Wedding Sadness, Looking for insight

[minkymurph]

Please don’t cloud the issue of the OP. Start another thread if you wish to question how baptism works. The OP was baptized Catholic: she is Catholic for the rest of eternity. The OP was confirmed Catholic and received the Eucharist: she has completed all her sacraments of initiation; she is eligible to marry in the Church. This is Catholic teaching. If you want to claim that she is a Methodist then perhaps you are a Methodist too. This is the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, where we exclusively discuss Catholic Teaching. If the OP wants to start a thread on the United Methodist Layman’s Forum, then they can tell her what a good Methodist she is, but I will continue to assert that she is a Catholic and bound by the laws and precepts of the Roman Catholic Church.

I will let others explain how baptism works (again) but I will stay on-topic for this thread.

As will I.

I enlarged on the reason I posed this question in another post. Firstly, I am not claiming anything. The OP is claiming she is a Methodist. If you want to draw the conclusion I am a Methodist because I posed the question I did, that is your prerogative. But with respect, that conclusion would be based on nothing more than an assumption made about someone you don’t know and has no foundation. I also have to say it never ceases to amaze me the conclusions people draw and the assumptions they make in relation to individual posters who are essentially strangers to them on an internet forum. In addition, it was not my intention to question how baptism ‘works’ - but others are free to make that assumption. I inquired, not questioned, not how baptism ‘works,’ and as such there is no need to start another thread, but what makes one Catholic which in my view, rightly or wrongly, is relevant to the OP’s point of inquiry. My point about baptism was baptism alone does not make one Catholic. As such, the fact the OP was baptized Catholic does not in itself make her Catholic. If that is contrary to Church teaching, I stand corrected but as far as I know, it is not.

Staying on the topic of the thread, the OP’s question relates to the validity of marrying in a Methodist Church. If she is free to choose her religion, she is free to marry were she wants. If she is not free to choose her religion, she is not free to marry in a Methodist Church. Therefore, the question is is she free to choose her religion, and if she is not free to do so, why not?

To explain further, certainly one cannot ‘undo’ a baptism and become unbaptized, nor can one ‘undo,’ for want of a better phrase, the effects that are received from the Sacraments because they have received them. However, if someone was hypothetically speaking initiated into the Catholic Church against their will, which the OP eludes to and of course it’s possible I am misinterpreting what was said, can such a person be considered truly Catholic in the first place? Should it be concluded they are not free to be anything other than Catholic irrespective of the fact the choice was made for them against their will? I stress I am posing this as a point of inquiry and it is not an assertion of what I think - or may not think as the case may be. In addition, and in relation to my other post, some posters have stated on these forums, and I stress it was not said by you or anyone else on this thread, that other posters are ‘not Catholic’ irrespective of the fact they were baptized, received Sacraments etc. As such, it can be argued people can’t have it both ways. They can’t say on one side of the coin someone is not Catholic because, among other reasons, they disagree with something the Church says, yet on the other side of the coin assert that irrespective of the fact they disagree with something the Church says they are still Catholic. The point being,it can be argued if the OP was never truly Catholic in the first place she is free to marry in the Church of her choice.

 

[minkymurph]

Now you are trying to find a loophole by which we can judge the OP not Catholic after all. She has not shared with us her exact time of baptism. If she was baptized as an infant, then it was the will of her parents which counted, not hers. The intent of her parents to baptize her into the Catholic faith was sufficient to make her a Catholic.

Another assumption. I am not ‘trying’ to do anything other than have a discussion.

 

[iloveangels]

I have a question. Does being baptized make one Catholic? As I understand it, being validly baptized makes one validly baptized, but not necessarily Catholic. Is it not the case the CC recognizes the baptism of the Anglican Church and the Methodist Church as valid? However, being baptized into the Anglican or Methodist Church does not make one Catholic? The question then is what does make one Catholic?

I ask this because when I came became Catholic, another woman who also became Catholic did not have to be baptized because she had already been baptized Anglican, which was considered a valid baptism. However, she was not considered Catholic because of her baptism. In addition, I can remember a priest telling me there are people who say they are Catholic and there are people who are Catholic and there is a difference. Those who were baptized Catholic and raised in the Catholic faith have the right to call themselves Catholic. However, that does not make them Catholic - one reason being their faith was chosen for them, they did not choose it themselves.

Yes, this is what really doesn’t make any sense. You nailed it.

