Infant Baptism...Non-catholic parent...Bad Cannon Law advice?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Honour
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aemcpa said:
Any idea how long until your annulment is decided? If your first marriage is declared null, that would make it easier for your pastor to baptize your baby as soon as possible, even before you are confirmed next April.
Click to expand...
Not yet…that’s the other problem…the priest told me that I will require a formal case. I was informed previously that it would be a ligamen case. I am also researching this as I do not understand why he says the fact that my previous spouse was married has no bearing on the validly of my marriage with him. I was told and what I’ve read seems to agree that he was not free to marry me because he was still bound to her, making my marriage to him invalid and my case simple.
 
Honour said:
I get that, but I’m not going to let the fate of my daughters eternal soul hang in the balance without getting to the bottom of this. If, with full and accurate understanding of what cannon law says, and of my intention to raise her Catholic, he says he can’t baptize her, then I guess that’s that. I just want to make sure everyone is operating with the right info.
Click to expand...
If you are concerned about delaying baptism until you are in full communion with the Church, you can baptize your child in a Christian, non-Catholic ecclesial communion and you can bring him/her into full communion with the Catholic Church upon your entry into the Church.
 
Honour said:
Not yet…that’s the other problem…the priest told me that I will require a formal case. I was informed previously that it would be a ligamen case. I am also researching this as I do not understand why he says the fact that my previous spouse was married has no bearing on the validly of my marriage with him. I was told and what I’ve read seems to agree that he was not free to marry me because he was still bound to her, making my marriage to him invalid and my case simple.
Click to expand...
I think that’s only the case if one of the parties to your first husband’s first marriage was Catholic and they did not marry according to the Catholic form. If neither of them was Catholic, it becomes more difficult. (I am not a canon lawyer.)
 
Honour said:
Not yet…that’s the other problem…the priest told me that I will require a formal case. I was informed previously that it would be a ligamen case. I am also researching this as I do not understand why he says the fact that my previous spouse was married has no bearing on the validly of my marriage with him. I was told and what I’ve read seems to agree that he was not free to marry me because he was still bound to her, making my marriage to him invalid and my case simple.
Click to expand...
If all of the necessary paperwork for a Ligamen case cannot be produced, then it would move to a formal case.

If you have the proper paperwork in order for a Ligamen case, then it should be able to proceed.
 
aemcpa said:
I think that’s only the case if one of the parties to your first husband’s first marriage was Catholic and they did not marry according to the Catholic form. If neither of them was Catholic, it becomes more difficult. (I am not a canon lawyer.)
Click to expand...
Not if her first husband was married prior to his marriage to her. Then it is a Ligamen case, and provided that all paperwork is in order it is fairly straghtforward.
 
1ke said:
Not if her first husband was married prior to his marriage to her. Then it is a Ligamen case, and provided that all paperwork is in order it is fairly straghtforward.
Click to expand...
Oh, I sort of had it backwards. I was thinking of a case where the first husband’s first marriage could be quickly shown to be INvalid, which would actually make her case more difficult. But like I said, I don’t even know if I’m right about that.
 
1ke said:
Not if her first husband was married prior to his marriage to her. Then it is a Ligamen case, and provided that all paperwork is in order it is fairly straghtforward.
Click to expand...
That’s what I thought too. I need to talk to him again about this whole thing, it seems he is getting really bad advice or there is some communication disconnect.
 
Honour said:
I do appreciate the seriousness of the matter. I understand the importance of the sacrament, and that is why I am not content without a better answer. I know that God can save my baby without baptism, but i also know that it is very important to have infants baptized. That is why it urges parent to baptize their children as soon as possible after birth. Are they considering the repercussions of delaying her baptism? Trust me I do understand the consequences of being validly baptized but not being raised in the church with instruction. That’s what got me in the situation I am in now! I don’t want that for my kids!
Click to expand...
It is wonderful that you have such a good understanding and concern and love for your children, and it’s good that you are going to talk with those involved so that you can get a better understanding of what is going on. I hope they will be able to clarify everything for you.
Thank you again for the advice and the understanding and reassuring tone of your posts.
Click to expand...
Thank you, I’m happy I was able to help.

