Clarification re illicit baptisms and future marriage

[FrDavid96]

…
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?

I think the answer is “yes.”

HOWEVER (even though this isn’t what you’re asking) keep in mind that even in such a situation, a person might be Catholic. For example, if a non-Catholic hospital nurse were to report to the local Catholic pastor “here is a list of 5 babies I baptised last year” and he records these in the register, I can see how (at least) the babies of Catholic parents would be considered Catholic.

 

[FrDavid96]

…
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

Yes, “in practice” I agree completely. However, this situation is obviously an exception to the norm.

The part that makes me hesitate here is (as I’ve posted before) is that this goes directly to the validity of the Sacrament, and it depends on the condition of the person, not the formality of whether-or-not the baptism was actually recorded.

When a Catholic grandparent privately baptizes a grandchild, there is a presumption (& obligation) that such will be recorded. So, my question is “how does failure to report change the situation?”

I think this might fall under “ignorance of fact” (no one knows it happened) or “error of fact” (people think the person is unbaptized). HOWEVER what I do not see is how that can effect validity.

Here’s the example I’ve been thinking about:

To consecrate the Eucharist, I must have valid matter. No valid matter means no consecration. Error of fact does not change that. If someone were to secretly replace the altar wine with some substitute (say purple grape-flavored apple juice with added alcohol) such that it would fool me into thinking that it’s wine, if I attempt consecration, there is still no valid sacrament. Error/ignorance of fact does not change this.

When I look at the marriage issue, whether or not a person is bound to follow canonical form depends on the condition of the person, a quality that exists (or not) in the person. Validity of the marriage is determined by the spiritual condition of the person; not a canonical or legal condition (limited to this topic).

If the matter is apple juice, the attempt at consecration is invalid. Period.
If the person is Catholic, the attempt at marriage by a justice-of-the-peace is invalid. Period.*

Now, one ‘canonical condition of the person’ that does apply would be “Catholic or not?” and that simply takes us full-circle. We come right back to where we started by asking “is he Catholic or not?” So, does failure to record the baptism make a person non-Catholic even though, all else being the same, had the record been made, such a person would be undoubtedly Catholic? I think the answer is yes.

Thoughts?

Especially if you’re aware of any precedent on this, please post it.

---

• yes, I think I need to say it again, add “without dispensation or other circumstances that could make it valid.”

 

[cominghome1966]

Now, one ‘canonical condition of the person’ that does apply would be “Catholic or not?” and that simply takes us full-circle. We come right back to where we started by asking “is he Catholic or not?” So, does failure to record the baptism make a person non-Catholic even though, all else being the same, had the record been made, such a person would be undoubtedly Catholic? I think the answer is yes.

Thoughts?

If the baptism is valid, then the person is objectively Catholic it seems to me. To argue that they are not Catholic by virtue of the fact that the baptism went unrecorded calls into question the validity of the baptism, does it not?

Here’s what I mean: if the stain from original sin was washed away… if the sacramental grace was imparted… and if the act was done by a Catholic… then the baptized person is Catholic, objectively, it seems to me. Not recording it is a huge problem, to be sure! I get that, and such baptisms should be openly and loudly discouraged.

And the reason they should be discouraged is that they make the person objectively Catholic. Such a baptism places upon the person obligations he doesn’t even know he has.

Looked at from another angle: if such baptisms don’t make the person objectively Catholic, then should we discourage them? If so, why?

 

[FrDavid96]

If the baptism is valid, then the person is objectively Catholic it seems to me. To argue that they are not Catholic by virtue of the fact that the baptism went unrecorded calls into question the validity of the baptism, does it not?

Here’s what I mean: if the stain from original sin was washed away… if the sacramental grace was imparted… and if the act was done by a Catholic… then the baptized person is Catholic, objectively, it seems to me. Not recording it is a huge problem, to be sure! I get that, and such baptisms should be openly and loudly discouraged.

And the reason they should be discouraged is that they make the person objectively Catholic. Such a baptism places upon the person obligations he doesn’t even know he has.

Looked at from another angle: if such baptisms don’t make the person objectively Catholic, then should we discourage them? If so, why?

OOPS!

Big typo in my last message.

 

[FrDavid96]

…

Now, one ‘canonical condition of the person’ that does apply would be “Catholic or not?” and that simply takes us full-circle. We come right back to where we started by asking “is he Catholic or not?” So, does failure to record the baptism make a person non-Catholic even though, all else being the same, had the record been made, such a person would be undoubtedly Catholic? I think the answer is -]yes/-].

