Is my wife's baptism valid?

[Kepha15]

Hi! My wife is 23 years old and is going through the RCIA program at our local parish to be confirmed. She received the sacraments of Baptism and First Communion when she was 7 years old. However, it has recently come to light that her baptism might have been under some unusual circumstances. Although her parents regularly attended church (they don’t anymore), they “catechized” her from home, not sending her through any sort of church-sponsored faith formation or education program. The problem, she is finding out, is that she might have been taught some bad information as a child about the church, including that Hell and Satan didn’t really exist. Although she now believes in line with what the church really teaches, she didn’t come into this belief until her adult life. However, the baptism was performed in a Catholic Church by a deacon when she was 7, and she has what we presume to be a valid baptismal certificate. Her question is whether her baptism was valid and/or licit, given that she was technically at the “age of reason” when she was baptized, if her parents made her believe things about the church that weren’t true. Does an improper catechesis invalidate a baptism? If so, should she be baptized “again” when she is confirmed at the Easter Vigil?

Thanks!

-Mike

 

[ConstantineTG]

Catechisis, or lack of it, has no bearing on the validity of baptism. As long as the proper form, matter and intention is followed, then the baptism is valid.

 

[Kepha15]

Catechisis, or lack of it, has no bearing on the validity of baptism. As long as the proper form, matter and intention is followed, then the baptism is valid.

What does this mean exactly? If she was taught incorrectly about what the church teaches, doesn’t this hamper the intention part? The other monkey wrench is that she was only 7, so she doesn’t really know how much she truly understood at that point.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

What does this mean exactly? If she was taught incorrectly about what the church teaches, doesn’t this hamper the intention part? The other monkey wrench is that she was only 7, so she doesn’t really know how much she truly understood at that point.

So what? I was baptized at 7 days. How much did I understand at that point? As long as she was baptized in the trinitarian format then it should be legit. But…thank goodness she was the opportunity to be confirmed this Easter Vigil–as an adult–when she can really learn. I too was baptized…had first communion…but didn’t really know squat about the church. I will be confirmed this Easter Vigil too!

Tell her welcome home:thumbsup:

 

[Elizium23]

By “intention” we mean the intention of the minister, i.e. desires to do what the Church does in baptism: unite a person to the Christian faith. There is no evaluation of the intention of the recipient. Even an atheist can baptize validly, if his intent is correct. Faith has no bearing on intention either.

 

[Kepha15]

So what? I was baptized at 7 days. How much did I understand at that point? As long as she was baptized in the trinitarian format then it should be legit. But…thank goodness she was the opportunity to be confirmed this Easter Vigil–as an adult–when she can really learn. I too was baptized…had first communion…but didn’t really know squat about the church. I will be confirmed this Easter Vigil too!

Tell her welcome home:thumbsup:

Well, the difference is that, according to the church, 7 years old is technically the “age of reason” when a person’s baptism should be by their own decision, rather than the decision of their parents.

 

[teachccd]

A valid baptism requires proper form ( I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) and matter (water). That’s it my friend. All of the intentions and whatnots are insignificant. If your wife was immersed or had water poured on her head with the trinitarian formula recited then she is as validly baptized as anyone… that’s it!.. teachccd

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

What does this mean exactly? If she was taught incorrectly about what the church teaches, doesn’t this hamper the intention part? The other monkey wrench is that she was only 7, so she doesn’t really know how much she truly understood at that point.

Since she was baptized but didn’t receive confirmation and First Communion at the same time, she was regarded as an infant for baptismal purposes. She didn’t need to know any more than a day-old infant and her baptism was just as valid as a tiny baby’s would be.

How good that she’s having the chance now as an adult to learn about her faith.

 

[bluelake]

Hi! My wife is 23 years old and is going through the RCIA program at our local parish to be confirmed. She received the sacraments of Baptism and First Communion when she was 7 years old. However, it has recently come to light that her baptism might have been under some unusual circumstances. Although her parents regularly attended church (they don’t anymore), they “catechized” her from home, not sending her through any sort of church-sponsored faith formation or education program. The problem, she is finding out, is that she might have been taught some bad information as a child about the church, including that Hell and Satan didn’t really exist. Although she now believes in line with what the church really teaches, she didn’t come into this belief until her adult life. However, the baptism was performed in a Catholic Church by a deacon when she was 7, and she has what we presume to be a valid baptismal certificate. Her question is whether her baptism was valid and/or licit, given that she was technically at the “age of reason” when she was baptized, if her parents made her believe things about the church that weren’t true. Does an improper catechesis invalidate a baptism? If so, should she be baptized “again” when she is confirmed at the Easter Vigil?

Thanks!

-Mike

 

[bluelake]

bluelake:
The Church should know if your wife’s baptism is valid.
Your wife is now old enough to know the truth about Catholic doctrine.
Pray for her parents.

God bless,
bluelake

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

Well, the difference is that, according to the church, 7 years old is technically the “age of reason” when a person’s baptism should be by their own decision, rather than the decision of their parents.

Obviously the deacon thought it was ok. Have you posed this question of the team leading her adult confirmation class?

 

[beth40n2]

If she was baptized in the name of the Father, and in the name of the Son and in the name of the Holy Spirit, it is a valid baptism.

It is too bad that her catechesis was not better, but that has no bearing on whether the baptism was valid.

 

[ConstantineTG]

What does this mean exactly? If she was taught incorrectly about what the church teaches, doesn’t this hamper the intention part? The other monkey wrench is that she was only 7, so she doesn’t really know how much she truly understood at that point.