Perhaps being baptized is the line of demarcation between being Christian of some sort and being non-Christian. (aka something other than Christian)

However, being Catholic vs. being Anglican, for instance, could possibly be demarcated by something else, other than baptism, if only because Anglican baptism appears to be interchangeable with Catholic baptism a good part of the time, depending on form. Baptism in any number of Christian churches, like say, Baptist, have the same property simply because they are accepted as equal legally…aka at RCIA time in practical terms.

If these people are already Catholic, then why RCIA and conversion? Why is there a separation between Christians and why all the rules about this that seem to be binding in other ways–annulment laws and so on?

Perhaps assent to the teachings of the Catholic Church is what makes one a Catholic. Minkymurph, you are correct in saying that not all cradle Catholics assent to the faith, and therefore the question of whether or not they are Catholic may be a legitimate one.

This applies directly to the OP’s question because although she may be baptised Catholic but she no longer assents to the Catholic Church. Therefore, she may not be Catholic, exactly as she states herself. She certainly believes she is no longer Catholic. She gives her assent to the Methodist Church, not the Catholic Church.

 

[minkymurph]

I understand what you mean but it just doesn’t match up with the teaching of the Church. Most of the Sacraments are done for us, not by us. The only ones that depend on our own will are the Sacraments in service (marriage and holy orders). All three of the Sacraments of initiation are **received **by us rather than accomplished by our own actions.

Thanks for excluding me. I try very hard not to use that terminology. From everything I have ever read or studied, there is no way for someone who was Catholic to become non-Catholic. When someone says that Mr. X or Ms Y is “not Catholic” due to their actions, it really means that they aren’t behaving in any way that resembles someone who believes what the Church teaches. They may not be practicing Catholics or faithful Catholics but that’s another discussion.

The practical side of it is that a Catholic, no matter how far they stray, is never so far away from the Church that a good Confession can not bring them back. Only Catholics can validly receive the Sacrament of Confession. If someone’s sins or doubts made them non-Catholic, they could never come back through Confession. That would be tragic.

And since for Elizium23’s sake, I want to stay on topic, this is why some of us insist that the OP is Catholic. It isn’t just being stubborn. It’s that the Church never disowns her children, even if they want her to. She always keeps a place for them and wants them to return.

As usual Corki a well reasoned and eloquently put response. I would have expected no less of you as you have a great capacity to state disagreements you have in an eloquent, well reasoned way in the absence of jumping to conclusions. Irrespective of the fact I may on occasion disagree with what you say.

A good approach to our understanding of Sacramentality. I’ll tell you what I have a problem with - someone’s faith being chosen for them. It’s like a forced conversion. A forced conversion is not a true conversion because the person doesn’t really believe it. Of course I appreciate in the case of parents and children it is not force as a parent has the right to make decisions their child is not old enough to make, in addition to having the responsibility to do so.

Take my situation. I was raised JW. Now they would say I can’t be anything else because I was baptized a JW, raised a JW and I know it is ‘the truth.’ I do?
It could argue I was entitled to go against my parents and because the JW’s are wrong and Catholicism right. Saying you can’t be anything else because our religion is right and others are wrong isn’t the best of arguments. If the person rightly or wrongly doesn’t think it is right, no amount of telling them they should will make any difference. I don’t think I’m putting this very well but can you see where I am coming from? If a person desires marriage, desires a Christian marriage even though it is not a Catholic one, in my view it is very harsh to say it is not a marriage at all and they are living in sin. It may not be a sacramental marriage but it is a marriage.

Personally speaking, I think two people marrying at all in this day and age is an achievement. It is an even greater achievement if they don’t initially cohabit for years prior to marriage, have children after they are married, and to the same father, and one is male and the other is female. As such, perhaps we should be thankful for small mercies.

 

[iloveangels]

When you are Baptized in a Catholic church, two things happen - you receive a Sacrament and you are received into the Church. The second happens automatically with the first.

When you are Baptized in a non-Catholic Christian ceremony, you still receive the Sacrament but are not received into the Church. This is the sad consequence of the division that exists in the body of Christ. A validly baptized person can still be received into the Church at another time, as with the person you described who was baptized as an Anglican, but it’s not automatic.

Becoming Catholic is not something you do, it is something that is done **for you **by the community through the Sacraments. It’s the reception into the Community that makes you Catholic.

So a person can be baptized but not be initiated into the Church at the same time, meaning they are not always concomitant, meaning “always and everywhere simultaneous.” This means that for protestants, baptism can be valid, meaning existing and Christian" and at the same time non-Catholic.

