Baptism while sleeping

[Matrix_Refugee]

HOLY COW!!!

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

Agreed. It’s up there with a highly contraversial incident that happened in our area: a Baptist church of some kind offered a free after-school program for local kids, regardless of denomination, etc. which was a good thing, since it gave the kids a place to hang out or play games or do their homework in a safe, quiet environment… And then the Baptists took it into their hands to “baptize” a bunch of the kids without their parents’ consent. Or with another case I heard of a woman whose mother had forced her to undergo a Santeria (Cuban voodoo) initiation ceremony. I’m also minded of St. Vladimir, a Ukrainian prince who forced some of his nobles to be baptized, or at least he did until a bishop ordered him to stop it.

 

[kathrynsue]

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.

there is a youtube video where a guy does run around randomly baptizeing people

 

[Spirithound]

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.

Not only that, but there weren’t even any Godparents there to make the act of faith for our “faithful” sleeper.

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".

Brother, there was no resisting, force or violence because the man was asleep! Could my brother, who is not practicing his faith, be ordained a priest while he sleeps?

 

[Timothysis]

This is one of the silliest things that I’ve ever read here. I can’t quote Canon law (though that doesn’t stop some even though they aren’t Canon lawyers) but I can tell you that it takes more than the standard form, matter and intent for the sacraments to be valid. First off, the friend had absolutely no legitimate authority or right to baptize anyone. The Church does make exceptions in extreme instances but that does not apply here. Second, the sleeping friend is an adult and as an adult has to make that decision for himself. Lastly, the rite of baptism, like the Eucharistic prayer, is not a “magic spell” that causes things to happen by virtue of reciting the proper words. It is through the virtue of the priest *in persona Christe * who intends to do what Christ did that gives authority to the sacraments. If this baptism were valid then what would stop a non-ordained person from confecting the Eucharist as long as they used the proper form, matter and intention? Or even absolving sins? There is a reason why we have bishops and priests. Too many are trying to lean on the letter of the law without using common sense.

 

[kathrynsue]

I am not catholic but this sounds so weird that it makes me kinda wonder if the person made the topic just to see peoples reactions

 

[LilyM]

I am not catholic but this sounds so weird that it makes me kinda wonder if the person made the topic just to see peoples reactions

That’s a possibility, but stranger things have certainly happened (and as one poster showed, not just among Catholics either - ever seen that episode of the Simpsons where the neighbours try to baptise their baby?)

 

[JMJ_coder]

Brother, there was no resisting, force or violence because the man was asleep! Could my brother, who is not practicing his faith, be ordained a priest while he sleeps?

Apples and oranges. First of all, the only minister of Holy Orders is a Bishop. And I doubt that any Bishop would do something so willy nilly. (at this point I don’t think I need to go on with the other others).

 

[kathrynsue]

That’s a possibility, but stranger things have certainly happened (and as one poster showed, not just among Catholics either - ever seen that episode of the Simpsons where the neighbours try to baptise their baby?)

the 1 where the kids are taken from homor and marge

given to the people next door and the people next door try to baptize them

 

[Spirithound]

Apples and oranges. First of all, the only minister of Holy Orders is a Bishop. And I doubt that any Bishop would do something so willy nilly. (at this point I don’t think I need to go on with the other others).

Of course, I’m sure no Bishop is going to ordain a man while he sleeps, but I’m just dealing with a hypothetical. How far does the concept of “ex opere operato” go? I have read (on the website of the Companions of the Cross) that a man is expected to write a hand-written letter to the Bishop requesting diaconal and then priestly ordination.

It’s possible they just want to be absolutely certain the man is willing, but my take was that the consent of the man was essential for the sacrament to be effective.

 

[davymax3]

This is one of the silliest things that I’ve ever read here. I can’t quote Canon law (though that doesn’t stop some even though they aren’t Canon lawyers) but I can tell you that it takes more than the standard form, matter and intent for the sacraments to be valid. First off, the friend had absolutely no legitimate authority or right to baptize anyone. The Church does make exceptions in extreme instances but that does not apply here. Second, the sleeping friend is an adult and as an adult has to make that decision for himself. Lastly, the rite of baptism, like the Eucharistic prayer, is not a “magic spell” that causes things to happen by virtue of reciting the proper words. It is through the virtue of the priest *in persona Christe * who intends to do what Christ did that gives authority to the sacraments. If this baptism were valid then what would stop a non-ordained person from confecting the Eucharist as long as they used the proper form, matter and intention? Or even absolving sins? There is a reason why we have bishops and priests. Too many are trying to lean on the letter of the law without using common sense.

This is completely off base. The question wasn’t whether he has authority to baptize. If you had actually read the post you would have seen the distinction between valid and licit clearly made. Also, it is very much like a “magic spell.” If a priest were baptized people without saying the write things it would not be valid, let alone licit. (For instance, if he just said, I baptize in the name of Christ and that’s it.) Also, the issue of the Eucharist and Confession are different from Baptism in that a particular type of minister is not necessary to the validity. If you read the previous posts this would be abundantly clear. Also, if you happened to have read anything about this issue first before just posting whatever first came to your mind, then you would have known that also. So please have a little more respect next time rather than insulting all the previous poster and then spouting false information.

