Clarify what makes a Baptism valid?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Talitha712
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Talitha712

Guest
A Catholic family I know had their 3 month old daughter baptized at home instead of in a church (not an emergency Baptism - she’s in perfect health and this was planned out ahead of time). The priest came from another area and no one asked permission from the pastor of the family’s parish. The baptizing priest was also the girl’s godfather.

To my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) for the Baptism to be valid there must be the Trinitarian formula, the water, and the proper intention. I’m sure all these things were in place. So would I be correct in assuming her Baptism was illicit but still valid?
 
I dont even think its illicit… illicit is more protestant baptisms
the complication most likely will be the paper trail concerning the baptismal certificate.
 
I think you’re right that it’s valid but illicit. I hope the family has registered the baptism with their parish or there will be problems later when she needs to be able to verify her baptism.
 
Talitha712 said:
A Catholic family I know had their 3 month old daughter baptized at home instead of in a church (not an emergency Baptism - she’s in perfect health and this was planned out ahead of time). The priest came from another area and no one asked permission from the pastor of the family’s parish. The baptizing priest was also the girl’s godfather.
Click to expand...
I won’t touch questions of liceity or validity here, I just don’t know the rules well enough. I have to ask, though, how you are sure that no one asked permission of the family’s parish. It would be the responsibility of the priest who performed the baptism to ask the pastor’s permission, and most likely he would have done so privately, not involving the family in the process. (As parish receptionist, I would get those calls from time to time, and always passed them directly to the pastor.) The situation of the priest also being the girl’s godfather strikes me as unusual, but I don’t have any idea if it actually breaks any rules or not.
 
The only reason I know is because I’m related to the mother and she told me. The priest is the father’s brother and they’re really close, that’s why he is also the godfather.
 
A baptism must be recorded. Surely, the priest-uncle knew that.
 
Way too little information here to make a definitive claim, one way or another.

Yet another example of a post with what might be a legitimate concern cannot get an objective answer on the internet. At best all the answers you get will be “I think,” and “it seems to me”.

This is a great place for opinion, but if you’re looking for cold hard facts, I wouldn’t bank on it.
 
Speaking of opinions, in my opinion, canon law should not allow the minister of baptism to also be the godparent. Alas, there is no such prohibition.

Dan
 
acanonlawyer said:
anon law should not allow the minister of baptism to also be the godparent. Alas, there is no such prohibition.
Click to expand...
It kinda makes for an interesting ceremony, in which the minister essentially carries on a conversation with himself… 😉
 
acanonlawyer said:
Speaking of opinions, in my opinion, canon law should not allow the minister of baptism to also be the godparent. Alas, there is no such prohibition.

Dan
Click to expand...
The prohibition is implied.

The minister and the Godparent have different roles. That in itself prohibits them from being the same person. The priest cannot ask himself “are you prepared to help the parents…?” etc.

The priest can no more be the sponsor than a groom can be his own witness at a marriage.
 
Talitha712 said:
A Catholic family I know had their 3 month old daughter baptized at home instead of in a church (not an emergency Baptism - she’s in perfect health and this was planned out ahead of time). The priest came from another area and no one asked permission from the pastor of the family’s parish. The baptizing priest was also the girl’s godfather.

To my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) for the Baptism to be valid there must be the Trinitarian formula, the water, and the proper intention. I’m sure all these things were in place. So would I be correct in assuming her Baptism was illicit but still valid?
Click to expand...
What the OP describes is certainly illicit.

Can. 860 §1. Apart from a case of necessity, baptism is not to be conferred in private houses, unless the local ordinary has permitted it for a grave cause.

Can. 862 Except in a case of necessity, no one is permitted to confer baptism in the territory of another without the required permission, not even upon his own subjects.

So yes, valid but illicit, as described.
 
Not even that. The Catechism counts it as valid. If done accordingly
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top