Annie
 
1ke said:
You are correct that the law does not state that a child cannot be baptized in the Catholic Church unless at least one parent is Catholic.

However, in such a case, yes the pastor is making a judgment call on whether or not there is a well founded hope that the chld will be raised Catholic. And, it is within his discretion to delay baptism.
Click to expand...
My understanding was that it is actually from the reading of two parts of canon law.
Can. 844 §1. Catholic ministers administer the sacraments licitly to Catholic members of the Christian faithful alone …
Click to expand...
and
Can. 868 §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.
Click to expand...
The only time that baptism of children of non-Catholic parents is mentioned is in 868§2 when mentioning a child in danger of death. This follows with the exception in 844 about conferring sacraments on non-Catholics only in danger of death. Those two together could be the basis of opinion that the children of non-Catholics can only be done in danger of death.

That being said I don’t have my Navarra commentary handy so I’d have to see if there is further commentary about baptism of the child of two non-Catholics.
 
Usige said:
My understanding was that it is actually from the reading of two parts of canon law.

and

The only time that baptism of children of non-Catholic parents is mentioned is in 868§2 when mentioning a child in danger of death. This follows with the exception in 844 about conferring sacraments on non-Catholics only in danger of death. Those two together could be the basis of opinion that the children of non-Catholics can only be done in danger of death.

That being said I don’t have my Navarra commentary handy so I’d have to see if there is further commentary about baptism of the child of two non-Catholics.
Click to expand...
That’s very interesting…I can see the argument there.
 
Honour said:
That’s very interesting…I can see the argument there.
Click to expand...
Of course, by definition only those who are not yet baptized, and therefore not yet Catholic, can receive baptism. There is a different set of rules for baptism because it is necessary for salvation.
 
Do this ask an apologist maybe he knows something more about canon law…
 
aemcpa said:
Oh, I sort of had it backwards. I was thinking of a case where the first husband’s first marriage could be quickly shown to be INvalid, which would actually make her case more difficult. But like I said, I don’t even know if I’m right about that.
Click to expand...
That’s a frightening thought. It would definitely complicate the case.
 
aemcpa said:
Of course, by definition only those who are not yet baptized, and therefore not yet Catholic, can receive baptism. There is a different set of rules for baptism because it is necessary for salvation.
Click to expand...
In the case of infants, the faith of the parents stands in for the infant, who is incapable of giving consent or making an act of faith.

Adults undergo lengthy Catechesis before being baptized, so that they can make a profession of faith with a clear understanding of what they are undertaking.
 
Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.
Click to expand...
can someone explain how an infant can be baptized before birth ?

grabbed the quote from the first of the thread there…

found that really odd if it is correct, never heard of being baptized before birth.
 
john78 said:
can someone explain how an infant can be baptized before birth ?

grabbed the quote from the first of the thread there…

found that really odd if it is correct, never heard of being baptized before birth.
Click to expand...
Note where the semicolon is and consider replacing it with a period so you have two separate ideas:

Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

So as soon as possible after the birth – or even before the baby is born – they are to go to the pastor to request and prepare for the sacrament.
 
Honour said:
Thank you I saw that too. If the only question is about the “founded hope”. I think that should be an easy convince. I don’t know about other parts of the cannon law that might apply. I am probably going to do a post for Ask an Apologist.
Click to expand...
Please explain to me how a priest is supposed to have “well founded hope” that a child who has parents who are not yet Catholic, will be raised in the Catholic faith? 🤷

I do understand you are trying to do what you think is best for your child,but that is also what the priest is concerned about, too. Please, talk to the priests involved instead of trying to find a ‘law’ that will give you the answer that you want.

Peace & prayers.
 
SuscipeMeDomine said:
Note where the semicolon is and consider replacing it with a period so you have two separate ideas:

Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks. As soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

So as soon as possible after the birth – or even before the baby is born – they are to go to the pastor to request and prepare for the sacrament.
Click to expand...
I <3 grammar. Semicolons aren’t just for winky emoticons. 😉
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top