Thoughts?

Correction. I think the answer is “no.” It does not make a person non-Catholic.

Failure to record the Baptism does not make a non-Catholic person.

A person is still Catholic even though the baptism was not recorded.

 

[cominghome1966]

Correction. I think the answer is “no.” It does not make a person non-Catholic.

Failure to record the Baptism does not make a non-Catholic person.

A person is still Catholic even though the baptism was not recorded.

 

[FrDavid96]

In future, I should not omit to proof-read my words when posting double negatives.

 

[felsguy]

Father David, thank you for the thoughtful and detailed replies. Please excuse the simplification below as I attempt to summarize my understanding so far:

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.

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.”

**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. **

My understanding of the above:

Catholic grandparent + proper form + recorded or at least an awareness of = Catholic baptism = Catholic child to whom norms of marriage apply

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?

I think the answer is "yes.

So, does failure to record the baptism make a person non-Catholic even though, all else being the same, had the record been made, such a person would be undoubtedly Catholic? I think the answer is yes.

Here’s where I need to check if I am understanding you correctly:

Non-Catholic third party (irrelevant whether a grandparent or not) + and baptism is not reported/recorded = valid baptism and non-Catholic child and norm of marriage do not apply.

Non-Catholic third party (irrelevant whether a grandparent or not) + and baptism is reported/recorded = valid baptism and might be Catholic child and norms of marriage would apply.

Father, I appreciate your time and effort, especially during this busy time. As I mentioned earlier, I am not pursuing this just as an academic exercise.

 

[felsguy]

Correction. I think the answer is “no.” It does not make a person non-Catholic.

Failure to record the Baptism does not make a non-Catholic person.

A person is still Catholic even though the baptism was not recorded.

Oh my. I see I missed a couple posts while I was typing mine.

Am I correct that here you are speaking of baptisms performed by a Catholic and not necessarily of those performed by a non-Catholic?

 

[FrDavid96]

Father David, thank you for the thoughtful and detailed replies. Please excuse the simplification below as I attempt to summarize my understanding so far:

My understanding of the above:

Catholic grandparent + proper form + recorded or at least an awareness of = Catholic baptism = Catholic child to whom norms of marriage apply

That is how I understand it. I just don’t see any other way to interpret things. I want to caution you on how I’m phrasing this. Just because I see it that way doesn’t mean that I’m necessarily correct. I truly do feel that is the case.

The only thing that would make me change my mind would be if someone had precedent where the Holy See (ie the Rota) ruled the opposite in some concrete case, or there was some authoritative Instruction or Notice to the contrary. I am not aware of such, but that only means I’m not aware.

 

[FrDavid96]

Oh my. I see I missed a couple posts while I was typing mine.

Am I correct that here you are speaking of baptisms performed by a Catholic and not necessarily of those performed by a non-Catholic?

As for a situation where the one doing the baptism is non-Catholic, that might depend on whether it happened in the context of a non-Catholic community ceremony where the person becomes a formal member of that community (but that’s not what you’re asking).

I’m trying to apply this to situations where I can be certain:

—A Buddhist nurse baptizes a baby in the hospital danger-of-death. Catholic parents. Notifies the pastor (he acts appropriately). The child is Catholic. Cut-and-dry. No doubt whatsoever.

–Same situation but the nurse is Catholic. Again, no doubt whatsoever that the baby is Catholic.

–Same situation but the nurse is Anglican. No doubt, the baby is Catholic.

–Same situation but the parents (or grandparents, etc.) perform the baptism. The baby is Catholic.

What I’m getting at here is that in situations where I am absolutely certain, it doesn’t matter if the one baptizing is Catholic or not.

The only difference between what I posted above and your scenario is that
a the local Catholic pastor is not notified,
b. there is no record made,
c. and the Rites are not supplied.

As I move through those scenarios and I replace “pastor is notified” with “pastor is not notified” the conclusion remains the same. Same thing with “recorded” and “rites supplied.” Each time, the same conclusion.

As I evaluate those a, b, & c, I don’t see how the absence of one or more would cause the child to be not-Catholic.

 

[felsguy]

Father David, thank you again

 

[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

Let me run a scenario past you, if you will, please.

Forget everything that’s already been said in this thread. Ignore it all completely.
Just read the scenario I’m posting right here and tell me what you think:

It’s 2016. A man named Wrigley decides to become Catholic.

