant unworthily receives the Sacrament of Eucharist, then they truly received Christ, but they did not open themselves up to the infinite grace there contained, but opened them up to their own spiritual ruin (anti-grace if you will).

His friend validly received Baptism (presupposing valid form and matter), but did not receive it worthily. So not only is he limiting the graces coming from that Sacrament, but it could be to his spiritual ruin. Certain effects of the Sacrament are their though – such as remittance of sin, entrance into the Church, etc. But, what avail is remittance of sin if he doesn’t know so and goes on to continue living a pagan life? What avail is entrance to the Church if he doesn’t open himself to the graces to grow in union with God?

His friend, while having “good intentions” committed himself a heinous sin. What is the proverb about what paves the road to perdition…

 

[1ke]

One of my friend’s, Mike, has a friend, Brian. Mike is Catholic and fearing for his un-baptised and non-christian friend, baptized him while sleeping. While certainly illicit, is this baptism valid? I say no, because his friend is an adult and so the faith of someone else can’t be substituted for his as with infant baptism or that of the mentally disabled/insane. Any ideas?

In order to be valid, the baptism must meet the criteria set out in canon law, including:

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.

§2. An adult in danger of death can be baptized if, having some knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, the person has manifested in any way at all the intention to receive baptism and promises to observe the commandments of the Christian religion.

Can. 866 Unless there is a grave reason to the contrary, an adult who is baptized is to be confirmed immediately after baptism and is to participate in the eucharistic celebration also by receiving communion

 

[Pug]

Was the sleeping adult recipient unwilling, or was he already a catechumen? This may matter. If the adult was unwilling, this was invalid. You cannot forcibly baptize an unwilling adult. It won’t impart the character/mark nor wash away sins. I can offer two evidences possibly supporting my statements. One is from Denzinger, which is an older compilation of doctrine and statements, not all of equal weight. The other is I looked it up in a commentary on the code of canon law, which I own, but is online only if you google it and read inside the book. The commentary itself is not a source, but it gives a footnote to support what they say, which you could pursue further by googling the footnote. Note that I am not saying the support for my statements is in canon law. I said it is in the commentary text.
Denzinger:

411 This is contrary to the Christian religion, that anyone always unwilling and interiorly objecting be compelled to receive and to observe Christianity. On this account some absurdly do not distinguish between unwilling and unwilling, and forced and forced, because he who is violently forced by terrors and punishments, and, lest he incur harm, receives the sacrament of baptism, such a one also as he who under pretense approaches baptism, receives the impressed sign of Christianity, and he himself, just as he willed conditionally although not absolutely, must be forced to the observance of Christian Faith. . . . But he who never consents, but inwardly contradicts, receives neither the matter nor the sign of the sacrament, because to contradict expressly is more than not to agree. . . . The sleeping, moreover, and the weak-minded, if before they incurred weak-mindedness, or before they went to sleep persisted in contradiction, because in these the idea of contradiction is understood to endure, although they have been so immersed, they do not receive the sign of the sacrament; not so, however, if they had first lived as catechumens and had the intention of being baptized; therefore, the Church has been accustomed to baptize such in a time of necessity. Thus, then the sacramental operation impresses the sign, when it does not meet the resisting obstacle of a contrary will.

page 1052 New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law:

First, an adult’s intention to be baptized must be externally manifested, since the will to be baptized is necessary for the validity of the sacrament. No one who has attained the use of reason can be validly baptized against his or her will.

I would suggest to my friend that he discuss his actions with his parish priest, for a variety of reasons. If he had done a valid emergency baptism, he would be supposed to report it to the parish where his, uh, target, resides so that it could be recorded. (that one IS in canon law). So, for that reason alone, I suggest he contact someone. I don’t think it is valid, though, not on your basic facts here. The target sounds unwilling.

 

[davymax3]

Some good responses. Thanks a lot.

There seems to be some confusion. A lot of people are posting things from the canon law about a legal baptism. This is not the same as a valid baptism. These two things are very different. For instance, it is illicit for a priest, without justification, to come into someone else’s parish and baptize someone, who does want baptism. But this is definitely a valid baptism. No one would question that. That is the important distinction. There is absolutely no question that what he did was an abuse of the sacrament and a grave sin. My question is whether he was actually baptized. I’m leaning towards no. Since, it seems contrary to everything Christ taught that you could forcibly baptize people or baptize through trickery. That’s what a lot of the sources seem to indicate. The only way you could baptize someone who does not consent, is if they are unable to consent, and so their guardian is able to make the declaration of faith on their behalf. However, if someone can make that declaration no mortal has the right to declare for him otherwise and so it carries no weight or standing.

 

[Godfollower]

Some good responses. Thanks a lot.

There seems to be some confusion. A lot of people are posting things from the canon law about a legal baptism. This is not the same as a valid baptism. These two things are very different. For instance, it is illicit for a priest, without justification, to come into someone else’s parish and baptize someone, who does want baptism. But this is definitely a valid baptism. No one would question that. That is the important distinction. There is absolutely no question that what he did was an abuse of the sacrament and a grave sin. My question is whether he was actually baptized. I’m leaning towards no. Since, it seems contrary to everything Christ taught that you could forcibly baptize people or baptize through trickery. That’s what a lot of the sources seem to indicate. The only way you could baptize someone who does not consent, is if they are unable to consent, and so their guardian is able to make the declaration of faith on their behalf. However, if someone can make that declaration no mortal has the right to declare for him otherwise and so it carries no weight or standing.

I hear what you’re saying, and I agree that canon law appears to be uncharacteristically silent about this sort of thing (the only reference to validity, as opposed to licitness, appears to be water and form of words – it doesn’t even reference intent). But, if you’re right, I could lob a water balloon from afar at an atheist and pronounce the words, thus baptizing the person. Or I could use a Super-Soaker – or a fire hose – to baptize an entire crowd, and it would be valid (albeit illicit). That just doesn’t seem right.

 

[davymax3]

I hear what you’re saying, and I agree that canon law appears to be uncharacteristically silent about this sort of thing (the only reference to validity, as opposed to licitness, appears to be water and form of words – it doesn’t even reference intent). But, if you’re right, I could lob a water balloon from afar at an atheist and pronounce the words, thus baptizing the person. Or I could use a Super-Soaker – or a fire hose – to baptize an entire crowd, and it would be valid (albeit illicit). That just doesn’t seem right.

Yes. This would lead to absurd events. (To clarify, I don’t think it is valid, Mike does.) We could drop water from Helicopters on whole cities and thus Baptize everyone. It would be nuts.

 

[Pug]

Some good responses. Thanks a lot.

There seems to be some confusion. A lot of people are posting things from the canon law about a legal baptism. This is not the same as a valid baptism.

You are right that being licit and being valid are not the same concepts. It is indeed possible to have a sacrament that is valid, yet illicit. I don’t think that has happened to Brian, though. He did not receive a valid baptism, most likely, which means he still is not baptized.

 

[JimG]

Baptism requires faith in Christ on the part of the baptized.

For a child, the faith of the parents suffices. But an adult must profess his own faith.

The baptism is not valid. Otherwise, we could just drag our unwilling friends (or perfect strangers) outside in the middle of a rainstorm and pronounce the words of baptism.