What makes a Baptism Catholic

[EasterJoy]

That’s what I think, but not everyone agrees and I’ve never seen any official document that addresses it.

Perhaps this?
Can. 878* If the baptism was not administered by the pastor or in his presence, the minister of baptism, whoever it is, must inform the pastor of the parish in which it was administered of the conferral of the baptism, so that he records the baptism according to the norm of ⇒ can. 877, §1.*

If someone baptized by someone other than his or her pastor, it would seem it is the policy of the Church that the it is the pastor of the baptized who is notified and that pastor who enters the baptism in his own record. If by the choice of the parents the child has an Anglican pastor, then the baptism would not be recorded in the register of a Catholic parish, but is reported to the child’s pastor with the assumption that the baptism will be entered in the register of that pastor’s church, instead.
**
That is only my guess. I’d be interested to hear from a priest how this is actually handled in practice, especially in the case where the denomination of the baptized cannot be assumed to keep a record.**

 

[Phemie]

Perhaps this?
Can. 878* If the baptism was not administered by the pastor or in his presence, the minister of baptism, whoever it is, must inform the pastor of the parish in which it was administered of the conferral of the baptism, so that he records the baptism according to the norm of ⇒ can. 877, §1.*

If someone baptized by someone other than his or her pastor, it would seem it is the policy of the Church that the it is the pastor of the baptized who is notified and that pastor who enters the baptism in his own record. If by the choice of the parents the child has an Anglican pastor, then the baptism would not be recorded in the register of a Catholic parish, but is reported to the child’s pastor with the assumption that the baptism will be entered in the register of that pastor’s church, instead. If the tables were turned and the Anglican priest did the baptism of a Catholic child, or if a layperson did it, that is how it would be handled. (Some other denominations, obviously, would not accept the validity of a Catholic baptism, and would consider it necessary to baptize the child themselves, but that is neither here nor there from our point of view.)

So if I illicitly baptize my grandson, will he be Catholic and obligated by Canon Law or will he simply be Christian? Does it really all depend on whether I confess it to my pastor after I’ve done it or keep my mouth shut?

Because I have to tell you that the urge to do just that is great since I know his parents will never have him baptized but I don’t want to obligate him to anything that he’ll never be taught about.

 

[EasterJoy]

So if I illicitly baptize my grandson, will he be Catholic and obligated by Canon Law or will he simply be Christian? Does it really all depend on whether I confess it to my pastor after I’ve done it or keep my mouth shut?

Because I have to tell you that the urge to do just that is great since I know his parents will never have him baptized but I don’t want to obligate him to anything that he’ll never be taught about.

You ought not baptize him against his parents’ wishes. Stop and think about this: what are you going to tell your grandson about what you’ve done? What are you going to tell his parents? In what way is the plan you have in accord with preaching the Gospel? It sounds more like well-intended spiritual kidnapping that could backfire on your grandson and you.

Talk to your pastor about this, and do not take it upon yourself to do something that not even their pastor could licitly take it upon himself to do:

***Can. 868 §1. **For an infant to be baptized licitly:

**1/ **the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

**§2. *An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

If your grandson is not in danger of death, it is illicit for you to take it upon yourself to baptize him.

 

[Phemie]

You ought not baptize him against his parents’ wishes. Stop and think about this: what are you going to tell your grandson about what you’ve done? What are you going to tell his parents? In what way is the plan you have in accord with preaching the Gospel? It sounds more like well-intended spiritual kidnapping that could backfire on your grandson and you.

Talk to your pastor about this, and do not take it upon yourself to do something that not even their pastor could licitly take it upon himself to do:

***Can. 868 §1. ***For an infant to be baptized licitly:

**1/ **the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

**§2. **An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

If your grandson is not in danger of death, it is illicit for you to take it upon yourself to baptize him.

I’m well aware of all that. Doesn’t make it any easier to live with him going unbaptized.

 

[Phemie]

Perhaps this?
Can. 878* If the baptism was not administered by the pastor or in his presence, the minister of baptism, whoever it is, must inform the pastor of the parish in which it was administered of the conferral of the baptism, so that he records the baptism according to the norm of ⇒ can. 877, §1.*

If someone baptized by someone other than his or her pastor, it would seem it is the policy of the Church that the it is the pastor of the baptized who is notified and that pastor who enters the baptism in his own record. If by the choice of the parents the child has an Anglican pastor, then the baptism would not be recorded in the register of a Catholic parish, but is reported to the child’s pastor with the assumption that the baptism will be entered in the register of that pastor’s church, instead.
**
That is only my guess. I’d be interested to hear from a priest how this is actually handled in practice, especially in the case where the denomination of the baptized cannot be assumed to keep a record.**

Note that it’s entered in the parish where it occurs, not the parish of the person being baptized. In many cases some of our young parishioners are medevaced so quickly that the baptism occurs at the children’s hospital hundreds of miles away. In that case the baptism is recorded at a parish in the city where the hospital is located. We are sometimes notified by the hospital chaplain.