 

[davymax3]

I am not catholic but this sounds so weird that it makes me kinda wonder if the person made the topic just to see peoples reactions

Thank you very much for questioning my motives. You have 13 posts… So let me get this straight. You were like alright, I’ll make 12 posts. But you know what I want to do now, I want to find a posting and without any proof or founding just start questioning the OP’s integrity. That seems like a good idea! I love making a fool of myself!

Even if you were right and I like to lie on the Catholic forum why would that be a productive thing for you to say? Would this be so malicious that you need to try to hurt my reputation in order to protect others from my lies?

 

[wolfgang]

That’s a possibility, but stranger things have certainly happened (and as one poster showed, not just among Catholics either - ever seen that episode of the Simpsons where the neighbours try to baptise their baby?)

the 1 where the kids are taken from homor and marge

given to the people next door and the people next door try to baptize them

I had forgotten about that episode!

:angel1:

 

[Timothysis]

This is completely off base. The question wasn’t whether he has authority to baptize. If you had actually read the post you would have seen the distinction between valid and licit clearly made. Also, it is very much like a “magic spell.” If a priest were baptized people without saying the write things it would not be valid, let alone licit. (For instance, if he just said, I baptize in the name of Christ and that’s it.) Also, the issue of the Eucharist and Confession are different from Baptism in that a particular type of minister is not necessary to the validity. If you read the previous posts this would be abundantly clear. Also, if you happened to have read anything about this issue first before just posting whatever first came to your mind, then you would have known that also. So please have a little more respect next time rather than insulting all the previous poster and then spouting false information.

First off, don’t bust my chops. I don’t need you telling me what to read or how to interpret things; you have your opinion and I have mine, and yours is not better than mine.

The proper celebration of the sacraments are NOT “very much like a magic spell.” How you can be catholic and believe such is beyond me. It isn’t just that priests say what Christ said but that they also intend to do what Christ did. A person who tries to baptize someone who is sleeping obviously is not intending to do what Christ did, for Christ never ran around doing things “willy nilly” as someone above put it. Catholic theology is based on logic, reason and intellect, and the sacraments are meant to be celebrated in such a manner. Illicitness and validity aren’t even considerations when the subject matter is so ridiculous. Could a bishop, by using the proper form, matter and intent ordain a woman as a priest? What about a dog? Honestly, this is the dumbest thing I have ever read here. Does anyone think that Pope Benedict XVI himself would agree that this was a valid administering of the sacrament of baptism?

 

[davymax3]

First off, don’t bust my chops. I don’t need you telling me what to read or how to interpret things; you have your opinion and I have mine, and yours is not better than mine.

No, I have the knowledge of what is right and I’m trying to tell you. So, my “opinion” is certainly better.

The proper celebration of the sacraments are NOT “very much like a magic spell.” How you can be catholic and believe such is beyond me.

G. K. Chesterton thought that and he was one of the greatest Catholic thinkers. So, get off your high horse there. I never said that it was only the words that mattered. However, it’s heresy to say the words don’t matter. The words certainly do, and that is what makes it “very much like a magic spell.” Although, I’m not all too familiar with them.

It isn’t just that priests say what Christ said but that they also intend to do what Christ did.

No one ever said otherwise… No reason to argue against a straw man.

A person who tries to baptize someone who is sleeping obviously is not intending to do what Christ did, for Christ never ran around doing things “willy nilly” as someone above put it. Catholic theology is based on logic, reason and intellect, and the sacraments are meant to be celebrated in such a manner. Illicitness and validity aren’t even considerations when the subject matter is so ridiculous.

My friend didn’t do anything willy nilly. He is also extremely “logic[al], reason[able], and intellgient.” Just because someone does something that is wrong, does not mean that it doesn’t make sense in some way. This is only ridiculous if you don’t understand it. It actually makes a lot of sense, however misguided it was. He loves this friend of his very much and he fully believes in his faith and so would do anything, even commit mortal sin, in order to baptize him and have him receive the grace of the Holy Spirit. He very well understands what the church intends, and he intended that same thing. Who are you to say that he couldn’t have intended that? That’s an absurd assertion for you to make.

Could a bishop, by using the proper form, matter and intent ordain a woman as a priest?

No, obviously. Because woman cannot be ordained. That was a simple question… [same with the dog]

Honestly, this is the dumbest thing I have ever read here.

Then, why bother commenting? Thanks for being productive and helpful!

 

[JMJ_coder]

I just want to add another :twocents: (I think I’ve donated a dime to this thread so far ).

The Sacraments act “ex opere operato”, that is they operate by virtue of themselves - but the part that follows is (paraphrasing, I don’t know the exact Latin): if we do not posit an obstacle in the way. This was formally codified as part of the Council of Trent.

