Being Catholic by Baptism/Confirmation and the Role of Consent

[rcwitness]

In another thread titled “Am I officially Catholic” a poster posed the question because he had only been Baptized in the Church as an infant. The answer was given to him that, by his Catholic Baptism, he is Christian and also received into the Catholic Church. I certainly wouldnt argue with that, and wish I had left things simple for the sake of the simple question. But there are important factors which come as the child grows into maturity and adulthood. We are Taught that Confirmation completes Baptism. We know that infant Baptism requires the consent of the parents or legal guardians which includes the duty to raise the child in the faith through instruction, formation and fullfilled by Confirmation. In the Latin Rite Confirmation is given at the age of reason and accountability. So can is a person who has only been only Baptized Catholic as an infant and NOT been given the necessary formation and Confirmation be bound to the whole Catholic laws and obligations as an adult?

 

[dans0622]

… So can is a person who has only been only Baptized Catholic as an infant and NOT been given the necessary formation and Confirmation be bound to the whole Catholic laws and obligations as an adult?

Hello,

You have a typo there with “So can is…”. I’ll answer both options. Can such a person be bound? Yes, certainly. Is such a person bound? Yes, certainly. This is true as a matter of law.

From the Code of Canon law: “Canon 96: By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.”

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

Look at it this way:

I don’t know how things work in Brazil, but here in the United States, one becomes a citizen of the country by virtue of having been born in the country. Nothing more is required.

Baptism in a Catholic rite (or reception into the Church) makes one a Catholic—a member of the Christian Faithful. Nothing more is required.

Lack of Confirmation (or lack of 1st Communion, or lack of religious formation, etc.) does not change that. If the person was baptised Catholic, he remains a Catholic.

I see you have questions about Confirmation, and about proper education, and other issues. Those are other issues. They deserve to be discussed as they are important topics. However, they don’t change a person’s status as Catholic.

 

[1ke]

So can is a person who has only been only Baptized Catholic as an infant and NOT been given the necessary formation and Confirmation be bound to the whole Catholic laws and obligations as an adult?

Yes.

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

Can. 96 By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.

 

[jinglebelle]

Only if they want or need to

 

[Joan_M]

Only if they want or need to

You would post this after others have stated categorically that the person baptized into the Catholic Church IS a Catholic and bound by the laws of the Church!

You are wrong.

 

[rcwitness]

Hello,

You have a typo there with “So can is…”. I’ll answer both options. Can such a person be bound? Yes, certainly. Is such a person bound? Yes, certainly. This is true as a matter of law.

Yea, sorry for the typo.

From the Code of Canon law: “Canon 96: By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and is constituted a person in it with the duties and rights which are proper to Christians in keeping with their condition, insofar as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a legitimately issued sanction stands in the way.”

This is definitely the appropriate quote from canon law. Before I have more time to properly answer, what does the part which I bolded mean?

Look at it this way:

I don’t know how things work in Brazil, but here in the United States, one becomes a citizen of the country by virtue of having been born in the country. Nothing more is required.

Hey Father, thanks for the post. Im glad you saw this thread since you were also in the other thread. Im actually back in Wisconsin now. I was pretty impressed with the clergy in Brasilia, though. They seem very bold and orthodox. The people, on the other hand, do like to pick and choose.

Baptism in a Catholic rite (or reception into the Church) makes one a Catholic—a member of the Christian Faithful. Nothing more is required.

I do get this. I am trying to understand, with balance, Catholic Baptism/non Catholic Christian Baptism/personal awareness of Teachings/Confirmation and what makes them beneficial to us as opposed to a curse of law.

Lack of Confirmation (or lack of 1st Communion, or lack of religious formation, etc.) does not change that. If the person was baptised Catholic, he remains a Catholic.

What does lack of Confirmation do. Or what does it mean when the Baptized infant was not raised in the Catholic faith whatsoever, and raised no different than a secular family?

I see you have questions about Confirmation, and about proper education, and other issues. Those are other issues. They deserve to be discussed as they are important topics. However, they don’t change a person’s status as Catholic.

Maybe so. If Confirmation “completes” our Baptism, then what was our Baptism lacking that Confirmation Completes. And why does the Latin Rite feel an importance to give Confirmation after a sufficient catechal instruction, and at an age which personal consent is available?

