For Catholics/Eastern Orthodox/Lutherans: Baptism without parental permission?

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

TriuneUnity

Guest
My wife and I were discussing this, just because it randomly popped into our heads. Would love to get others opinions based on what their churches teach.

If, in a situation where a parent who has a newborn refuses to Baptise the child because they are an unbeliever. What is the protocol/attitude toward baptizing them in secret or without parental permission? Is it valid? Illicit?
 
TriuneUnity said:
My wife and I were discussing this, just because it randomly popped into our heads. Would love to get others opinions based on what their churches teach.

If, in a situation where a parent who has a newborn refuses to Baptise the child because they are an unbeliever. What is the protocol/attitude toward baptizing them in secret or without parental permission? Is it valid? Illicit?
Click to expand...
For Catholics–is it valid?–I believe so. (Ultimitely I think the Sacrament is valid with the Trinitarian Formula, water, and the intention of doing what Jesus’ Church intends.) Is it illicit?–if it’s not done in a life-or-death emergency, yes. (It is wrong without having the parental authority or if there is not an emergency Baptism.)

The grandparents just have to watch (and cry inside) and hope that the child refusing to Baptize his child will “wake up”. They may pray for the child, but unless that grandchild is in danger of death, they cannot Baptize their grandchild. I’ve been there.
 
For Catholics, the relevant canon is this:

Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.
 
I’m not sure that I can represent the Orthodox position, but I’ll express what I read in books.

Technically, the baptism would be valid.

However, practically, to be baptized a person should believe. When we baptize babies, their godparents should stand with their faith, and they should be able (theoretically, at least) to recite the Creed by heart, otherwise they can’t be called real believers.

However the main purpose to investige whether they believe or not is not because it’s technically needed. The question a priest needs to answer is: whether theese people will be able to raise the child in faith? Since that’s the responsibility of godsparents to raise the child. They promise to do so in the face of God.

So when the child is baptized secretely, a priest is in a really tough situation, as he needs to estimate, and to decide, whether this baptizm will lead the child to a christian life. If there’s a real chance that the secrecy will only complicate the situation, and that the offended parents may act in that a way that would prevent a child to grow up believing… OK, in this case it’s probably better to refuse.

However that’s the task of the priest to decide.
 
Peter_J said:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgardo_Mortara
Click to expand...
After thinking about it some more, the real issue in the Edgardo Mortara case wasn’t the fact that he was baptized (while in danger of death) without parents permission; but rather the fact that his parents, who were Jewish, were subsequently not permitted to raise him.

Hence, I don’t think it really belongs in this thread, so I’ve start a new thread for it, just in case anyone wants to talk about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top