Wrigley was born in 1990 to parents who “didn’t believe in that religion stuff.” They raised him completely agnostic and wouldn’t even allow him near a church building. They named him Wrigley after their favorite chewing gum.

In 2011, he married a woman who was raised much the same way. She was never baptized. They got married at a perfectly legal (don’t ask me why) Big Purple Lizard Casino & Wedding Chapel just outside Las Vegas. After about a year, they divorced amicably. No children.

Wrigley learns about Catholicism and decides he wants to join the Church by starting RCIA as a catechumen. He has a meeting with the pastor (a nice, kind, priest who is solid both liturgically and canonically–he doesn’t mess with stuff). The pastor asks him some routine questions just to understand his state in life.

Were you ever baptized? No.

Are you married? No

Were you ever married or did you ever attempt marriage? Yes. Married, then divorced. (insert other details I already posted).

Did you ever re-marry? No.

At this point, the pastor tells him that while there’s no obstacle to him being baptized and becoming Catholic at the next Easter Vigil, there’s still that issue of the previous marriage, and if Wrigley (who’s only 26) ever wants to get married, he’ll have to deal with this situation.

Wrigley now goes to visit his grandparents who he hasn’t seen in years because his parents wanted nothing to do with them (for some reason he never understood). He tells his grandparents that he has decided to become Catholic. They are overjoyed. They tried their best with their daughter, but since she grew up in the 70s and the local pastor was one of those “Vatican II says whatever I say” sorts, the faith just never took-root in her and she declared herself an agnostic. When Wrigley was born in 1990, parents absolutely refused to even talk about baptism. Once the grandparents learn that Wrigley has decided to become Catholic all on his own, they’re very happy. They tell him that he’s already been baptized. One day, when his parents were away, the grandparents baptized him at home. They used a bottle of Holy Water (which didn’t come from that ‘Vatican II says’ priest) and the exact Trinitarian formula that they first learned as children. They never reported it to the priest because he once told them that he didn’t agree with the Church’s practice of baptizing babies (he told them “Vatican 2 says we don’t do that anymore!” and he only baptizes babies because the nasty bishop told him he has to do it.) They even made a VCR tape recording of the event. Immediately, Wrigley asks “what’s a VCR?” They explain it to him and actually show him the video of his own baptism.

Wrigley borrows grandma’s VCR and takes the tape over to his hometown Catholic pastor, who watches the tape and realizes that everything about the baptism was done proper, only that it was never recorded. They also share the tape with the current pastor of the place where the baptism occurred and the pastor duly records it in the parish register, along with a notation that he wasn’t notified until 26 years after the fact.

Wrigley (who can’t wait to take a saint’s name at Confirmation), together with his pastor complete all the proper forms (including a baptismal certificate properly notated from the parish) and submit them to the local Catholic diocese chancery in a petition for a administrative declaration of nullity based on lack-of-canonical-form for Wrigley’s civil marriage.

**
What, do you think, would happen next?**

Again, please read this post as if you had never read anything previous in this thread. Only go by the information you see here.

How do you think the chancery would respond to the petition?

 

[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

Let me run a scenario past you, if you will, please.

Forget everything that’s already been said in this thread. Ignore it all completely.
Just read the scenario I’m posting right here and tell me what you think:

It’s 2016. A man named Wrigley decides to become Catholic.

Wrigley was born in 1990 to parents who “didn’t believe in that religion stuff.” They raised him completely agnostic and wouldn’t even allow him near a church building. They named him Wrigley after their favorite chewing gum.

In 2011, he married a woman who was raised much the same way. She was never baptized. They got married at a perfectly legal (don’t ask me why) Big Purple Lizard Casino & Wedding Chapel just outside Las Vegas. After about a year, they divorced amicably. No children.

Wrigley learns about Catholicism and decides he wants to join the Church by starting RCIA as a catechumen. He has a meeting with the pastor (a nice, kind, priest who is solid both liturgically and canonically–he doesn’t mess with stuff). The pastor asks him some routine questions just to understand his state in life.

Were you ever baptized? No.

Are you married? No

Were you ever married or did you ever attempt marriage? Yes. Married, then divorced. (insert other details I already posted).

Did you ever re-marry? No.

At this point, the pastor tells him that while there’s no obstacle to him being baptized and becoming Catholic at the next Easter Vigil, there’s still that issue of the previous marriage, and if Wrigley (who’s only 26) ever wants to get married, he’ll have to deal with this situation.