I was a few months old when I was baptized. There was no way I could have understood what the Church teaches.

The intention part is when the Sacrament is given, not a life long intention. Many people are baptized Catholics who become atheists later in life. They still have valid baptism and by virtue of it, still Christians.

 

[Bookcat]

If she was taught that the Easter Bunny was God and that by being baptized she could now enter his chocolate palace and eat chocolate all day…

if such was her faith…then we can have perhaps a problem …for she was not intending to receive the Christian Baptism…she did not believe in the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit but the Easter Bunny…

(I assume she was still intending to be baptized…to become a Christian…a Catholic…not just that this is a meaningless rite that you need to do to make your Aunt Joan happy…and that she did not intend to be baptized…but just to “go thru the motions” since there is not God etc…)

but the fact that she was taught that there is no hell… I do not see that as interfering with the validity of Baptism. There are lots of Christians out there who get a lot of things wrong about Divine Revelation…but still practice valid baptism (some do not even think Baptism is a sacrament!~ but the do intend to do what Christ asked…and they are intending the Trinity…not the Easter Bunny). You can bring these matters up with the Priest involved (she should)…for you did not mention them all here…and she should not “live” with the fear that it was not valid…Baptism is of the Greatest importance!..the Priest can contact the chancery even…and then you can hear it the word right from them…and get rid of any worries

 

[dans0622]

Well, the difference is that, according to the church, 7 years old is technically the “age of reason” when a person’s baptism should be by their own decision, rather than the decision of their parents.

Hello Kepha15,

Yes, a 7 year-old needs to have an intention to receive baptism. This is not the same, it seems to me, as the 7 year-old, “by their own decision” receiving baptism. A 7 year-old will certainly be influenced by parents so that the decision is not entirely his own.

In any case, the Church considers a 7 year-old to be in the category of “adults” when it comes to baptism (see Code of Canon Law, c. 852). Then, c. 865.1 lists the requirements for the valid and licit baptism of adults. The text reads: “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.”

It is difficult to see here, but the “must” regarding intention is required for validity while all the rest affects liceity. From what you have said, there seems to be little doubt that your wife had an intention to receive baptism. So, given this and the fact that the baptism took place in the Catholic Church with proper form and matter, there is no reasonable doubt that her baptism was valid.

Dan

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hello Kepha15,

Yes, a 7 year-old needs to have an intention to receive baptism. This is not the same, it seems to me, as the 7 year-old, “by their own decision” receiving baptism. A 7 year-old will certainly be influenced by parents so that the decision is not entirely his own.

In any case, the Church considers a 7 year-old to be in the category of “adults” when it comes to baptism (see Code of Canon Law, c. 852). Then, c. 865.1 lists the requirements for the valid and licit baptism of adults. The text reads: “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.”

It is difficult to see here, but the “must” regarding intention is required for validity while all the rest affects liceity. From what you have said, there seems to be little doubt that your wife had an intention to receive baptism. So, given this and the fact that the baptism took place in the Catholic Church with proper form and matter, there is no reasonable doubt that her baptism was valid.

Dan

Sorry something is not right here. The intention of Baptism comes from the minister of Baptism, not the one receiving it. Can you forcibly baptize someone and still have it as a valid baptism? Yes. I believe it was standard practice in Catholic hospitals to baptize babies who were found to be in danger of death regardless if the parents want it or not.

 

[Bookcat]

Sorry something is not right here. The intention of Baptism comes from the minister of Baptism, not the one receiving it. Can you forcibly baptize someone and still have it as a valid baptism? Yes. I believe it was standard practice in Catholic hospitals to baptize babies who were found to be in danger of death regardless if the parents want it or not.

One can not force someone with his will set against it…to receive a valid baptism.

Babies are not the question here. They can not “accept” or “not accept” baptism in their free will …they actually accept everything…food…stimuli etc…a baby is baptized validly without any intention to receive the sacrament on their part.

As soon as one arrives at the age of reason…their intention DOES come into play.

And no matter how deep the river…no matter how much water is poured on them…if a person does not want to be baptized…he will not be baptized.

 

[ConstantineTG]

One can not force someone with his will set against it…to receive a valid baptism.

Babies are not the question here. They can not “accept” or “not accept” baptism in their free will …they actually accept everything…food…stimuli etc…a baby is baptized validly without any intention to receive the sacrament on their part.

As soon as one arrives at the age of reason…their intention DOES come into play.

And no matter how deep the river…no matter how much water is poured on them…if a person does not want to be baptized…he will not be baptized.

I’m just saying that one can be validly baptized even against their will. Not that we should do that, just epmhasizing that say a child who does get baptized and may not consent to it still is validly baptized.

 

[Bookcat]

I’m just saying that one can be validly baptized even against their will. Not that we should do that, just epmhasizing that say a child who does get baptized and may not consent to it still is validly baptized.

And I was noting that one can not be baptized against ones will.

Such is an* invalid* baptism. One gets only wet.

Again a child at the age of reason can reject baptism.

 

[puzzleannie]

a lot of confusing information has been presented here that is not necessarily helpful to OP. IN the first place these questions should be put to the priest or his delegate who interviews the RCIA candidate. If she is already baptized Catholic she is properly in a Confirmation class for uncatechized Catholic adults, but in most parishes that is a distinction without a difference, as there is only one sacramental preparation program for adults. There is no reason to think the first baptism was not valid so there should be no concern. She will be prepared for confession, first communion and Confirmation, and the process will take as long as she needs to understand and make an informed profession of faith, and to understand and ask for the sacraments.