Clarification re illicit baptisms and future marriage

[cominghome1966]

I want to take this one piece at a time.

I think we have the same conclusion, but for slightly different reasons.

I’m starting with the issue of Marriage as a Sacrament. It is either valid or an invalid attempt. When one potential spouse is Catholic, canonical form is required for validity; and this is based on the objective fact that the person is Catholic.

Secondary issues relative to that fact are not relevant for validity, such as “how often do you attend Mass?” or “how long have you been Catholic?” or “can you provide a recent baptism record?”

These might be important questions either pastorally or administratively. Other questions such as whether the priest has faculties don’t apply to the spouse, they only apply to the officiant, even if they do go toward validity (irrelevant to the topic).

The spouse is either Catholic or not. A sacramental record does not make someone Catholic, it merely expresses a reality that is already there. Likewise, lack of a record does not make someone non-Catholic.

Again, the imperfect comparison to the Eucharist. A priest must consecrate true wine. He should use an approved altar wine. Whether or not the consecration is valid depends on the objective characteristics of the wine. If he uses un-approved wine which is still valid matter, the consecration occurs. If he uses invalid matter that was somehow placed into a bottle labeled as approved altar wine, the consecration does not occur.

With regard to marriage, if a Catholic attempts marriage without canonical form, that attempt is invalid. I’m saying this because of the principles of sacramental matter and form. The form is the consent which must be received by the Church. The matter is the couple themselves (bear with me here, the actual matter of the sacrament is the couple’s life together, but I’m extending that definition a bit because in order to ‘live a life’ there must be a person who lives it). When the ‘sacramental matter’ is a Catholic person, then for validity, the sacramental form must be received by the Church’s representative. The ‘sacramental matter’ depends on the objective reality, and does not depend on any record or certificate.

In summary, to repeat, I think we’re arriving at the same conclusion. The difference is that I’m concentrating on the issue of sacramental validity (the sacramental matter, which is the person in this case) instead of the issue of a ‘canonical obligation which attaches’ as such.

When the person is Catholic that’s an objective reality. The subjective issues of paperwork might express that, but do not change it.

Fr.,

I really appreciate the manner by which you are working out the argument. SO interesting. Thank you.

 

[FrDavid96]

You want complications?

Our Pastor was at one of our missions. The Anglicans have a mission in the nearby community but were prevented from going there due to a storm. They had a Baptism scheduled which our Pastor did for them, using the Anglican rite. I’m assuming his intention counted more than the fact that he’s a priest?

Again, I’ll remind everyone that Pope Francis recently made some changes to canon law with regard to exactly this situation.

The new law reads:

can. 868 § 3. Infants of non-Catholic Christians are licitly baptized if their parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place request it and if it is physically or morally impossible for them to approach their own minister.

As for what that means with regard to whether or not the baby becomes Catholic, I will simply suggest reading what Dr E.P. has posted. canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/about-the-catholic-effect-of-catholic-baptism/

I suppose there’s no reason why I shouldn’t just post it here instead of just providing the link.

Hmmm.

Given that the canonical tradition behind Canon 868 has always recognized that Catholic ministers may baptize the children of non-Catholic Christians upon parental request, provided that provision was made for the child’s Catholic up-bringing, what does this new language add?

Is it a restriction on the authority of Catholic ministers to baptize such children as long as their parents’ minister is somehow deemed ‘available’? Perhaps so, though I suppose one may ask, first, if the desire of the non-Catholic parents is to provide a Catholic up-bringing for their child, would a non-Catholic minister want to go forward with the rite, and, second, why would the Church not want a Catholic minister to perform the sacrament under those happy conditions?

Or (respecting the implications of Canon 21) do non-Catholic parents understand that, in seeking baptism from a Catholic minister, they are seeking what has long been recognized as entrance into the Catholic Church? I am guessing that many such parents do not understand that.

Or does the assumption about the Catholicity of baptism by Catholic ministers somehow no longer hold; might Catholic ministers risk being asked to perform a rite of baptism that some at least perceive as being into (objective) heresy or schism? Perish the thought, of course, but it seems to me that either the new language does rather little or it risks doing quite a lot.

Numerous experts were consulted over a long period of time in the run up to De Concordia so I am confident these questions were asked and answered. It would be useful, though, for the rest of us to know whether this passage of De Concordia simply amounts to a minor restriction on the interfaith conferral of baptism, one that preserves the Catholic effect of baptism performed by Catholic ministers (and occasions the need to explain this effect very clearly to non-Catholic petitioners), or whether it steps back from a well-established canonical understanding about the Catholic effects of baptism at the hands of Catholic ministers.

I have the same questions which he posted. It’s safe to say that a lot of canonists and theologians have those same questions.

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr.,

I really appreciate the manner by which you are working out the argument. SO interesting. Thank you.

I only hope I’m not doing any harm. This is really on the borderline as far as how much should be discussed online versus when we cross-over into the “stop (yes, stop) discussing online and go talk to the local Catholic pastor” realm.