 

[Vico]

…

Really three sacraments make the Christian initiation complete, although Christian by baptism alone:*** Catechism 1212***

The sacraments of Christian initiation - Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist - lay the foundations of every Christian life.

“The sharing in the divine nature given to men through the grace of Christ bears a certain likeness to the origin, development, and nourishing of natural life. The faithful are born anew by Baptism, strengthened by the sacrament of Confirmation, and received in the Eucharist the food of eternal life. By means of these sacraments of Christian initiation, they thus receive in increasing measure the treasures of the divine life and advance toward the perfection of charity.” [3]
Q. Can [is] a person who has only been only Baptized Catholic as an infant and not been given the necessary formation and Confirmation be bound to the whole Catholic laws and obligations as an adult?

A. Yes, they have the rights and obligations, although not aware of them. I am guessing that you really ask if that person is culpable. The answer is given in the Catechism:1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61​

 

[FrDavid96]

…

I do get this. I am trying to understand, with balance, Catholic Baptism/non Catholic Christian Baptism/personal awareness of Teachings/Confirmation and what makes them beneficial to us as opposed to a curse of law.

They are different issues. That’s the point.

Being baptized a Catholic (or later received as a Catholic) is what makes a person a member of the Catholic Church. There is no other criteria.

Personal awareness (I suppose you mean things like “knowledge of the faith”) or the lack of it doesn’t change ones membership in the Church. It’s like the citizenship thing I mentioned earlier. If one is born in the United States, he is a U.S. citizen. A person does not lose citizenship because he never learned the Pledge of Allegiance, or never registers to vote, etc. etc.

A person is a Catholic because he was baptized a Catholic. If he knows nothing about the Catholic faith, he does not cease to be a Catholic, instead he would be an “uncatechized Catholic” (ie uneducated). A Catholic who has not been confirmed is an unconfirmed Catholic—but still a Catholic.

The question “what do we do about uncatechized or unconfirmed Catholics?” is an important one, and not to be dismissed, however, it’s not relevant to the question “is this person a Catholic?” The person is still a Catholic.

What does lack of Confirmation do.

It does not “do” anything. It means that there is an obligation on the part of Catholics to help such a person to eventually be confirmed (surely, volumes can be written about that).

Or what does it mean when the Baptized infant was not raised in the Catholic faith whatsoever, and raised no different than a secular family?

It means that Catholics must do what we can to help with that situation. It means we must seek them out and help them to become educated and faithful Catholics. But what it does-not-mean is that such persons are non-Catholics. They are still Catholics, but they are Catholics who need help and support.

Maybe so. If Confirmation “completes” our Baptism, then what was our Baptism lacking that Confirmation Completes. And why does the Latin Rite feel an importance to give Confirmation after a sufficient catechal instruction, and at an age which personal consent is available?

OK. I see now what you mean. When we say that Confirmation completes our Baptism, that’s a very complicated theological subject. It would take several pages to adequately answer that. In brief, I can say that it does not mean what (I perceive) you think it might mean in the context of this thread.

The question “who is a Catholic?” is essentially a legal question. How does the Church define membership? is answered by looking at the by-laws of the organization (ie canon law). The answer, of course, will have its basis in theology, but in the end it’s still a legal question.

The Church could amend canon law to say that a person who formally enters the Catechumenate becomes a member (albeit unbaptized) of the Church. The Church could also amend canon law to say that one who submits a letter of resignation to his pastor formally loses membership in the Church. Either one is possible. The reason is that how membership is defined is essentially a legal question.

What you seem to be asking is more of the theological consequences of being uncatechized, unconfirmed, or even abandoning the Church. Important issues/questions.

I think that what is happening here on this thread is that these 2 questions are being confused:

1. How is membership in the Church defined?
2. What are the consequences of being uncatechized, or unconfirmed, etc?

Question 1 is a really a legal question answered by canon law.

Question 2 is a theological and pastoral question (one much too complicated to address in any detail in a post limited to 2000 characters).

 

[rcwitness]

Really three sacraments make the Christian initiation complete, although Christian by baptism alone:*** Catechism 1212***

The sacraments of Christian initiation - Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist - lay the foundations of every Christian life.

