What about babies who later when they are adults wish they hadn’t been baptized Catholic? Doesn’t the indelible character placed upon their souls in such a baptism make them more or less lifetime members of the Church if I’m not mistaken or not?Babies are baptized with the consent and upon the faith expressed by their parents and god parents… a very different circumstance than with those at or above the age of reason.
Thus for those able to speak for themselves and consent or not to their baptism - to use force or coercion would invalidate the action …
Still I wonder though if the immature ones are mature enough to decide even about Confirmation or if some are confirmed because it’s expected of them.I know this is going to be controversial, but many teens are not mature enough to know what is good and proper for them. Thus, in a natural state of rebellion, they will later claim to have been Confirmed under duress - either parental or from group pressure from their peers in school. This, in my opinion is not true duress, since these teens are too immature to validly object to being Confirmed. especially when they have been properly catechized.
Thee fact is, that so many teens today think they are mature-largely from exposure to sex and other adult matters in the mass media-when in reality they are still mentally and emotionally children.
If you don’t think this is true, just talk to any high school guidance counselor, or better yet, someone in the professional military that has guided youths through basic training. Our society is such that about 1 out of every 3 recruits is discharged before they complete basic training-largely due to immaturity on the part of the recruits. This is quite a bit more than what happened to WW II, Korean War, and Viet Nam era recruits.
I have to agree with this. Since baptism removes sin, the person above the age of reason must willingly desire this. For the adult they must have proper disposition, namely with faith and contrition. It would be like going to confession without repenting of the sins confessed, it invalidates the confession. The person who does not want to be baptized is rejecting God’s graces even though externally they are going through the motions. That’s part of freewill that God respects our decisions even if it is opposed to His will.Babies are baptized with the consent and upon the faith expressed by their parents and god parents… a very different circumstance than with those at or above the age of reason.
Thus for those able to speak for themselves and consent or not to their baptism - to use force or coercion would invalidate the action …
I don’t agree. The Church position is clear that a person must intend to receive baptism in order to be baptised validly. Its pretty obvious that if someone objects to being baptised then it is invalid if its forced on them.**The Church has not taken a position on this, but most theologians agree that a forced baptism is still valid, but illicit. **
On another note, a baby does not have the ability to give or withhold consent. Therefore, it is not a forced baptism.
It was Pope Innocent III who said: “However, he who has never consented, but has altogether opposed it, has received neither the stamp nor the purpose, for it is better to object expressly than to manifest the slightest consent…”
This statement is not ex cathedra, so it is not doctrine. So in short, I guess we really do not know whether a baptism without any consent is valid.
Agreed. “To be admitted to baptism” is not the same as “For the baptism to be valid.”thistle, I don’t see your conclusion asserted by these canons. I could easily draw the inference that baptism without consent is illicit but valid.
Hello,thistle, I don’t see your conclusion asserted by these canons. I could easily draw the inference that baptism without consent is illicit but valid. If a person is not adequately instructed in the faith, is it invalid then too? What if he has not been urged to have sorrow for his sins? Invalid again?
you misunderstand the difference between “valid” and “licit.” Liceity is a matter of law - it is certainly illicit to Baptize someone against their will. Nonetheless, it is clear that Baptism’s validity in no way depends on the consent of the Baptized person.I do not agree that any “baptism” forced on a person against their will is valid. That doesn’t make any sense at all.
I could just as easily use that logic to say anyone forced to murder, or rape, or rob a bank has committed a mortal sin which of course is not the case. If criminals hold your family hostage and threaten to kill them if you do not commit some crime that is not a “valid” mortal sin.
A forced baptism is not a valid baptism.
NOPE I’m wrong…for an adult the consent of the person is required…learn something new every day. mea culpayou misunderstand the difference between “valid” and “licit.” Liceity is a matter of law - it is certainly illicit to Baptize someone against their will. Nonetheless, it is clear that Baptism’s validity in no way depends on the consent of the Baptized person.
Your example of the forced crime is simply inapt. Apples and oranges…