A
Augustinian
Guest
Maybe there wasn’t a problem. If the Catholic priest notified the family’s Protestant minister after the fact and the baptism was recorded at the Protestant church, the child would be a baptized protestant, no?
- Status
P
Phemie
Guest
Not according to all those who say that being baptized by a Catholic makes you Catholic. How much more so when done by a priest using the full Catholic Rite?Phemie:
Maybe there wasn’t a problem. If the Catholic priest notified the family’s Protestant minister after the fact and the baptism was recorded at the Protestant church, the child would be a baptized protestant, no?
I can only assume that the priest doesn’t agree with the above thinking.
Last edited:
R
Ryan1
Guest
If they are really intent, they can baptize, they don’t need you. You don’t have to be baptized to baptize.
I
InThePew
Guest
Short answer is don’t. This comes up from time to time with well-meaning grandparents who take matter into their own hands when their grandchild’s parents won’t have them baptised. While theoretically valid, baptisms like this can cause massive problems later on not so much because the infant is subject of obligations but instead because they or their parents think that they’ve been properly baptised Catholic when they haven’t which can have implications when it comes to marriage and further sacraments. So just say no and pray for all concerned instead.
T
thistle
Guest
I agree with you except I am not sure if such a baptism is even theoretically valid.
Canon Law states:
Can. 868 §1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required:
§2 An infant of catholic parents, indeed even of non-catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptised even if the parents are opposed to it.
Here canon law uses the word “lawfully” and not validly. This is just my personal opinion but I view the word lawfully to mean validly and licitly. If the baptism is not lawful how can it be valid?
I would be happy for any canon lawyers or priests in these forums to clarify this.
H
His_helpmeet
Guest
The Baptism would be valid but illicit. It still is binding on the child and cannot be repeated, but it was done contrary to canon law.
P
poche
Guest
In the 1810s the Vatican sent a directive to the United States prohibiting the priests from baptizing the children of non Catholics.
I
InThePew
Guest
Something which is not licit can still be valid - for example, a priest saying mass without vestments or skipping the entire liturgy of the word. The mass (and consecration) is still valid but illicit.
In the case of an illicit baptism, presuming the one baptising used a Trinitarian formula, poured water (which touched the child’s head) and intended to baptise - then it would be valid. However, the illicit nature of the act would cause considerable problems down the track because of the distinction between the spiritual effects and juridical effects of a sacrament,. For starters, the baptism shouldn’t be recorded in the baptismal register and if, at a later date, the parents wished the child to receive the remaining sacraments of initiation they would probably need to be conditionally baptised in order to put any question of validity beyond doubt.
So, in short, illicit baptisms create a mess and as my mother would always say, every mess you make another person’s got to clean up!
- Status