Can a person, especially a person who never personally pledged their own assent to Church teachings, UN-RECIEVE themselves from the Community? Since they never consented to it in the first place–aka not mutually received.

 

[BettyBoop416]

[T]he speculation by several posters on OP’s understanding of Catholic teachings seems inappropriate.

Agreed. This seems to be the fall-back position many people take in discussions such as this. “If she only understood what the Church teaches she would believe.” Baloney! The OP seems to be an intelligent person with a firm grasp on what the Church teaches. But after careful and thoughtful consideration, she realized that she simply does not believe it. While I understand her parent’s disappointment in her rejection of Catholicism, she’s an adult who has to live her life according to her own beliefs. It would be a fraud to get married in the Church, making more promises she has no intention of keeping, just to keep her parents (temporarily) placated.

 

[iloveangels]

…and I would not like to see this thread degenerate into more speculation as we assume things about the OP - I have already done so - her parents claim that she is Catholic, and we should accept their claim.

Except that this is really what IS at stake in this thread. The OP didn’t come in here to have a lot of Catholic say bad things to her face. She came in here wondering how she could convince her parents to stand down and behave themselves. She believes that she is not Catholic but Methodist.

 

[iloveangels]

Agreed. This seems to be the fall-back position many people take in discussions such as this. “If she only understood what the Church teaches she would believe.” Baloney! The OP seems to be an intelligent person with a firm grasp on what the Church teaches. But after careful and thoughtful consideration, she realized that she simply does not believe it. While I understand her parent’s disappointment in her rejection of Catholicism, she’s an adult who has to live her life according to her own beliefs. It would be a fraud to get married in the Church, making more promises she has no intention of keeping, just to keep her parents (temporarily) placated.

This is a matter of free will, which is always recognized elsewhere by the Church. You’ve got to let a person leave if they will it.

I know it sets off a round of temper tantrums among Catholics with that sort of mindset, but that’s how it is. You can’t FORCE people to stay against their wills.

 

[Elizium23]

In addition, it was not my intention to question how baptism ‘works’ - but others are free to make that assumption. I inquired, not questioned, not how baptism ‘works,’ and as such there is no need to start another thread, but what makes one Catholic which in my view, rightly or wrongly, is relevant to the OP’s point of inquiry. My point about baptism was baptism alone does not make one Catholic. As such, the fact the OP was baptized Catholic does not in itself make her Catholic. If that is contrary to Church teaching, I stand corrected but as far as I know, it is not.

Baptism alone makes one Catholic. Corki has explained how a Catholic baptism ceremony has the double effect of imparting grace as a sacrament and receiving one into the Church. Confirmation does not make one “more Catholic”. Reception of the Eucharist is not required for Catholic infants, yet they are Catholic all the same.

Staying on the topic of the thread, the OP’s question relates to the validity of marrying in a Methodist Church. If she is free to choose her religion, she is free to marry were she wants. If she is not free to choose her religion, she is not free to marry in a Methodist Church. Therefore, the question is is she free to choose her religion, and if she is not free to do so, why not?

The Methodists do not have a Church but an ecclesial community. This is the Catholic perspective. I tell you this as a member of the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, so I will use the proper terminology as the Catholic Church uses it. If I were writing on Wikipedia, I would need to accept the Methodist self-identification as a Church.

By free will, she has the ability to choose to accept her Catholic faith or renounce it in part or in whole. By Catholic teaching, this is not a good idea. Obstinate post-baptismal denial of essential elements of faith can be problematic. We all have moments of doubt. It is not wrong to question or doubt our faith, that is part of being human.

However, if someone was hypothetically speaking initiated into the Catholic Church against their will, which the OP eludes to and of course it’s possible I am misinterpreting what was said, can such a person be considered truly Catholic in the first place? Should it be concluded they are not free to be anything other than Catholic irrespective of the fact the choice was made for them against their will?

The OP cited her growing disbelief at the time of her Confirmation at age 16. She did not discuss her disposition at the time of baptism. I have already explained why lack of intent is so hard to prove canonically. At the time of her infant baptism, her parents supplied the will and intent. An infant’s intent is never taken into account, because infants are judged unable to understand the meaning of what is happening to them. A sacrament imparts grace ex opere operato, regardless of the belief of the person receiving it.

 

[Elizium23]

The point being,it can be argued if the OP was never truly Catholic in the first place she is free to marry in the Church of her choice.

