What if the priest messes up baptism or confession?

[chasingcars]

So what if someone gets baptized as a baby and the priest does something wrong (for example doesn’t use the Trinitarian formula) and no one notices anything? I mean, if no one notices that the priest messed up and the child grows up, receives communion, confirmation, gets married etc. having no clue that his/her baptism was probably invalid? What happens then? Would that person go to Hell for not being validly baptized?

And my second question is about Confession. What if the priest messes up the absolution but doesn’t notice it and the peninent wouldn’t notice it either (due to ignorance, if the peninent was a convert and it was his/her first Confession). Would the Confession be invalid and would the peninent go to Hell? And if the priest realizes his mistake after the Confession, would he break the seal of Confession if he contacted the peninent and tells him/her do the Confession again?

 

[rfournier103]

Sounds like a GREAT question for a priest to answer.

Hopefully one will.

 

[dans0622]

So what if someone gets baptized as a baby and the priest does something wrong (for example doesn’t use the Trinitarian formula) and no one notices anything? I mean, if no one notices that the priest messed up and the child grows up, receives communion, confirmation, gets married etc. having no clue that his/her baptism was probably invalid? What happens then?

Hello,

If the baptism is invalid, the person is not baptized and no other Sacraments can be received (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1213).

Would that person go to Hell for not being validly baptized?

No, the person would not go to Hell for that reason.

And my second question is about Confession. What if the priest messes up the absolution but doesn’t notice it and the peninent wouldn’t notice it either (due to ignorance, if the peninent was a convert and it was his/her first Confession). Would the Confession be invalid and would the peninent go to Hell?

If the absolution was invalid, that fact alone does not mean the person is going to Hell.

And if the priest realizes his mistake after the Confession, would he break the seal of Confession if he contacted the peninent and tells him/her do the Confession again?

I’ve never considered such a scenario before. My initial thought is that it would not be a violation of the Seal.

The foundational principle behind my responses is: we are bound to use the Sacraments but the grace of God is not bound by them (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1257).

Dan

 

[Bookcat]

So what if someone gets baptized as a baby and the priest does something wrong (for example doesn’t use the Trinitarian formula) and no one notices anything? I mean, if no one notices that the priest messed up and the child grows up, receives communion, confirmation, gets married etc. having no clue that his/her baptism was probably invalid? What happens then? Would that person go to Hell for not being validly baptized?

And my second question is about Confession. What if the priest messes up the absolution but doesn’t notice it and the peninent wouldn’t notice it either (due to ignorance, if the peninent was a convert and it was his/her first Confession). Would the Confession be invalid and would the peninent go to Hell? And if the priest realizes his mistake after the Confession, would he break the seal of Confession if he contacted the peninent and tells him/her do the Confession again?

1. The person would need to be baptized. If they never realized this - God takes that into account. God is God after all - and is not bound by the Sacraments and can provide for the persons salvation. Thankfully such though is not something that would often happen - the form is rather simple.
2. Again the form of absolution (so far as the absolute essentials) is rather simple and short. The extra prayers etc do not effect validity. The Priest I do not believe would ‘go find the person’ if he later realizes it after he left. If he has not fully left the Priest can quickly absolve him as he is leaving. As for the person - he is “in good faith” (I assume here he is and is contrite and amended) and does not realize he was not absolved - so God too will know this and what happened and take that into account. God is not bound by the Sacraments. If he does realize this - he can let the Priest know there and then and be absolved or if need be - go to another Priest for confession.

And if he never realizes this - of course in the next confession - the next absolution will absolve those other sins- for the person will have thought they were confessed and not confess them - but will not be hiding them but intending to confess all mortal sins in the least.

 

[chasingcars]

Ok, thanks for the answers. I think Bookcat’s point that God is not bound by the Sacraments is good and but I’ll ask these same questions from the CAF apologists too.

 

[Bookcat]

Also such would be a case I think of implicit “baptism by desire”.

Catechism:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.”* God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.
*

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1259

 

[Usagi]

That would actually be a pretty explicit case for baptism of desire. The person (or his/her parents) literally sought baptism and even thought they had received it but for a technical defect. That’s even closer to “actually got baptized” than the classic case of the catechumen who dies (of causes other than martyrdom) before baptism, which is the origin of the idea of baptism of desire.

Usagi

 

[porthos11]

The baptism case would have other implications.

What if he was ordained a priest? Then later a bishop?

Then he ordains other bishops? He could then start a line of invalidly ordained bishops which could have serious repercussions for the future.

Of course in practice, the indefectability of the Church could never allow this to happen, given that there are always two co-consecrators. But even in priestly ministry, his Eucharists would be invalid, as would other sacraments he celebrates, except for Baptism. Baptism of desire does not cover other sacraments, as it is itself not a sacrament; it does not leave the baptismal character on the soul.

 

[on_the_hill]

So what if someone gets baptized as a baby and the priest does something wrong (for example doesn’t use the Trinitarian formula) and no one notices anything? I mean, if no one notices that the priest messed up and the child grows up, receives communion, confirmation, gets married etc. having no clue that his/her baptism was probably invalid? What happens then? Would that person go to Hell for not being validly baptized?

And my second question is about Confession. What if the priest messes up the absolution but doesn’t notice it and the peninent wouldn’t notice it either (due to ignorance, if the peninent was a convert and it was his/her first Confession). Would the Confession be invalid and would the peninent go to Hell? And if the priest realizes his mistake after the Confession, would he break the seal of Confession if he contacted the peninent and tells him/her do the Confession again?

