The law itself gives us the answer. The law states what is necessary for validity and then it states what is necessary for licety. Validity and licety are two different things.
I am sorry so many people cannot understand that. The section regarding permission of at least one parent clearly states it is for LICETY. If it meant for validity, it would say for validity. It does not.
The article I linked to is a nice explanation of the law.
I understand that there is a distinction. I also understand that consent is required for baptism to be
valid. In adult baptism the individual must consent, in the case of an infant, typically the parents/godparents consent on behalf of the child, although the church reserves the right to do so “in danger of death”.
Who in the scenario of the grandparents was authorized to provide consent on behalf of the child?
1ke did not cite that article as *proof *of her answer, but as a *very competent explanation *of the Church’s position.
1ke happens to be well-educated on what canon law means when it says that a sacrament is valid although not licit. As she has pointed out more than once, the unequivocal answer to the question is in the Church’s authoritative documents, including canon law. This is not some esoteric question that never comes up, but a common question that has a short clear answer. The described baptisms would not be rendered invalid by the person who performed them or by the failure to obtain parental consent, but only by some failure to perform the baptism according to the required formula. The pastor would undoubtedly want to interview the grandparents before recording these baptisms, but it is most likely that the children have been validly baptized.
Apparently both of you get used to answering the same question and fail to notice when a different one is being asked. I agree that typically a parent’s consent is required for licity, but the church dispense’s with that in certain circumstances.
My point is that baptism without the consent of the baptized (or the consent of one authorized to provide consent on behalf of the one being baptized) is not
valid. No forced baptisms, even with water and the right words/intent. That’s why you can’t drive down the street with a super soaker and conduct ambush baptisms.
Parents/godparents can consent on behalf of the child, and the church reserves the right to provide that consent “in danger of death”. In both cases, with proper form and matter, a valid and licit baptism occurs.
Likewise, if a parent baptises their child at home, they are able to provide consent, and you have a baptism that is not licit, but is valid, if proper form and matter were used.
If someone who is not authorized to provide consent on behalf of an infant (such as grandparents) attempts to baptise that infant when the infant is not “in danger of death”, please provide something authoritative to demonstrate that the church also extends its provision of consent in this circumstance as well. Otherwise, it’s the same as throwing water at someone in the street who hasn’t provided consent to be baptized-not valid.
I’m open to being corrected, but a quote from a university professor who isn’t answering the question I’m asking doesn’t suffice, regardless of the use of bold and italics in the reply to me.