 

[FrDavid96]

And, if you have the time please, make it a non-Catholic neighbor who did the baptizing, eliminate the part about the VCR tape, and you’ve 110% of my attention

Giving advice on a forum like this can be dangerous.

However, to say this “do what canon law says” is safe. So I’m going to say this “obey the Code of Canon Law.” That’s my advice, again, to be absolutely clear on what I am saying and what I am not saying, “obey the Code of Canon Law.”

Can. 878 If the baptism was not administered by the pastor or in his presence, the minister of baptism, whoever it is, must inform the pastor of the parish in which it was administered of the conferral of the baptism, so that he records the baptism according to the norm of can. 877, §1.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Z.HTM

 

[cominghome1966]

I only hope I’m not doing any harm. This is really on the borderline as far as how much should be discussed online versus when we cross-over into the “stop (yes, stop) discussing online and go talk to the local Catholic pastor” realm.

That makes sense.

 

[Phemie]

Was this neighbor acting on his/her own due to a personal belief that young children should be baptized? Or was this neighbor doing a favor for Catholic family/friends/acquaintances of the child who wanted the child baptized?

I could actually imagine that some Catholic grandparents thinking that having their grandchild baptized by a non-Catholic would give the child the benefit of the graces of baptism without the obligations that come with a Catholic baptism.

Man, if I thought that was the case I’d have tried to convince my grandsons’ Anglican grandmother to baptize them.

 

[Phemie]

Again, I’ll remind everyone that Pope Francis recently made some changes to canon law with regard to exactly this situation.

The new law reads:
can. 868 § 3. Infants of non-Catholic Christians are licitly baptized if their parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place request it and if it is physically or morally impossible for them to approach their own minister.As for what that means with regard to whether or not the baby becomes Catholic, I will simply suggest reading what Dr E.P. has posted. canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/about-the-catholic-effect-of-catholic-baptism/

I suppose there’s no reason why I shouldn’t just post it here instead of just providing the link.
Hmmm.

Given that the canonical tradition behind Canon 868 has always recognized that Catholic ministers may baptize the children of non-Catholic Christians upon parental request, provided that provision was made for the child’s Catholic up-bringing, what does this new language add?

Is it a restriction on the authority of Catholic ministers to baptize such children as long as their parents’ minister is somehow deemed ‘available’? Perhaps so, though I suppose one may ask, first, if the desire of the non-Catholic parents is to provide a Catholic up-bringing for their child, would a non-Catholic minister want to go forward with the rite, and, second, why would the Church not want a Catholic minister to perform the sacrament under those happy conditions?

Or (respecting the implications of Canon 21) do non-Catholic parents understand that, in seeking baptism from a Catholic minister, they are seeking what has long been recognized as entrance into the Catholic Church? I am guessing that many such parents do not understand that.

Or does the assumption about the Catholicity of baptism by Catholic ministers somehow no longer hold; might Catholic ministers risk being asked to perform a rite of baptism that some at least perceive as being into (objective) heresy or schism? Perish the thought, of course, but it seems to me that either the new language does rather little or it risks doing quite a lot.

Numerous experts were consulted over a long period of time in the run up to De Concordia so I am confident these questions were asked and answered. It would be useful, though, for the rest of us to know whether this passage of De Concordia simply amounts to a minor restriction on the interfaith conferral of baptism, one that preserves the Catholic effect of baptism performed by Catholic ministers (and occasions the need to explain this effect very clearly to non-Catholic petitioners), or whether it steps back from a well-established canonical understanding about the Catholic effects of baptism at the hands of Catholic ministers.I have the same questions which he posted. It’s safe to say that a lot of canonists and theologians have those same questions.

In the case I mentioned the Anglican minister had told him he was free to use the Catholic rite but he chose to use the Anglican one.

Of course he also received “communion” from the Anglican Primate when we attended what was supposed to be an ecumenical service for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity but which was changed to a Communion Service due to the Primate’s untimely visit.

 

[FrDavid96]

In the case I mentioned the Anglican minister had told him he was free to use the Catholic rite but he chose to use the Anglican one.

That’s illicit. A Catholic priest cannot use the Anglican ritual (unless it’s a case of the Ordinariate) but still I don’t see how it would amount to anything, as the necessary form would still be used. I still have the same questions with regard to the new canon.

Of course he also received “communion” from the Anglican Primate when we attended what was supposed to be an ecumenical service for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity but which was changed to a Communion Service due to the Primate’s untimely visit.

That leads me to think this happened much earlier than the past few months. If so, I don’t think the new canon would apply despite what I posted earlier.

 

[Phemie]

That’s illicit. A Catholic priest cannot use the Anglican ritual (unless it’s a case of the Ordinariate) but still I don’t see how it would amount to anything, as the necessary form would still be used. I still have the same questions with regard to the new canon.

That leads me to think this happened much earlier than the past few months. If so, I don’t think the new canon would apply despite what I posted earlier.

The Baptism was about 5 years ago.