Non-emergency lay baptism of an adult

[smichhertz]

Yes, consent is required for the valid baptism of an adult. An adult who does not consent, or opposes baptism is not validly baptised, even if the proper words and form are used.

I cannot locate it, but I do know that there was a decision made by the Holy See (Congregation for Divine Worship or Doctrine of the Faith, I don’t recall) in recent times (not 17th century or some such) that decided that an adult who was baptised against his will was not validly baptised. I’m searching, but I just cannot find it online. Maybe someone else can provide a link???

Hi Father,

Yes, that would definitely settle the matter. Hopefully someone can provide that! I will start researching myself as well.

 

[dans0622]

How about this: “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” (from the Instruction *In foliis *of the Holy Office, 03-08-1860).

This is referenced in the Code of Canon Law Annotated and Exegetical Commentary under canon 865. That is where I found it. I doubt this document is online anywhere.

Dan

 

[Vico]

For the record. I didn’t do that. I’m just curious about the fringes of the law. It’s interesting to give stress tests to our regulations with hypothetical scenarios that don’t have clear cut canonical answers and see how consistent the fringes are from the main practise.

Also: CIC Can. 852
§1 The provisions of the canons on adult baptism apply to all those who, being no longer infants, have reached the use of reason.
§2 One who is incapable of personal responsibility is regarded as an infant even in regard to baptism.

 

[smichhertz]

How about this: “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” (from the Instruction *In foliis *of the Holy Office, 03-08-1860).

This is referenced in the Code of Canon Law Annotated and Exegetical Commentary under canon 865. That is where I found it. I doubt this document is online anywhere.

Dan

That would to do it for me! Although it would be nice if there was an online source.