Let’s dispel this myth right here and now. The sacraments are presumptively valid. You will see this in Canon Law regarding marriage: “Can. 1060 Marriage enjoys the favour of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.” and “Can. 1101 §1 The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words or the signs used in the celebration of a marriage.”

See how lack of consent or intent is so hard to prove? Validity of all sacraments, given the proper minister, form, and matter, is presumed by the Church. You can’t have a lot of people wandering around unsure if they just received the Body of Christ, or whether the Anointing of the Sick was actually efficacious before Uncle Pete died. For a Catholic baptism to be judged invalid, it would need a canonical tribunal, with the presentation of real evidence, and a final judgement.

Baptisms with lack of form are considered invalid all the time - many a Jehovah’s Witness entering RCIA has encountered this. No trial is needed there, because the Church has decreed in advance that the Jehovah’s Witnesses use a non-Trinitarian belief and formula, and that non-Trinitarian baptism is invalid.

So perhaps you wish to speculate on whether the OP’s baptism had a lack of form. That may be fair game. But she is Catholic, and this is the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, and I know that 99+% of Catholic baptisms have valid form. For me, that is beyond speculation. I am speculating myself - based on the OP’s description of her parents, I am speculating that they had her baptized as an infant in good faith in a Catholic ceremony. She has not told us to the contrary.

Perhaps you want to speculate on whether the OP’s baptism had a lack of proper matter. It is possible that the minister used milk or beer. If he did not use water, then it would be invalid. She can ask her parents if milk or beer was used; this could be grounds for invalidation.

It is not useful to speculate whether the OP’s baptism had the proper minister. Anyone may baptize. If a layman or invalidly ordained priest baptized the OP, then it was done illicitly but validly.

Since the OP is intent on becoming Methodist through-and-through, perhaps it is in her best interest to cast doubt on its validity. Perhaps she wishes to endure a canonical trial in which she contends her baptism was invalid from the start. It’s within the realm of possibility. Perhaps she is tired of Catholicism and just wants nothing more to do with the Church. That is more likely.

When I became an agnostic, the last thing I would have wanted was a Church trial, where I would have to deal with Church leaders again, and put up with my parents giving evidence against me, I would rather go out to a nightclub than go to Mass or an early-morning tribunal. I wore a Fields of the Nephilim tee-shirt and green velvet pants to my jury duty and got excused right away. I wasn’t much interested in the establishment at all. But I also wasn’t secure in my agnostic faith, and I am unsure that I would be so ready to renounce it. The OP is prepared to renounce her faith, and if it were still possible to make an Formal Act of Defection, she would make it, and she would be free to marry. She should have done it four years ago before the promulgation of Omnium in Mentem. Now it is too late.

Perhaps now with the abolition of Formal Acts of Defection, it is more likely that atheists will demand tribunals to invalidate their baptisms. In Europe, atheist ex-Catholics are demanding that the Church destroy their baptismal records. All the Church would do is make a notation in the sacramental record that the atheist renounced the Church. This is not good enough for the atheists. Just look at what is happening in Germany. The new decree in German particular law does release Catholics from the requirement to marry in the Church, although it does bar them from receiving any sacrament at all. We will see if the Church continues to make concessions, and if so, I predict that the “un-baptism” movement will spread to the United States in due time. I will pray as always for the OP, and the posters in this thread, may God bless them and keep them.

 

[Corki]

So a person can be baptized but not be initiated into the Church at the same time, meaning they are not always concomitant, meaning “always and everywhere simultaneous.” This means that for protestants, baptism can be valid, meaning existing and Christian" and at the same time non-Catholic.

Yes, that’s what happens when someone is Baptized into a non-Catholic Christian denomination. But when the Baptism happens in a Catholic Church the two things are simultaneous. You can’t receive the Sacrament of Baptism in a Catholic Church without being received into the Catholic community. And it works both ways. The only way to become a member of the Catholic community, if one is unbaptized, is to receive Baptism.

Can a person, especially a person who never personally pledged their own assent to Church teachings, UN-RECIEVE themselves from the Community? Since they never consented to it in the first place–aka not mutually received.

No, a person cannot “unreceive” themselves from the community. Consent is not really part of the understanding of the Sacrament - even for an adult. Neither is pledging assent. Consent is a factor only in terms of who may receive the Sacrament, not on its effects. For example, the Church won’t Baptize anyone over the age of 14 without his/her consent.