One of the obstacles (probably the greatest obstacle) is that the minister does not intend to do what the Church does when conferring a Sacrament or the recipient does not intend to receive the Sacrament.

In the case of the Sacrament of Baptism, in regards to an adult recipient (a child’s consent and intention is done by proxy - i.e., parents and godparents) is that he must have the intent to receive said Sacrament. In the case of an unconscious person, I would assume that the intent should have been made known prior to incapacitation.

 

[Kaninchen]

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.

Speaking as somebody who is virtually guaranteed to fall asleep a few minutes after the train has left the station or the plane has taken off, I find this all rather worrying.

How can one feel assured that, should some Christian decide to go mad with a cup of water, one isn’t going to be in a situation where people are going to demand that from then on one is a Christian, whatever one says to the contrary?

Should one write a letter of absolute intention not to be baptized to the Church authorities in any particular country within which, or over which, one might be traveling and wear a prominent notice around one’s neck saying that one has done so – so that potential baptizers are aware that one has informed them of such?

 

[LilyM]

My friend didn’t do anything willy nilly. He is also extremely “logic[al], reason[able], and intellgient.” Just because someone does something that is wrong, does not mean that it doesn’t make sense in some way. This is only ridiculous if you don’t understand it. It actually makes a lot of sense, however misguided it was. He loves this friend of his very much and he fully believes in his faith and so would do anything, even commit mortal sin, in order to baptize him and have him receive the grace of the Holy Spirit.

That’s where the logic, reason and intelligence ends right there. No sensible person would put their own soul in jeopardy for another. Jesus said we are NOT to risk losing our own soul - not even if we were to gain the whole world (with all the souls it contains) by doing so.

He very well understands what the church intends, and he intended that same thing. Who are you to say that he couldn’t have intended that? That’s an absurd assertion for you to make.

It’s not about intention of the minister, I don’t think. It’s about a sleeping adult being an impermissible recepient for the sacrament because they are incapable of giving consent. No priest would baptise such for that reason.

The logical extension of saying that being unconscious doesn’t matter is that being conscious but unconsenting, or under duress or something, would ALSO not matter.

And if only correct form, matter and intent on the part of the minister were necessary then it wouldn’t.

And we know that’s not the case - the church has actually spoken out in the past against forced conversions (though not often enough, as Kaninchen is probably too painfully aware).

Just like an already-married person is an impermissible recepient for the sacrament of matrimony, and thus would not be married no matter how sincerely they intended to marry, nor how sincerely the minister intended to marry them.

 

[LilyM]

Speaking as somebody who is virtually guaranteed to fall asleep a few minutes after the train has left the station or the plane has taken off, I find this all rather worrying.

How can one feel assured that, should some Christian decide to go mad with a cup of water, one isn’t going to be in a situation where people are going to demand that from then on one is a Christian, whatever one says to the contrary?

Should one write a letter of absolute intention not to be baptized to the Church authorities in any particular country within which, or over which, one might be traveling and wear a prominent notice around one’s neck saying that one has done so – so that potential baptizers are aware that one has informed them of such?

I’m sorry that you’ve been exposed to this silliness, Kaninchen. You should worry much more about missing your train stop (it’s happened to me a once or twice when I’ve fallen asleep) than a forced baptism. The Church isn’t looking to repeat the Mortara case any time soon.

 

[davymax3]

That’s where the logic, reason and intelligence ends right there. No sensible person would put their own soul in jeopardy for another. Jesus said we are NOT to risk losing our own soul - not even if we were to gain the whole world (with all the souls it contains) by doing so.

I never said that it was the right thing to do or Jesus asked us to, I just said that it was logical, although misguided. A sensible person could very well put their own soul in jeopardy for another. The movie, “what dreams may come,” is about that, and the idea certainly resonated with many people and is a logical thing. Again, I’m not saying it’s right, just that it makes sense to a lot of people. It’s not just some strange psychotic motive.

As for the rest of what you said. I completely agree. I don’t think it was valid. He was arguing with me about it and I decided to ask on here in order to get some more opinions and maybe some quotes from church doctors and such. However, just because I think it was invalid because the recipient didn’t have a desire for baptism, doesn’t mean that I think the minister was insane or an idiot or something. It was certainly a bad choice, however, many in Dante’s hell have committed a sin similar to this in excessive love.

 

[Pug]

How can one feel assured that, should some Christian decide to go mad with a cup of water, one isn’t going to be in a situation where people are going to demand that from then on one is a Christian, whatever one says to the contrary?

Kaninchen, a person cannot baptize you against your will while you are sleeping on a train. It would be invalid, which in Catholic lingo means that baptism did not take place, so none of the associated obligations took effect.

What you are encountering here on this thread are some people trying to understand the implications of a certain doctrine about the efficacy of the sacraments. I cannot promise you that every person will be aware of Catholic doctrine on this issue. I can only tell you what it is, to the best of my knowledge, and I can also point out that some quotes have been provided on the thread by way of support. Whether this is personally reassuring for you, I can’t say.