Wrigley now goes to visit his grandparents who he hasn’t seen in years because his parents wanted nothing to do with them (for some reason he never understood). He tells his grandparents that he has decided to become Catholic. They are overjoyed. They tried their best with their daughter, but since she grew up in the 70s and the local pastor was one of those “Vatican II says whatever I say” sorts, the faith just never took-root in her and she declared herself an agnostic. When Wrigley was born in 1990, parents absolutely refused to even talk about baptism. Once the grandparents learn that Wrigley has decided to become Catholic all on his own, they’re very happy. They tell him that he’s already been baptized. One day, when his parents were away, the grandparents baptized him at home. They used a bottle of Holy Water (which didn’t come from that ‘Vatican II says’ priest) and the exact Trinitarian formula that they first learned as children. They never reported it to the priest because he once told them that he didn’t agree with the Church’s practice of baptizing babies (he told them “Vatican 2 says we don’t do that anymore!” and he only baptizes babies because the nasty bishop told him he has to do it.) They even made a VCR tape recording of the event. Immediately, Wrigley asks “what’s a VCR?” They explain it to him and actually show him the video of his own baptism.

Wrigley borrows grandma’s VCR and takes the tape over to his hometown Catholic pastor, who watches the tape and realizes that everything about the baptism was done proper, only that it was never recorded. They also share the tape with the current pastor of the place where the baptism occurred and the pastor duly records it in the parish register, along with a notation that he wasn’t notified until 26 years after the fact.

Wrigley (who can’t wait to take a saint’s name at Confirmation), together with his pastor complete all the proper forms (including a baptismal certificate properly notated from the parish) and submit them to the local Catholic diocese chancery in a petition for a administrative declaration of nullity based on lack-of-canonical-form for Wrigley’s civil marriage.

**
What, do you think, would happen next?**

Again, please read this post as if you had never read anything previous in this thread. Only go by the information you see here.

How do you think the chancery would respond to the petition?

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

 

[dans0622]

Let me run a scenario past you, if you will, please.
…
How do you think the chancery would respond to the petition?

The man is Catholic and so he was bound to observe canonical form. If an infant is baptized Catholic, it’s not possible to impart the sacramental/spiritual effects but leave aside the canonical/juridic/legal consequences. Unless I’m totally missing the point, I think we’re on the same page here.

To your earlier question about decisions/instructions concerning this question–I only know of one Rotal case that is tangentially related. The man in that case alleged that his marriage was invalid because of a lack of form but the Rota could not find evidence of him being baptized Catholic. So, the decision was negative: he was apparently not Catholic and so was not bound to observe canonical form.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

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

Are you uncertain about what happens with the non-Catholic neighbor? If we’re talking about an infant, the minister’s intention determines what we can call the juridic consequences of baptism. Most of the time, the minister’s “faith” (ie, current, ecclesial “membership”) is aligned with his intention for the infant. This is generally the case, anyway–some examples already provided by FrDavid96 show some exceptional circumstances.

So, if Joe Lutheran baptizes his grandson because the parents are practical pagans, the baby would not be considered Catholic/bound to canon law.

Dan

 

[SMHW]

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

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.

 

[FrDavid96]

…If an infant is baptized Catholic, it’s not possible to impart the sacramental/spiritual effects but leave aside the canonical/juridic/legal consequences. Unless I’m totally missing the point, I think we’re on the same page here.

…

Dan

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.

 

[Phemie]

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.

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?

 

[felsguy]

Are you uncertain about what happens with the non-Catholic neighbor? If we’re talking about an infant, the minister’s intention determines what we can call the juridic consequences of baptism. Most of the time, the minister’s “faith” (ie, current, ecclesial “membership”) is aligned with his intention for the infant. This is generally the case, anyway–some examples already provided by FrDavid96 show some exceptional circumstances.

So, if Joe Lutheran baptizes his grandson because the parents are practical pagans, the baby would not be considered Catholic/bound to canon law.

Dan

Thank you for this, Dan. Your post and those of Father David have pretty covered all the bases. However, at the moment it is not known exactly what base we are on in the situation I described in that the intention of the neighbor is not known and unfortunately may no longer be possible to determine.

My task here has been to gather pertinent information as it might apply to a particular RCIA participant which I am comfortable has been completed now. Obviously any investigations and determinations related to the marriage question(s) will be left to the appropriate authorities.

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.

As I mentioned above, the motivation of the neighbor is not known at this time but the first of the two you posit seems the more likely.