“The sharing in the divine nature given to men through the grace of Christ bears a certain likeness to the origin, development, and nourishing of natural life. The faithful are born anew by Baptism, strengthened by the sacrament of Confirmation, and received in the Eucharist the food of eternal life. By means of these sacraments of Christian initiation, they thus receive in increasing measure the treasures of the divine life and advance toward the perfection of charity.” [3]
Q. Can [is] a person who has only been only Baptized Catholic as an infant and not been given the necessary formation and Confirmation be bound to the whole Catholic laws and obligations as an adult?

A. Yes, they have the rights and obligations, although not aware of them. I am guessing that you really ask if that person is culpable. The answer is given in the Catechism:1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61​

Vico, these are excellent passages relating to my inquiry! You are right, much of my concern has to do with culpability. Im trying to recognize the culpability that a person merely Baptized as an infant has to the laws of the Church when he has not been raised in the faith which his guardians gave consent on his behalf in order to receive his Baptism.

What I am NOT trying to do is remove anybody who has been Baptized in the Catholic Church from membership. I realize they are rightly called Catholic. They certainly would not have to be Baptized again.

An example I have used is a Marriage of a Catholic to another Non Christian. It is probably quite common for a person to be Baptized Catholic, then his parents convert to a Non Catholic Christian faith when he is still an infant. So he is then raised in a Non Catholic faith, meets and marries a woman at that church. Is that marriage considered invalid?

I realize I am using what if scenerios and its not usually my approach. But the fact is, there are many of these types of situations out there.

A logical conclusion, to me, is that this person does not have the moral culpability of breaking a Catholic law because he was neither aware or gave consent to follow such a tradition. Therefore, his marriage could be valid.

On the other hand, I could make a case using the criteria that you provided from the Church which recognizes our duty to follow our conscience, and even the Holy Spirit. Any person who seeks God should seek out if they have been Baptized, if the parents lied to them, that is a whole other situation of “what if’s”. But finding out that he has been Baptized in the Catholic faith should be the door to learn the Catholic faith.

But there is always the sound principle that we are culpable for what we know.

 

[rcwitness]

They are different issues. That’s the point.

Yes, I agree

Being baptized a Catholic (or later received as a Catholic) is what makes a person a member of the Catholic Church. There is no other criteria.

No arguement with this.

Personal awareness (I suppose you mean things like “knowledge of the faith”) or the lack of it doesn’t change ones membership in the Church. It’s like the citizenship thing I mentioned earlier. If one is born in the United States, he is a U.S. citizen. A person does not lose citizenship because he never learned the Pledge of Allegiance, or never registers to vote, etc. etc.

And so being Catholic doesnt necessarily mean one is in a good state of grace. It would imply that a mere Catholic is responsible for personally “spurning the grace of God” even if there was never personal awareness or consent to do so. Not that Im arguing, but it is the logical conclusion, right?

A person is a Catholic because he was baptized a Catholic. If he knows nothing about the Catholic faith, he does not cease to be a Catholic, instead he would be an “uncatechized Catholic” (ie uneducated). A Catholic who has not been confirmed is an unconfirmed Catholic—but still a Catholic.

Again, I see this and I am not arguing your valid point.

The question “what do we do about uncatechized or unconfirmed Catholics?” is an important one, and not to be dismissed, however, it’s not relevant to the question “is this person a Catholic?” The person is still a Catholic.

I have not really posed the question “Is this person Catholic?” but rather, to what extent is a merely infant Baptized adult obligated to the laws of the Church. I am willing to acknowledge there is an obligation, but culpability or blameworthiness can vary greatly. But does that mean the law actually changes, or just relies on grace instead of condemnation?

It does not “do” anything. It means that there is an obligation on the part of Catholics to help such a person to eventually be confirmed (surely, volumes can be written about that).

So the obligation shifts towards other members, or is both the individual and other’s obligation? I assume the latter, because the obligation to seek fullness of the faith is on the Baptized person, although I am compelled to show them it is not so much a “chore” as a privaledge.

It means that Catholics must do what we can to help with that situation. It means we must seek them out and help them to become educated and faithful Catholics. But what it does-not-mean is that such persons are non-Catholics. They are still Catholics, but they are Catholics who need help and support.