 

[Elizium23]

Consent is not really part of the understanding of the Sacrament - even for an adult. Neither is pledging assent. Consent is a factor only in terms of who may receive the Sacrament, not on its effects. For example, the Church won’t Baptize anyone over the age of 14 without his/her consent.

Thomas Aquinas had this to say about intent and the valid reception of baptism.

I think it can be argued that consent is required for validity. But as I have demonstrated, consent and intent are very hard to disprove, and would require a tribunal.

 

[iloveangels]

Baptism alone makes one Catholic. Corki has explained how a Catholic baptism ceremony has the double effect of imparting grace as a sacrament and receiving one into the Church.

Except in the case of a person being baptized as a Baptist, who doesn’t become a Catholic as a result. This is demonstrable by the fact that if the same person shows up later in RCIA, they don’t have to be re-baptized but they do have to attain union with the Church before they can receive Holy Communion. Baptists cannot just waltz into Catholic churches and receive HOly Communion without going through RCIA, baptized or not.

Confirmation does not make one “more Catholic”.

I am aware of this. This is not what confirmation is for. Moreover, what makes someone truly Catholic may not have anything to do with a particular sacrament.
[Maybe some Catholics are not aware of how many non-Catholics visit Catholic churches and get into Communion lines without understanding what they are doing. Happens all the time and twice as often on Christmas.]

Reception of the Eucharist is not required for Catholic infants, yet they are Catholic all the same.

In the Latin Rite, it is true that infants don’t receive Holy Communion. Not the case in the East. Infants cannot consent also, so not sure how this works. Perhaps they receive at the behest of their parents, in whose care they are until they can consent.

The Methodists do not have a Church but an ecclesial community. This is the Catholic perspective. I tell you this as a member of the Liturgy and Sacraments forum, so I will use the proper terminology as the Catholic Church uses it. If I were writing on Wikipedia, I would need to accept the Methodist self-identification as a Church.

Yes, this is the Catholic opinion, but not the opinion of non-Catholics. The OP does not hold this opinion, so it’s rather pointless to tout it to her in a forum. She doesn’t believe it.

By free will, she has the ability to choose to accept her Catholic faith or renounce it in part or in whole.

Bingo! Now, we’re getting to the point, by whatever you want to call it.

By Catholic teaching, this is not a good idea. Obstinate post-baptismal denial of essential elements of faith can be problematic. We all have moments of doubt. It is not wrong to question or doubt our faith, that is part of being human.

Nevertheless, to quote you, “she has the ability to choose to accept her Catholic faith or renounce it in part or in whole.”

The OP cited her growing disbelief at the time of her Confirmation at age 16.

You can tell better than she can what she intended…in an internet forum, yet? I doubt that.

This is not the same as lack of intent and she did not discuss her disposition at the time of baptism. I have already explained why lack of intent is so hard to prove canonically. At the time of her infant baptism, her parents supplied the will and intent. An infant’s intent is never taken into account, because infants are judged unable to understand the meaning of what is happening to them. A sacrament imparts grace ex opere operato, regardless of the belief of the person receiving it.

I really do think that infant baptism can have some of the properties of forced conversion. For that reason I personally think that it’s possible for a person to choose not to be Catholic as an adult. And I think that should be respected.

I also think that Catholics make a huge mistake desperately trying to hang onto people who don’t want to be Catholic. It’s not right because people can “the ability to choose to accept her Catholic faith or renounce it in part or in whole,” as you said above. That’s the meaning of assent.

 

[Elizium23]

Except in the case of a person being baptized as a Baptist, who doesn’t become a Catholic as a result. This is demonstrable by the fact that if the same person shows up later in RCIA, they don’t have to be re-baptized by they do have to attain union with the Church before they can receive Holy Communion. Baptists cannot just waltz into Catholic churches and receive HOly Communion without going through RCIA, baptized or not.

When I said “baptism alone makes one Catholic” I was referring only to Catholic baptism and I was referring to the fact that other sacraments are not necessary after Catholic baptism before one can say “I am a Catholic”. I specifically exclude Protestant baptism from this discussion because that is not the case of the OP. It clouds the issue to bring in Protestant issues because the OP has not received Protestant sacraments.

Not the case in the East. Infants cannot consent also, so not sure how this works. Perhaps they receive at the behest of their parents, in whose care they are until they can consent.

This is the Liturgy & Sacraments forum, and the OP is Roman Rite. I have restricted my answers to the Latin Church belief and praxis. I will not speak for Eastern Catholics outside of the Eastern Catholicism forum.

