Clarification re illicit baptisms and future marriage

[felsguy]

A couple of recent threads about illicit baptisms have got me wondering about something. And for the sake of discussion here, I’m thinking of the stereotypical (and apparently not all that uncommon but let’s not get sidetracked by how common) situation where a couple neglects to have their child baptized so an anxious grandmother goes ahead and secretly baptizes the child using water and the proper Trinitarian formula.

My question is what determines which norms of Church law regarding marriage will or will not apply to the child:

a. whether or not the parent(s) are Catholic
b. whether or not the grandmother is Catholic
c. the intention of the grandmother
d. whether or not it was reported to the pastor of the parish in which the baptism was
performed
e. whether or not the child is later made aware of this
f. any, all, or none of the above?

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

The only question here is whether or not a person seeking marriage is baptized or not; the faith/status of any relatives is irrelevant. The only issue, then, is whether or not the person knows that he/she was baptized (and takes that seriously, which they might not growing up in a non-practising household), and whether or not there was any Church record of such.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

My question is what determines which norms of Church law regarding marriage will or will not apply to the child:

a. whether or not the parent(s) are Catholic
b. whether or not the grandmother is Catholic
c. the intention of the grandmother
d. whether or not it was reported to the pastor of the parish in which the baptism was
performed
e. whether or not the child is later made aware of this
f. any, all, or none of the above?

The above questions are mostly irrelevant. The question is simply whether the person is a validly baptized Catholic or not. If the person grew up ignorant of the fact that he was baptized Catholic, he certainly would have no moral culpability for marrying outside the Church.

This whole concept of someone secretly baptizing someone else’s child is very gravely sinful, for a variety of reasons.

 

[Mintaka]

No, it isn’t a gravely sinful act in itself. It can be imprudent or presumptuous, but the presumption of parental rights would be the sin, not doing the Baptism.

 

[FrDavid96]

… If the person grew up ignorant of the fact that he was baptized Catholic, he certainly would have no moral culpability for marrying outside the Church…

Do you have any sources for that information?

As I read the canons, once a person is baptized Catholic, the obligation to marry according to canonical form (or dispensation from it) attaches and it goes directly to the vary validity of the marriage. Meaning that there is no marriage, but instead is an invalid attempt at marriage.

What am I missing?

 

[UpUpAndAway]

Do you have any sources for that information?

As I read the canons, once a person is baptized Catholic, the obligation to marry according to canonical form (or dispensation from it) attaches and it goes directly to the vary validity of the marriage. Meaning that there is no marriage, but instead is an invalid attempt at marriage.

What am I missing?

I think what Paul (and Cor ad Cor) is driving at is the idea that an infant could be baptized but never informed of that fact later in life. As an example, I was baptized when I was three days old. If my parents had left the Church six months later and never told me I had been baptized, I could conceivably grow to marriage age without ever knowing. Under those circumstances, it wouldn’t occur to me to even suspect it.

EDIT: More relevant to the thread would be an infant who was illicitly baptized by a well-meaning relative without the knowledge of his/her parents. Child then grows up never knowing (s)he had been baptized.

Would such a person be held to the canonical obligations anyway? My logic tells me we can’t be held responsible for knowledge we lack through no fault of our own, but I know things don’t always work the way that makes the most sense to me

 

[SMHW]

As I understand the question, it is if a Catholic layperson conferring a baptism (illicitly and not reported) results in an objectively Catholic baptism.

We are not concerned with the culpability the unknowingly baptized person but rather the objective subjectivity (isn’t that an interesting word combination?) of this baptized person to Catholic law.

 

[DarkLight]

This is definitely interesting as it compares to valid protestant baptisms, which are valid baptisms but do not subject the person to canon law, since they are not Catholic baptisms. What specifically is it that makes a baptism a Catholic baptism?

 

[FrDavid96]

This is definitely interesting as it compares to valid protestant baptisms, which are valid baptisms but do not subject the person to canon law, since they are not Catholic baptisms. What specifically is it that makes a baptism a Catholic baptism?

That’s a very good question.

Until the recent (September 2016) changes to canon law, there was a rather straightforward answer.

Now, not so much.