I think Ive expressed an understanding and an agreement of this point. You are hammering it, but that’s ok. I know my inquiry and concern may seem to be opposed to what you are stating, but its not. It is my fault for not expressing myself well enough.

OK. I see now what you mean. When we say that Confirmation completes our Baptism, that’s a very complicated theological subject. It would take several pages to adequately answer that. In brief, I can say that it does not mean what (I perceive) you think it might mean in the context of this thread.

It is complicated in certain ways! And that is what im trying to come to an understanding with and its relation to the other issues Ive mentioned.

The question “who is a Catholic?” is essentially a legal question. How does the Church define membership? is answered by looking at the by-laws of the organization (ie canon law). The answer, of course, will have its basis in theology, but in the end it’s still a legal question.

This is where, I dont care for legal answers, I guess. But I am not disagreeing with anything you’ve said. I want to focus on what makes being a Catholic Beneficial, as opposed to mere legal consequenses. To me, CONSENT has an invaluable role! What good is being Catholic without consent to what the Church professes?

The Church could amend canon law to say that a person who formally enters the Catechumenate becomes a member (albeit unbaptized) of the Church. The Church could also amend canon law to say that one who submits a letter of resignation to his pastor formally loses membership in the Church. Either one is possible. The reason is that how membership is defined is essentially a legal question.

That’s an interesting aspect related to this whole thing.

What you seem to be asking is more of the theological consequences of being uncatechized, unconfirmed, or even abandoning the Church. Important issues/questions.

I think that what is happening here on this thread is that these 2 questions are being confused:

1. How is membership in the Church defined?
2. What are the consequences of being uncatechized, or unconfirmed, etc?

Question 1 is a really a legal question answered by canon law.

Question 2 is a theological and pastoral question (one much too complicated to address in any detail in a post limited to 2000 characters).

Thanks Father, you are doing great with what Im trying to express. I am coming from the point of view that wishes to avoid Catholics who have been poorly Catechized and gone through motions in the Church without consenting, believing and being converted. These Catholics then find the message of Jesus through a different faith and then view the Catholic Sacraments and worship as artificial. So without justifying their position, I still want to avoid their situation. I also hate to see them fall into guilt of laws they never were willfully recognizing, and accepting.

 

[Vico]

Vico, these are excellent passages relating to my inquiry! You are right, much of my concern has to do with culpability. Im trying to recognize the culpability that a person merely Baptized as an infant has to the laws of the Church when he has not been raised in the faith which his guardians gave consent on his behalf in order to receive his Baptism.

What I am NOT trying to do is remove anybody who has been Baptized in the Catholic Church from membership. I realize they are rightly called Catholic. They certainly would not have to be Baptized again.

An example I have used is a Marriage of a Catholic to another Non Christian. It is probably quite common for a person to be Baptized Catholic, then his parents convert to a Non Catholic Christian faith when he is still an infant. So he is then raised in a Non Catholic faith, meets and marries a woman at that church. Is that marriage considered invalid?

I realize I am using what if scenerios and its not usually my approach. But the fact is, there are many of these types of situations out there.

A logical conclusion, to me, is that this person does not have the moral culpability of breaking a Catholic law because he was neither aware or gave consent to follow such a tradition. Therefore, his marriage could be valid.

On the other hand, I could make a case using the criteria that you provided from the Church which recognizes our duty to follow our conscience, and even the Holy Spirit. Any person who seeks God should seek out if they have been Baptized, if the parents lied to them, that is a whole other situation of “what if’s”. But finding out that he has been Baptized in the Catholic faith should be the door to learn the Catholic faith.

But there is always the sound principle that we are culpable for what we know.

Culpability bears on the state of grace, but is not a factor in the validity of matrimony.

Once Catholic by baptism or conversion, that one is bound to observe the canon laws. From 1983 to 2010 it was possible to formally defect from the Catholic Church, by canon law, such that the Catholic canonical form of marriage was not required. However, canon law commentators agree that falling away from the practice of the faith does not constitute a formal defection from the Catholic Church.

