Invalid baptism?

[Andrea22]

This scenario happens all the time. They go through the classes… get baptized and become Catholics (so that they can marry in the RCC) and then they never step foot in a church. From the Church’s point of view… even if he didn’t mean it, would the baptism be valid? If a person doesn’t “mean” it but they go through the RCIA and baptism and confirmation is their baptism valid?

 

[Em_in_FL]

As long as the liturgical form of the baptism is valid, it is valid.
Intention isn’t taken into account for baptism because as Catholics we also baptize infants, who are not capable of intention.

 

[North_of_Nod]

For Church purposes, I believe it is considered valid. However, God knows their true intentions and would probably not be pleased to know that someone used His Church for that reason alone.

 

[1ke]

This scenario happens all the time. They go through the classes… get baptized and become Catholics (so that they can marry in the RCC) and then they never step foot in a church.

There is no requirement that a person become a Catholic in order to marry a Catholic. Therefore, going through RCIA would not be required and seems a really odd thing to do instead of simply going through premarital prep.

From the Church’s point of view… even if he didn’t mean it, would the baptism be valid?

You are making an assumption. Perhaps they did “mean” it at the time. Clearly they are not living out their baptismal promises.

If a person doesn’t “mean” it but they go through the RCIA and baptism and confirmation is their baptism valid?

Can. 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

By going through RCIA and actually getting baptized, a person would certainly manifest intent to receive baptism.

What they do after their baptism has no bearing on the validity of their baptism.

So, yes, the baptism is valid.

 

[Andrea22]

You are making an assumption. Perhaps they did “mean” it at the time. Clearly they are not living out their baptismal promises.

I’m only referring to the one’s who they themselves know they were lying and really do not believe but only did it to please others.

I just wanted to know if their lie invalidated their baptism. Apparently not.

But what about the sacrament of Marriage… would that be invalid if the person really didn’t even believe in God and just did it to please the mother in law for example?

 

[Em_in_FL]

Can. 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

By going through RCIA and actually getting baptized, a person would certainly manifest intent to receive baptism.

What they do after their baptism has no bearing on the validity of their baptism.

So, yes, the baptism is valid.

Well, see there ya go - there’s a caveat on adult baptisms (1ke is always on top of this! ) - I learn something new every day…

So yeah, preceding adult baptism, intention is necessary. What happens after doesn’t affect the validity…

 

[ack]

Well, see there ya go - there’s a caveat on adult baptisms (1ke is always on top of this! ) - I learn something new every day…

So yeah, preceding adult baptism, intention is necessary. What happens after doesn’t affect the validity…

I’m don’t think the above canon was implying that intention was necessary for a baptism to be valid. It only proscribes the conditions that must be fulfilled before a minister is to baptize someone. It said nothing about validity…

 

[1ke]

But what about the sacrament of Marriage… would that be invalid if the person really didn’t even believe in God and just did it to please the mother in law for example?

A marriage between two baptized persons is a sacrament by its very nature. In general, error regarding sacramentality would not mean there is a defect (even Protestants who are baptized have sacramental marriages and they don’t even acknowledge that marriage is a sacrament). See this canon:

Can. 1099 Error concerning the unity or indissolubility or sacramental dignity of marriage does not vitiate matrimonial consent provided that it does not determine the will.

Whethere or not there was a defect in intent or consent which might render the marriage invalid, we cannot say. .

If the person was pretending to be Christian in order to gain agreement for the spouse to marry them because they knew the other spouse would not marry them if this essential quality were missing-- and they were being fraudulent-- that could invalidate the marriage on other grounds:

*Can. 1097 §1. Error concerning the person renders a marriage invalid.

§2. Error concerning a quality of the person does not render a marriage invalid even if it is the cause for the contract, unless this quality is directly and principally intended.

Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.*

 

[4Squarebaby]

There is no requirement that a person become a Catholic in order to marry a Catholic. Therefore, going through RCIA would not be required and seems a really odd thing to do instead of simply going through premarital prep.

You are making an assumption. Perhaps they did “mean” it at the time. Clearly they are not living out their baptismal promises.

Can. 865 §1. For an adult to be baptized, the person must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, have been instructed sufficiently about the truths of the faith and Christian obligations, and have been tested in the Christian life through the catechumenate. The adult is also to be urged to have sorrow for personal sins.

By going through RCIA and actually getting baptized, a person would certainly manifest intent to receive baptism.

What they do after their baptism has no bearing on the validity of their baptism.

So, yes, the baptism is valid.

People do it so they can use the Church as a backdrop, a prop, for their dream ceremony. Sometimes the Catholic party to the marriage actually believes that they must marry in the Church, sometimes they are also in on the make believe show for the extended family.

Going to RCIA and scheduling the wedding ceremony after Easter to the faker is no different then paying the state tax or fee to get married.

 

[Thomas63116]

While I am not denying that such people may exist, I think we should remember to be as charitable towards people as possible in interpreting their actions and motivations.

Unless they have told you differently, it is very difficult to know that someone is “lying” when they state their intention to join the church, marry in the church, etc. Their failure to live up to the obligations they have taken on in doing so simply shows that they are imperfect - like all of us.

 

[kage_ar]

Two things here, is this a specific situation with someone you know? If that is the case, I would suggest speaking to your friend or family member directly in a loving way, see if you can be a light that brings them back to the practice of the faith and praying for them.

If this is something you see as rampant in your Parish, perhaps volunteer for the RCIA team, you can assit the people on the journey to really come to a believing Faith.

 

[1ke]

People do it so they can use the Church as a backdrop, a prop, for their dream ceremony.

I think this thread is ascribing motives to people that are not based in fact. A non-Catholic marrying a Catholic does not have to convert for the marriage to be held in the Church.

Sometimes the Catholic party to the marriage actually believes that they must marry in the Church,

They believe that because it is true-- Catholics are obligated to marry in the Catholic form.

A Catholic can petition for a dispensation in a mixed marriage situation in order to marry elsewhere.

In neither instance is the non-Catholic under any obligation to convert.

Going to RCIA and scheduling the wedding ceremony after Easter to the faker is no different then paying the state tax or fee to get married.

Seems like a silly thing to do when it is in no way required to be married to a Catholic.

 

[dans0622]

I’m don’t think the above canon was implying that intention was necessary for a baptism to be valid. It only proscribes the conditions that must be fulfilled before a minister is to baptize someone. It said nothing about validity…

Hi ack,

Your reasoning is sound and would often be correct. But, in this case, there are other factors to consider. For example, the forerunner of the CDF said this regarding the baptism of adults: “the intention or desire to receive baptism is a necessary requirement: if it is lacking, the baptismal character is not conferred on the adult. This does not apply to faith and penance, which are required if the adult is to receive the sacrament and its inherent fruits licitly: the intention is necessary for the validity of the sacrament, so that an adult baptized without faith and penance is baptized illicitly but validly; on the other hand, a person baptized without the will to receive the sacrament is neither licitly nor validly baptized. (The instruction In foliis of the Supr. S. Cong. of the Holy Office, 03-08-1860).”

So, if the person in question actually had no intention to be baptised, it is invalid. It would be hard to prove such a lack of intention, given all that an adult must do before being baptised which indicates an intention to be baptised. That is by design since the Church wants as many baptisms as possible to be valid.

Dan