For anyone interested, I suggest this link canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/about-the-catholic-effect-of-catholic-baptism/

 

[FrDavid96]

As I understand the question, it is if a Catholic layperson conferring a baptism (illicitly and not reported) results in an objectively Catholic baptism.

We are not concerned with the culpability the unknowingly baptized person but rather the objective subjectivity (isn’t that an interesting word combination?) of this baptized person to Catholic law.

Yes.

Which is why the canons about ignorance of the law (probably don’t apply at all because a lack of knowledge about Catholic marriage law does not make an invalid attempt valid) and about ignorance of fact (might possibly somehow apply?) might have something to say about this.

I’m hesitant to say that ignorance of fact or error of fact (ie baptism) can effect whether-or-not the necessary form of a Sacrament could change. If one person is Catholic, then Catholic form must be followed for validity*. No Catholic form means an invalid attempt at marriage. Over. Done. Or is it?

Personally I don’t see how ignorance of fact (ie the unknown baptism) could change this since canon 15.1 seems to say not; but I’m not ready to close that door entirely either. Which is why I asked earlier if PaulfromIowa might have more information (possibly a precedent).

---

Yes, I’m fully aware of “or dispensed” and that other provision is made in the law. I’m addressing a situation where there is obviously no dispensation or other circumstances.

 

[DarkLight]

Yes.

Which is why the canons about ignorance of the law (probably don’t apply at all because a lack of knowledge about Catholic marriage law does not make an invalid attempt valid) and about ignorance of fact (might possibly somehow apply?) might have something to say about this.

I’m hesitant to say that ignorance of fact or error of fact (ie baptism) can effect whether-or-not the necessary form of a Sacrament could change. If one person is Catholic, then Catholic form must be followed for validity*. No Catholic form means an invalid attempt at marriage. Over. Done. Or is it?

Personally I don’t see how ignorance of fact (ie the unknown baptism) could change this since canon 15.1 seems to say not; but I’m not ready to close that door entirely either. Which is why I asked earlier if PaulfromIowa might have more information (possibly a precedent).

---

Yes, I’m fully aware of “or dispensed” and that other provision is made in the law. I’m addressing a situation where there is obviously no dispensation or other circumstances.

A follow-up question about this. Catholic canon law regards a person who has had a Catholic baptism as a Catholic. My question was whether this could create a “chain”, so to speak. For example, one of our pastors at the protestant church I grew up in had been baptized as a Catholic. He performed baptisms. These were valid baptisms, but they were performed as Protestant baptisms in a Protestant service. But according to Catholic canon law, the person performing the baptism was a Catholic.

 

[FrDavid96]

A follow-up question about this. Catholic canon law regards a person who has had a Catholic baptism as a Catholic. My question was whether this could create a “chain”, so to speak. For example, one of our pastors at the protestant church I grew up in had been baptized as a Catholic. He performed baptisms. These were valid baptisms, but they were performed as Protestant baptisms in a Protestant service. But according to Catholic canon law, the person performing the baptism was a Catholic.

The answer is no.

I cannot give you a direct quote of any law. What I can do is go by what actually happens.

When a person is by other-than-a-priest that baptism is required to be noted in the register. In addition to this, the pastor is supposed to supply the rites of baptism which were missing at the private baptism. In one sense, we might say that this rite takes the place of what might happen later, such as RCIA.

We used to call it that: “supply the missing rites” but that made too much sense, so it’s called something else now. I can’t remember (no, I’m not kidding).

Here’s what that means: there is an expectation that such a rite will occur and that the idea behind it, which is formal membership in the Church likewise occurs.

In contrast, if someone is baptised Catholic then later leaves the Church, if he performs baptisms with no intention of having those persons receive that rite of supply or the idea behind it, then those persons are not considered to be baptised as Catholics.

I’ll leave it at that for now because I’m going to sign-off for the night.

 

[felsguy]

I apologize that I have not been able to get back to this discussion until this evening.

This is definitely interesting as it compares to valid protestant baptisms, which are valid baptisms but do not subject the person to canon law, since they are not Catholic baptisms. What specifically is it that makes a baptism a Catholic baptism?