So the **un-*catechized Catholic in the scenario you gave, would not have a valid Catholic marriage, unless it complied with canon law – with valid consent (presumed from the words used at celebration) and without certain diriment impediments, such as lack of freedom to marry.Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:

1/ in danger of death;
2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.
§2. In either case, if some other priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only.
​

Can. 1117 The form established above must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act], without prejudice to the prescripts of can. 1127, §2.

• removed by Moto Proprio Omnium in Mentem.

Can. 1127 §2. If grave difficulties hinder the observance of canonical form, the local ordinary of the Catholic party has the right of dispensing from the form in individual cases, after having consulted the ordinary of the place in which the marriage is celebrated and with some public form of celebration for validity. It is for the conference of bishops to establish norms by which the aforementioned dispensation is to be granted in a uniform manner.

 

[1ke]

Is that marriage considered invalid?

Yes, it is invalid.

A logical conclusion, to me, is that this person does not have the moral culpability of breaking a Catholic law because he was neither aware or gave consent to follow such a tradition.

This is correct. One is not *culpable *for violating a precept of the Church that one is not aware of, particularly if the person is not even aware that he is a Catholic.

Therefore, his marriage could be valid.

This is not correct. The marriage is invalid, aware or not.

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, it is invalid.

This is correct. One is not *culpable *for violating a precept of the Church that one is not aware of, particularly if the person is not even aware that he is a Catholic.

This is not correct. The marriage is invalid, aware or not.

Thanks 1ke!

The term ‘precept’ of the Church is also an accurate distinction when trying to discern culpability of “Catholic law”. Catholic law could probably include ‘all laws’ of the New Covenant (including love).

So could we consider a person (in the marriage scenerio as example) in an invalid marriage possibly not culpable for its wrongfullness? And then, things would change at any point that the person became aware of his/her situation.

 

[jinglebelle]

You would post this after others have stated categorically that the person baptized into the Catholic Church IS a Catholic and bound by the laws of the Church!

You are wrong.

Glad to be inadequate again

 

[rcwitness]

Glad to be inadequate again

No worries here.

 

[Thorolfr]

Once Catholic by baptism or conversion, that one is bound to observe the canon laws. From 1983 to 2010 it was possible to formally defect from the Catholic Church, by canon law, such that the Catholic canonical form of marriage was not required. However, canon law commentators agree that falling away from the practice of the faith does not constitute a formal defection from the Catholic Church.

What if a baptized Catholic formally embraces another faith such as Islam or Buddhism? Are they still a Catholic even then? I had a friend who was raised Catholic and converted to Islam.

 

[Vico]

What if a baptized Catholic formally embraces another faith such as Islam or Buddhism? Are they still a Catholic even then? I had a friend who was raised Catholic and converted to Islam.

Yes.

CIC Can. 1086, § 1, 1117 and 1124 were modified since this protocol, however from 1983 to 2010 formal defection had canonical effects. Nevertheless, it remains true that"the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection."
Moto Proprio Omnium en mentem: “Therefore I decree that in the same *Code *the following words are to be eliminated: “and has not left it by a formal act” (can. 1117); “and has not left it by means of a formal act” (can. 1086 § 1); “and has not left it by a formal act” (can. 1124).”
w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici.htmlProt. N. 10279/2006

1. For the abandonment of the Catholic Church to be validly configured as a true *actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia *so that the exceptions foreseen in the previously mentioned canons would apply, it is necessary that there concretely be:
   
   a) the internal decision to leave the Catholic Church;
   b) the realization and external manifestation of that decision; and
   c) the reception of that decision by the competent ecclesiastical authority.
   …
   ​
   6. In such cases, the competent ecclesiastical authority mentioned above is to provide that this act be noted in the baptismal registry (cfr. can. 535, § 2) with explicit mention of the occurrence of a “defectio ab Ecclesia catholica actu formali”.
2. It remains clear, in any event, that the sacramental bond of belonging to the Body of Christ that is the Church, conferred by the baptismal character, is an ontological and permanent bond which is not lost by reason of any act or fact of defection.
   vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html

 

[spirit2534]

Glad to be inadequate again

The rules about being Catholic, being Baptised, are all earthy laws.

What does God, What does Jesus say !

 

[rcwitness]

The rules about being Catholic, being Baptised, are all earthy laws.

What does God, What does Jesus say !

Matthew 16 (RSVCE)

"18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
**Jesus**