You can tell better than she can what she intended…in an internet forum, yet? I doubt that.

No, where did I presume to say that or do that? She has explicitly told us of her disbelief and lack of intent at her Confirmation. That is in her own words. I am not speculating about it.

For that reason I personally think that it’s possible for a person to choose not to be Catholic as an adult.

You are welcome to your personal opinion, and thank you for labeling it as personal, because it is contrary to what the Church teaches. My posts in this thread are meant to explain what the Church teaches and how Church discipline is applied to the case of the OP. It happens to coincide with my personal opinions. If she wants a Methodist opinion, she can post in the United Methodist Layman’s Forum.

 

[iloveangels]

When I said “baptism alone makes one Catholic” I was referring only to Catholic baptism and I was referring to the fact that other sacraments are not necessary after Catholic baptism before one can say “I am a Catholic”.

Then why is baptism in a non-Catholic but Christian church accepted when a person comes into the Church via RCIA? It is the equivalent and that is demonstrable in every RCIA class.

I specifically exclude Protestant baptism from this discussion because that is not the case of the OP. It clouds the issue to bring in Protestant issues because the OP has not received Protestant sacraments.

The reason that the nature of the baptism that was performed has come up is that the OPs baptism is the hinge upon which all the assertions of her being perpetually Catholic hang. Baptism does not have this power or everyone everywhere who’s ever been baptized would be automatically Catholic, which is not the case.

No, where did I presume to say that or do that? She has explicitly told us of her disbelief and lack of intent at her Confirmation. That is in her own words. I am not speculating about it.

Consider that her Confirmation may have only been the occasion for her to voice something that developed much earlier and more deeply. AT this time, it sounds as if she was aware that her assent was not present. Even if Confirmation doesn’t have the power to make one Catholic or more Catholic, assent may, and in fact, I believe that it does.

 

[Elizium23]

Then why is baptism in a non-Catholic but Christian church accepted when a person comes into the Church via RCIA? It is the equivalent.

The OP was not baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community and did not attend RCIA.

 

[Corki]

Thomas Aquinas had this to say about intent and the valid reception of baptism.

I think it can be argued that consent is required for validity. But as I have demonstrated, consent and intent are very hard to disprove, and would require a tribunal.

I am completely out of my element when you pull out the Summa.

Are you referring to this section?

Reply to Objection 2. If an adult lack the intention of receiving the sacrament, he must be rebaptized. But if there be doubt about this, the form to be used should be: “If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee.”

It looks like he is saying that lack of consent doesn’t necessarily make the Sacrament invalid but that it introduces an element of doubt.

I have only ever head of a conditional Baptism being done when there is doubt over form or matter and that’s usually when a person is baptized as a non-Catholic. But the good doctor was writing before the Protestant revolution and I am sure there has been many things written since then, especially with the objection from some Protestant groups to the validity of infant Baptism altogether.

Before we go too far out on this limb, it’s good to point out that any claim that the Baptism was invalid would mean that the person is not just “un-Catholic” but also “un-Christian”. And I don’t think that is anyone’s claim (at least on this thread).

 

[Corki]

Then why is baptism in a non-Catholic but Christian church accepted when a person comes into the Church via RCIA? It is the equivalent.

The equivalent of what?

 

[Vico]

Except that this is really what IS at stake in this thread. The OP didn’t come in here to have a lot of Catholic say bad things to her face. She came in here wondering how she could convince her parents to stand down and behave themselves. She believes that she is not Catholic but Methodist.

She did ask in post #1: “If I were your child, what would you do? What can I do to fix this?? I’d appreciate some honest feedback because I think my parents are being really unfair.”

 

[Elizium23]

I am completely out of my element when you pull out the Summa.

Are you referring to this section?

Reply to Objection 2. If an adult lack the intention of receiving the sacrament, he must be rebaptized. But if there be doubt about this, the form to be used should be: “If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee.”

No, look closely: “But if there be doubt about [his intention]…” so there is your doubt. As I said before, positive lack of intent is hard to prove! Aquinas acknowledges that there is more likely to be mere doubt here.

he who has the use of free-will, must, in order to die to the old life, “will to repent of his former life”; so must he, of his own will, intend to lead a new life, the beginning of which is precisely the receiving of the sacrament. Therefore on the part of the one baptized, it is necessary for him to have the will or intention of receiving the sacrament.

(emphasis is mine)