I believe there is just a lot of opinions. I don’t recall anything being originally posted about him resisting, or even opposing, nor anything about physical force or violence? There is nothing that I recall about the person reacting when they found out? I’m starting from the Principle of "Ex Opere Operato".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.
But brother, wouldn’t Canon 865 posted above, about the necessity of intent on the part of the baptised adult, negate ex opere operato in this case?I believe there is just a lot of opinions. I don’t recall anything being originally posted about him resisting, or even opposing, nor anything about physical force or violence? There is nothing that I recall about the person reacting when they found out? I’m starting from the Principle of "Ex Opere Operato".
So you are saying that he was indifferent to it and not necessarly opposed to it.His finding out is irrelevant. He was confronted about baptism and didn’t show any interest in it.
No, I don’t believe so. I think that 865 is simply stating what is expected before a pastor is to allow an adult to be Baptized in his parish. I think #2 is also simply speaking of licitness for the specific situation.But brother, wouldn’t Canon 865 posted above, about the necessity of intent on the part of the baptised adult, negate ex opere operato in this case?
Just like an utter lack of contrition from the penitent in confession, or an intentional withholding of a mortal sin by them, negates it in that case and renders the sacrament invalid? Or an intentionally concealed pre-existing valid marriage in the case of a purported wedding?
In all these cases, form, matter and intent are present on the part of the minister but the disposition and circumstances of the recepient render the sacrament invalid.
“For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism” … sure sounds like it’s a requirement for validity to me.
Is there any support outside of your understanding of Canon Law for this idea that a person can actually be baptised against their will (as your logic would dictate they can) - provided that the minister used correct words, form and intent?No, I don’t believe so. I think that 865 is simply stating what is expected before a pastor is to allow an adult to be Baptized in his parish. I think #2 is also simply speaking of licitness for the specific situation.
Not that I know of. My understanding is that the OP scenario is not a valid baptism.Is there any support outside of your understanding of Canon Law for this idea that a person can actually be baptised against their will (as your logic would dictate they can) - provided that the minister used correct words, form and intent?
One need not have positive intention not to get baptized in order not to get baptized. If one doesn’t have the intention or wouldn’t have the intention, then the baptism wouldn’t be valid. That’s how I understand it.I answer that, By Baptism a man dies to the old life of sin, and begins a certain newness of life, according to Romans 6:4: “We are buried together with” Christ “by Baptism into death; that, as Christ is risen from the dead . . . so we also may walk in newness of life.” Consequently, just as, according to Augustine (Serm. cccli), he who has the use of free-will, must, in order to die to the old life, “will to repent of his former life”; so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament. Therefore on the part of the one baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament.
Well, in such a case a person would pretty much have a positive intent AGAINST receiving the sacrament, since they don’t see their sin as sin, and intend to continue (so probably see it as the opposite of sin) and thus surely DON’T want to be absolved!It would be rather like dragging an unrepentant but loquacious sinner into the confessional and having the priest pronounce the words of absolution.
Or maybe, like a guy telling all his sins proudly to his bartender, he might like to be absolved, but does not intend to stop the behavior!Well, in such a case a person would pretty much have a positive intent AGAINST receiving the sacrament, since they don’t see their sin as sin, and intend to continue (so probably see it as the opposite of sin) and thus surely DON’T want to be absolved!
A reading of Canon Law itself would answer that. Canon 10 says “Only those laws must be considered invalidating or disqualifying which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected.”Is there any support outside of your understanding of Canon Law for this idea that a person can actually be baptised against their will (as your logic would dictate they can) - provided that the minister used correct words, form and intent?
Interesting - because when I read them I don’t see anything that expressly or otherwise invalidates a baptism for lack of intent on the part of the minister either. Does that mean that a valid baptism merely requires correct matter and form then?A reading of Canon Law itself would answer that. Canon 10 says “Only those laws must be considered invalidating or disqualifying which expressly establish that an act is null or that a person is effected.”
Now when i read the canons on Baptism i dont see anything that expressly invalidates a baptism for it being against the person will. There are places where it would make it illict but not invlaid (c. 865 being one).
According to canon law, I would say yes.Interesting - because when I read them I don’t see anything that expressly or otherwise invalidates a baptism for lack of intent on the part of the minister either. Does that mean that a valid baptism merely requires correct matter and form then?
An unconcious person about to die should be Baptized unless it is certain that they opposed Baptism. A person would have to have the intent to receive Baptism and repentence in order to receive any additional personal benefit from the Baptism, such as Sanctifying or Sacramental Grace.Not that I know of. My understanding is that the OP scenario is not a valid baptism.
Aquinas, for instance, seems pretty clear:
One need not have positive intention not to get baptized in order not to get baptized. If one doesn’t have the intention or wouldn’t have the intention, then the baptism wouldn’t be valid. That’s how I understand it.
VC
Totally different.It would be rather like dragging an unrepentant but loquacious sinner into the confessional and having the priest pronounce the words of absolution.
Intent of the minister is presumed by the fact that they performed the action, unless it is expressly stated otherwise by them at the time.Interesting - because when I read them I don’t see anything that expressly or otherwise invalidates a baptism for lack of intent on the part of the minister either. Does that mean that a valid baptism merely requires correct matter and form then?
Yes, Br. Rich, that is partly correct, but partly incorrect I believe.An unconcious person about to die should be Baptized unless it is certain that they opposed Baptism. A person would have to have the intent to receive Baptism and repentence in order to receive any additional personal benefit from the Baptism, such as Sanctifying or Sacramental Grace.
t have to expressly state that validity is in question. For example, c. 924 on the matter for the Eucharist, doesnt include the word validity. Nevertheless, using a hamburger is clearly invalid, based on the divine law which is contained in the Scriptures. It seems to me that it is also part of divine law or at least natural law that people have free will and we can not force sacraments on an adult, expecting the sacraments to be valid.