I think you’re putting a lot of emphasis on “messed up.” What do you mean by messed up?

God didn’t hand down specific words that must be recited. The words and rituals are how we humans interpret what God intends us to do. I don’t believe God would think a person’s baptism, confession or ordination would be invalid because another person made mistakes.

Further, if no one ever noticed a baptism was invalid, then the “invalidly” ordained priest would harm everyone following him thereafter. One priest’s mistake during an infant baptism could affect millions of people’s eternal lives forever after. I don’t think God would be with that.

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t believe God would think a person’s baptism, confession or ordination would be invalid because another person made mistakes.

Actually it would - it was an invalid form or matter.

And God -knowing all -would yes know that it was invalid (and that he did not baptize…etc the person for the form was not valid).

God puts so much into our hands…not only human life (shall I feed my children this month?) but yes also the Sacraments.

God though can as noted up above work in other ways for the good of those involved.

 

[on_the_hill]

Actually it would - it was an invalid form or matter.

And God -knowing all -would yes know that it was invalid (and that he did not baptize…etc the person for the form was not valid).

So if the priest made a mistake during my baptism and I grow up to be ordained and then elected to the Papacy, that one mistake decades prior would invalidate everything that followed?

Thinking like that would drive everyone into a black hole of scrupulousity.

 

[Bookcat]

So if the priest made a mistake during my baptism and I grow up to be ordained and then elected to the Papacy, that one mistake decades prior would invalidate everything that followed?

Thinking like that would drive everyone into a black hole of scrupulousity.

Yes. But not any mistake. And essential mistake. Like saying "I baptize you in the name of The Father and of St. Joseph…and St. John. Or they used oil instead of water…

But we are not to engage in such wild ideas. Nor is one to give in to a scrupulous way of thinking. Scruples are to be dismissed - not engaged. We do not live by crazy what if’s.

One ought not be bothered by a mere logical possibility.

For normally such is very very very very very very very unlikely. People know how to Baptize! And with Bishops ordinations - there are more than one Bishop involved.

God puts so much into our hands…not only human life (shall I feed my children this month?) but yes also the Sacraments.

God though can as noted up above work in other ways for the good of those involved.

 

[porthos11]

So if the priest made a mistake during my baptism and I grow up to be ordained and then elected to the Papacy, that one mistake decades prior would invalidate everything that followed?

Thinking like that would drive everyone into a black hole of scrupulousity.

And yes, that’s exactly what would happen. You would not be a valid Pope.

That’s why we trust in the Church’s indefectability, where God would prevent such a scenario from happening. But while the chance is slim, yes it could happen. If you’re not baptized, you cannot be ordained. And if you cannot be ordained, you cannot be Pope.

 

[chasingcars]

So if the priest made a mistake during my baptism and I grow up to be ordained and then elected to the Papacy, that one mistake decades prior would invalidate everything that followed?

Thinking like that would drive everyone into a black hole of scrupulousity.

That’s exactly what’s happening to me, I’m drowning in scrupulousity. I was baptized by a Lutheran female priest when I was one month old and I converted to Catholicism 18 years later and I’m so worried about the state of my soul now.

 

[porthos11]

That’s exactly what’s happening to me, I’m drowning in scrupulousity. I was baptized by a Lutheran female priest when I was one month old and I converted to Catholicism 18 years later and I’m so worried about the state of my soul now.

The Lutherans have a valid baptism. Why would it trouble you?

 

[Bookcat]

That’s exactly what’s happening to me, I’m drowning in scrupulousity. I was baptized by a Lutheran female priest when I was one month old and I converted to Catholicism 18 years later and I’m so worried about the state of my soul now.

A female clergy member of the Lutherans can yes baptized quite validly.

 

[chasingcars]

The Lutherans have a valid baptism. Why would it trouble you?

Because I was only one month old so I obviously couldn’t have noticed if something went wrong. And my parents are both agnostic/atheists so they wouldn’t have noticed either (or even cared) if the priest did something wrong.

 

[JerryZ]

That’s exactly what’s happening to me, I’m drowning in scrupulousity. I was baptized by a Lutheran female priest when I was one month old and I converted to Catholicism 18 years later and I’m so worried about the state of my soul now.

The Baptism is the one Sacrament that does NOT require to be performed by a priest or a deacon or even a lay Christian to be valid.
An unbeliever can baptise and as long as the form and matter are proper the baptism is valid.

Do not get me wrong though, it is proper that a person be Baptised by the priest or a deacon.

Hope this helps you with your scruples, do not be afraid. Jesus will not abandon you.

.

 

[InThePew]

Because I was only one month old so I obviously couldn’t have noticed if something went wrong. And my parents are both agnostic/atheists so they wouldn’t have noticed either (or even cared) if the priest did something wrong.

As porthos11 and Bookcat have rightly noted the Church recognises Lutheran baptism as valid. As part of that recognition, the Church assumes that the Lutheran Minister (be it a he or a hse) followed the normal Lutheran practices for baptism which would include the use of water and a trinitarian formula (i.e. I baptise you in the name of the Father… etc). The church also assumes that the Lutheran minister did in fact intend to baptise you (probably no difficulties there!). So the upshot of it is that the Church accepted your baptism as valid at the time of your reception (which is why you weren’t baptised then) since there was no reason not to.