Yes, this is my question in a nutshell, but to clarify it even more it might be even better stated “what is it that makes an illicit baptism a Catholic baptism.”

As I understand the question, it is if a Catholic layperson conferring a baptism (illicitly and not reported) results in an objectively Catholic baptism.

We are not concerned with the culpability the unknowingly baptized person but rather the objective subjectivity (isn’t that an interesting word combination?) of this baptized person to Catholic law.

Yes, this is what I am asking, but in this form the question becomes twofold, the second being "what if a non-Catholic layperson baptizes the child of Catholic parents.

That’s a very good question.

Until the recent (September 2016) changes to canon law, there was a rather straightforward answer.

Now, not so much.

For anyone interested, I suggest this link canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/23/about-the-catholic-effect-of-catholic-baptism/

Fr. David, am I inferring correctly that in speaking of baptisms performed by “Catholic ministers” this article is addressing “licit baptisms” and does not directly deal with “illicit baptisms”?

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David, am I inferring correctly that in speaking of baptisms performed by “Catholic ministers” this article is addressing “licit baptisms” and does not directly deal with “illicit baptisms”?

Not sure precisely what you mean. The article by Dr E. P. ? or the one about which he is writing?

The part dealing with baptisms performed by a priest or deacon, supposes that they’re licit baptisms. Although if it’s a matter of a priest performing an illicit baptism (one who baptizes in a place w/o the consent of the local pastor for example) the laws would be the same with regard to Catholic membership.

Again, I don’t grasp the meaning of your question, so my answer might not fit. Please rephrase it and I’ll get back to you (but not soon).

 

[felsguy]

Not sure precisely what you mean. The article by Dr E. P. ? or the one about which he is writing?

The part dealing with baptisms performed by a priest or deacon, supposes that they’re licit baptisms. Although if it’s a matter of a priest performing an illicit baptism (one who baptizes in a place w/o the consent of the local pastor for example) the laws would be the same with regard to Catholic membership.

Again, I don’t grasp the meaning of your question, so my answer might not fit. Please rephrase it and I’ll get back to you (but not soon).

Father, my question to you was meant to ask are you suggesting that Dr. Peter’s article does not directly answer my original question, namely, what determines whether or not the norms of Church law regarding marriage will apply to a child of Catholic parents secretly illicitly baptized by a layperson, such as a concerned grandparent.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

… If the person grew up ignorant of the fact that he was baptized Catholic, he certainly would have no moral culpability for marrying outside the Church…

Do you have any sources for that information?

As I read the canons, once a person is baptized Catholic, the obligation to marry according to canonical form (or dispensation from it) attaches and it goes directly to the vary validity of the marriage. Meaning that there is no marriage, but instead is an invalid attempt at marriage.

What am I missing?

Sorry, I am not a student of canon law. I was referring only to moral culpability. In that sense, I believe that my statement is correct. We cannot sin if we are ignorant through no fault of our own. I suppose that you are correct that a secret Catholic baptism could nullify a non-Catholic marriage. However, as a practical matter, how would this secret ever come to be known decades later?

This whole subject of secret baptisms of infants just strikes me as gravely evil.

 

[dans0622]

If Catholic grandma validly baptizes her infant grandchild, then I see no way to say anything except that the baby is Catholic. Church law applies to the baby.

Practically, if the fact of the baptism is “secret” such that nobody but grandma knows about it and she goes to her grave with that knowledge, then the child would never be held bound to canon law. If he marries at the courthouse with an unbaptized person, and then divorces, no one would think that the marriage was invalid because of a lack of form. If he then wanted to marry a Catholic, he would not submit a lack of form case. If he did, it would not be successful since there is no evidence that he is Catholic.

In practice, an obligation to observe canon law arises when there is a record of Catholic baptism/reception. Or, at the very least, the fact of the baptism is “public.”

Dan

 

[felsguy]

If Catholic grandma validly baptizes her infant grandchild, then I see no way to say anything except that the baby is Catholic. Church law applies to the baby.

