Does this Baptism count?

[on_the_hill]

First time visitor, first time poster. Long time Catholic.

If a baptism is done in secret, does it count? (this is not exactly the same as Mormons’ posthumous baptisms)

My sister-in-law, a baptized Catholic, fell away from the Church in her teens and has had an on-again, off-again relationship with her family throughout her life. She became an atheist in high school.

In college, she met a Jewish man, subsequently “converted” to Judaism, and the two were married in a liberal Jewish ceremony. I put converted in quotes because we’re not sure that she followed any formal process of conversion to the Jewish faith. And from all accounts she’s still more atheist than believer.

They recently had their first child.

My mother-in-law was very, very upset when my sister-in-law converted to Judaism and feared for her daughter’s final salvation. I think she may have, over the years, learned to accept it.

However, my wife and I have reason to suspect that my mother-in-law may have secretly done an “emergency” baptism on her new granddaughter when the infant’s parents weren’t around to object. Whether or not such a baptism would hold up to the Church’s definition of baptism, I’m sure my mother-in-law is resting much easier now.

So my question is this: does a secret baptism count as a true Sacramental baptism?

 

[Leon_Bloy]

Yes, as long as water was used, the person doing it had the intention to baptize, and they said “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”

It would be valid but illicit unless there was an emergency. Deacons, priests, and bishops are the ordinary ministers of baptism.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I’ve seen this question come up far more often than I would have thought. My understanding is also that the baptism would be valid but gravely illicit.

 

[englishredrose]

God understands where we fail.

I think any Christian can baptize another and God will see the intention. However if that child was to enter the Roman Catholic Church etc then they may want the child to be formally baptized though ‘he’ is already a child of God

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I think any Christian can baptize another and God will see the intention.

In fact, even a non-Christian can baptize, with confidence that it will be valid.

If the baptism is not well witnessed and recorded, and the person later became Catholic, the person may receive a conditional baptism (which would do nothing except satisfy record keeping) to ensure everything is good.

That said, Catholic laymen are only supposed to baptize in emergency situations, as baptism is to be treated as entry into the Church. For a child, this means his parents must agree that he is in now a member of the Church and raise him as such, for an adult the adult himself must agree to live in the Church.

So in this case, the child has been inducted into the Church but without any sure guidance of what that means, which is less than ideal.

But yes, the baptism was (assuming done correctly) valid.

 

[on_the_hill]

Thanks for the answers.

For clarification, what does illicit mean in this case?

 

[Brendan]

Thanks for the answers.

For clarification, what does illicit mean in this case?

Contrary to the law.

In that, outside of a reasonable fear of death, a Baptism should only be done by a priest, bishop or a deacon.

In addition, a Baptism is only to be done when it is expected that the child is to raised Catholic.

The Baptism happened, the stain of sin was washed from the child and the mark of Baptism is now on the child’s soul… but it was done outside the law of the Church.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Illicit means not allowed by Church law. It doesn’t mean much about the child’s baptism - if it happened correctly, he’s baptized, 100% - but it does mean that if the person doing the baptism is aware of the law that she may have sinned in doing so.

Kind of like how a person who’s not a cop and not responding to an emergency or the like driving 90 mph on the interstate is in fact actually driving 90 mph but is doing so illegally. (Invalid would mean that no baptism actually occurred, this would be like taking a marker and changing the 70 on a speedometer to 90, then claiming that because your needle pointed to “90” you were in fact driving 90 mph.)

 

[Adalias]

God understands where we fail.
http://www.dubaa.info/iPad.gif

 

[on_the_hill]

Illicit means not allowed by Church law. It doesn’t mean much about the child’s baptism - if it happened correctly, he’s baptized, 100% - but it does mean that if the person doing the baptism is aware of the law that she may have sinned in doing so.

Thanks. I assume she didn’t know it was outside Church law, but that wouldn’t have stopped her if she had. Nor do I believe she would consider it a sin. From her perspective, it was a grave matter and an emergency situation and therefore justifiable regardless of the law.

That is, if she actually performed the baptism. When my wife asked her about it, her response was, “No comment. But that’s an interesting idea,” with a wry smile. Which is about as conclusive as the evidence will get.

As for my wife and I, the matter is closed. I was just curious about how the Church would view it.

 

[englishredrose]

they may just simply ask the child to be baptised again or accept it and ask you to enter the child into the church.

I had that as had emergency baptism by a priest as a baby through being very sick and when was well enough I was enterred into the church via a seperate ceremony.

 

[thistle]

First time visitor, first time poster. Long time Catholic.

If a baptism is done in secret, does it count? (this is not exactly the same as Mormons’ posthumous baptisms)

My sister-in-law, a baptized Catholic, fell away from the Church in her teens and has had an on-again, off-again relationship with her family throughout her life. She became an atheist in high school.

In college, she met a Jewish man, subsequently “converted” to Judaism, and the two were married in a liberal Jewish ceremony. I put converted in quotes because we’re not sure that she followed any formal process of conversion to the Jewish faith. And from all accounts she’s still more atheist than believer.

They recently had their first child.

My mother-in-law was very, very upset when my sister-in-law converted to Judaism and feared for her daughter’s final salvation. I think she may have, over the years, learned to accept it.

However, my wife and I have reason to suspect that my mother-in-law may have secretly done an “emergency” baptism on her new granddaughter when the infant’s parents weren’t around to object. Whether or not such a baptism would hold up to the Church’s definition of baptism, I’m sure my mother-in-law is resting much easier now.

So my question is this: does a secret baptism count as a true Sacramental baptism?

If the baptism was done in secret then how do you know it actually took place. Thinking or suspecting it did is meaningless.

 

[Phemie]

Thanks. I assume she didn’t know it was outside Church law, but that wouldn’t have stopped her if she had. Nor do I believe she would consider it a sin. From her perspective, it was a grave matter and an emergency situation and therefore justifiable regardless of the law.

That is, if she actually performed the baptism. When my wife asked her about it, her response was, “No comment. But that’s an interesting idea,” with a wry smile. Which is about as conclusive as the evidence will get.

As for my wife and I, the matter is closed. I was just curious about how the Church would view it.

It’s probably something she has considered but not done, as have I each time I have given my grandson a bath. I had to talk myself out of doing it, telling myself that I would be imposing responsibilities on him that he’s never be taught to meet.

It has been one of the hardest things, seeing my grandson go unbaptized and knowing that my daughter has absolutely no intention of raising him in the Church “I’d have to lie to get him baptized and say that I was going to raise him Catholic. I’m not and I’m not going to be a hypocrite about it.”