Involuntary baptism

[PoliSciProf]

I have a extended family member who has fallen away from the church and married a nice girl who is essentially unchurched. They have an infant child who, of course, was not baptized. I have very pious family members who have brought this up, often very bluntly, at family gatherings. I rreally think this is counter-productive and can only harden hearts, not to memtion put stress on the family. Prayer and witnessing one’s faith (i.e., grace before meals, sacramentals, etc) in a low key, inclusionary way is the best way to go. Others disagree and have said they will baptize the child secretly for the sake of the soul of the child.(I don’t think they did). I discussed the secret involuntary baptism idea with a priest who, without actually saying so, seemed to advise against this since the child and parents would not be aware of this and that there would be no instruction in the faith anyway. This makes sense to me. But would the sacrament have some sort of spiritual value in this circumstance? Would it open the door to future graces? Your comments would be appreciated.

 

[Petergee]

It would be valid, provided they did it using the correct words, but it would be illicit. I understand the Church prohibits any child being baptised without the agreement of at least one parent. Even if the child is in danger of death he should not be baptised if it is known that both parents would disapprove of it.
God gave this couple the child, and it is they, not anyone else, who will have to answer to Him why they did not have him baptised. If he should die without being baptised, the Church trusts in God’s infinite mercy that salvation will not be denied to him. God commanded us to baptise, but He is not “bound” to restrict His mercy only to the baptised.

 

[PoliSciProf]

I agree it would be illicit but valid. Still, what are the ontologicial/spiritual consequences of an unknown reception of the sacrament?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I have a extended family member who has fallen away from the church and married a nice girl who is essentially unchurched. They have an infant child who, of course, was not baptized. I have very pious family members who have brought this up, often very bluntly, at family gatherings. I rreally think this is counter-productive and can only harden hearts, not to memtion put stress on the family. Prayer and witnessing one’s faith (i.e., grace before meals, sacramentals, etc) in a low key, inclusionary way is the best way to go. Others disagree and have said they will baptize the child secretly for the sake of the soul of the child.(I don’t think they did). I discussed the secret involuntary baptism idea with a priest who, without actually saying so, seemed to advise against this since the child and parents would not be aware of this and that there would be no instruction in the faith anyway. This makes sense to me. But would the sacrament have some sort of spiritual value in this circumstance? Would it open the door to future graces? Your comments would be appreciated.

Yes, the Baptism if done properly would be valid. It would be illicit. Without the registration of the Baptism at the local parish the child would be under the laws of the Catholic Church and may not know it. Lets say they decided to Marry in a Lutheran ceremony without any attention to the Catholic Canon Laws. The validity of the Marriage could be questionable. The child would have the obligation to aqttend Mass every Sunday and Holy Day and not know it. It just really creates many more issues and really may in turn hinder graces.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

It would be valid, provided they did it using the correct words, but it would be illicit. I understand the Church prohibits any child being baptised without the agreement of at least one parent. Even if the child is in danger of death he should not be baptised if it is known that both parents would disapprove of it.
God gave this couple the child, and it is they, not anyone else, who will have to answer to Him why they did not have him baptised. If he should die without being baptised, the Church trusts in God’s infinite mercy that salvation will not be denied to him. God commanded us to baptise, but He is not “bound” to restrict His mercy only to the baptised.

Canon Law also says that a child in danger of death should be Baptized even if neither parent is aware.

 

[PoliSciProf]

Post 4 was very useful. Thanks. I was aware of the danger of death issue. But suppose the child was at the age of reason but in danger of death. Is there some sort of age cut-off point?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Post 4 was very useful. Thanks. I was aware of the danger of death issue. But suppose the child was at the age of reason but in danger of death. Is there some sort of age cut-off point?

For an adult there generally should have been some indication before hand that this is what the person wanted.

 

[Petergee]

Canon Law also says that a child in danger of death should be Baptized even if neither parent is aware.

I think you’ll find Canon Law says that even in danger of death the child should be baptised only with the presumed consent of at least one parent. If it was known that both parents objected to baptism one could not presume their consent.

IF the dying child is above the age of reason (roughly 7 years) and freely agrees to be baptised and has at least a basic understanding of what baptism means, then you may baptise without parental consent.

Illicit baptisms of which the child is unaware when it grows up still confer the graces and ontological effects of the sacrament.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I think you’ll find Canon Law says that even in danger of death the child should be baptised only with the presumed consent of at least one parent. If it was known that both parents objected to baptism one could not presume their consent.

IF the dying child is above the age of reason (roughly 7 years) and freely agrees to be baptised and has at least a basic understanding of what baptism means, then you may baptise without parental consent.

Illicit baptisms of which the child is unaware when it grows up still confer the graces and ontological effects of the sacrament.

I know what Canon Law says. It says this:

Can. 868~1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required:
1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place,
give their consent;
2° that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the catholic
religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of
particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.
~2 An infant of catholic parents, indeed even of non-catholic parents, may in danger of
death be baptised even if the parents are opposed to it.

 

[PoliSciProf]

Very useful. Again, thanks.