Practically, if the fact of the baptism is “secret” such that nobody but grandma knows about it and she goes to her grave with that knowledge, then the child would never be held bound to canon law. If he marries at the courthouse with an unbaptized person, and then divorces, no one would think that the marriage was invalid because of a lack of form. If he then wanted to marry a Catholic, he would not submit a lack of form case. If he did, it would not be successful since there is no evidence that he is Catholic.

In practice, an obligation to observe canon law arises when there is a record of Catholic baptism/reception. Or, at the very least, the fact of the baptism is “public.”

Dan

Thank you very much, Dan. Your comments directly address an actual situation in which I am involved (in a “semi-official” capacity which I would rather not go into here).

Not to belabor this issue, but if I may presume upon your expertise to add one last wrinkle:

If a child of Catholic parents was baptized by a well-meaning but unauthorized third party and it was determined that this third party was not Catholic, would that then indicate that the child "was not a Catholic, that is, in later life would not be bound by the norms of canon law related to marriage and therefore a lack of form would not be applicable?

 

[FrDavid96]

Father, my question to you was meant to ask are you suggesting that Dr. Peter’s article does not directly answer my original question,

This is what I am saying. When Pope Francis made changed to canon law a few months ago, he added a paragraph permitting Catholic priests to baptize the children of non-Catholics (which seemed to be already part of the law before the new paragraph was added).
What does that mean? What do the new laws mean? Does a child baptized according to the new canon (parents who want baptism but cannot approach their own non-Catholic minister) make the child Catholic?
I don’t understand them. I linked to the post by Dr E.P. to make the point that they are confusing.

namely, what determines whether or not the norms of Church law regarding marriage will apply to a child of Catholic parents secretly illicitly baptized by a layperson, such as a concerned grandparent.

As far as I know, once a person is baptised Catholic (regardless of whether that’s done by ones proper pastor or done in private and even in secret) such a person is Catholic and the obligation to marry according to canonical form attaches and is permanent. I know of no exceptions to this*. I am not of the opinion that if the baptism is never reported to the pastor (not recorded) then such a person is no longer obligated to follow canonical form.

If such an exception exists, I cannot find the canonical “how” for it. I looked at issues such as ‘error of fact’ or ‘ignorance of fact’ or ‘ignorance of the law’ (as possibilities) but that doesn’t change my opinion.

Is there some kind of Instruction from Rome of which I’m not aware? Is there canonical precedent? Is there an example of a case when the Rota declared an attempt at marriage null based on a similar scenario? I don’t know of any; yet that does not mean they aren’t out there.

**So again, just to be clear: in my opinion, if a person is baptised Catholic, the grandparent intends a Catholic baptism and follows valid form, yet fails to report this to the pastor, such a person is still obligated to follow canonical form for a valid marriage. **

I’m qualifying by saying that it’s possible I might be wrong; that there could be something I’m missing as I read the canons, or there could be some canonical interpretation or precedent that proves me wrong.

---

• there used to be such an exception, but HH Benedict removed it.

 

[FrDavid96]

If Catholic grandma validly baptizes her infant grandchild, then I see no way to say anything except that the baby is Catholic. Church law applies to the baby.

Practically, if the fact of the baptism is “secret” such that nobody but grandma knows about it and she goes to her grave with that knowledge, then the child would never be held bound to canon law. If he marries at the courthouse with an unbaptized person, and then divorces, no one would think that the marriage was invalid because of a lack of form. If he then wanted to marry a Catholic, he would not submit a lack of form case. If he did, it would not be successful since there is no evidence that he is Catholic.

In practice, an obligation to observe canon law arises when there is a record of Catholic baptism/reception. Or, at the very least, the fact of the baptism is “public.”

Dan

Here’s the rub:

For one who is baptized Catholic, canonical form is required for validity, not just liciety. What I do not see is how “ignorance of fact” can change the validity because in this case the ‘form’ of the Sacrament is the expression of consent in the presence of the Church’s minister (not just the expression of consent alone). see

When you say “no one would think the marriage was invalid because of lack of form” I can take your sentence 2 ways:

1. No one would think it, meaning, no one would know about it, so it’s a moot point.
2. No one (meaning the Church) would consider that an invalid attempt.

If you intend #2, my question would be “why?”

(followup coming soon)