The oddest case I came across was one where our former pastor went in and baptized the baby without telling the parents or the staff. The baby was sent to the children’s hospital where he was then ‘rebaptized’ at the parents’ request. I received notification of the baptism and knew I’d recorded it in our register before the date on the notification. The priest confirmed that he’d told no one.

 

[nodito]

Okay, so suppose two infants are baptized at a hospital shortly after their birth. One is the child of Catholic parents and one is the child of Anglican parents. The minister is a hospital employee who baptizes validly using water and the Trinitarian formula.

The Catholic parents are supposed to inform their parish that their kid is baptized, but they neglect to. They had intended to raise the kid Catholic but they don’t do the supplying of the ceremonies afterwards and they don’t practice faithfully.

The two kids grow up. They both choose Christian spouses and get married by a justice of peace.

Do I understand this correctly, that one of them, the child of the Catholics, is in an invalid marriage; whereas the the child of Anglican parents is in a valid marriage? Or are they both validly married because the Catholic child was never formally received into the church with the supplying of the ceremonies?

 

[EasterJoy]

Okay, so suppose two infants are baptized at a hospital shortly after their birth. One is the child of Catholic parents and one is the child of Anglican parents. The minister is a hospital employee who baptizes validly using water and the Trinitarian formula.

The Catholic parents are supposed to inform their parish that their kid is baptized, but they neglect to. They had intended to raise the kid Catholic but they don’t do the supplying of the ceremonies afterwards and they don’t practice faithfully.

The two kids grow up. They both choose Christian spouses and get married by a justice of peace.

Do I understand this correctly, that one of them, the child of the Catholics, is in an invalid marriage; whereas the the child of Anglican parents is in a valid marriage? Or are they both validly married because the Catholic child was never formally received into the church with the supplying of the ceremonies?

Ah…do you mean what is necessary before a member of the baptized is held to be in communion with the ecclesiastical authority of the Roman Pontiff, and therefore bound to follow the Church’s laws with regards to marriage? That is a good question.

 

[jmcrae]

I understand there’s only one baptism and that an emergency baptism or a baptism at a Protestant church is valid sacrament.

My husband and I are Catholic and we would want a staff member to baptize our baby in the hospital if it’s an emergency. I know that, if this were to happen, she would be validly baptized.

Your next step would be to inform your parish priest that this had taken place. If the child survived, then you would bring her to the Church to receive the various anointings that would have normally taken place at a regular baptism, to receive her Baptismal candle, and to provide an opportunity for you, her parents, and her godparents to make the Profession of Faith that would normally be said at the time of Baptism, as well.

She would not be re-baptized, but there would be a ceremony to complete the baptism at the Church, if she received emergency baptism in the hospital for any reason, and then she survived.

 

[nodito]

Ah…do you mean what is necessary before a member of the baptized is held to be in communion with the ecclesiastical authority of the Roman Pontiff, and therefore bound to follow the Church’s laws with regards to marriage? That is a good question.

Yes! Yes! This is what I mean! This is my question. Is it the “supplying of the ceremonies” after the actual baptism? The profession of faith by the parents? The parents’ adherence to Catholicism at the time of the baptism? Something else.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m well aware of all that. Doesn’t make it any easier to live with him going unbaptized.

I have many friends in the same boat. In a way, it is even worse than having the child fall away in the first place, because the grandchild is innocent.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes! Yes! This is what I mean! This is my question. Is it the “supplying of the ceremonies” after the actual baptism? The profession of faith by the parents? The parents’ adherence to Catholicism at the time of the baptism? Something else.

What do you mean by “supplying ceremonies”? Do you mean the sacraments? I would expect that the “something” is some concrete evidence that the parents acted to bring the child up in the faith, rather than bringing up the child as a non-denominational Christian. This is something to ask a priest, but if no one could attest to having seen the baptism take place, a person with the background you describe would probably be conditionally baptized if they sought to complete the Sacraments of Initiation. I can’t imagine they’d be considered Catholic for the purposes of being bound to follow canon law with regards to marriage.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not sure the OP’s question has been answered.

If I’m a nurse in the hospital and the child of an Anglican couple is ill and the parents ask me to baptize him, will the child be baptized Catholic because I’m Catholic or will he be Anglican because that is the parents’ religion? I was told that by virtue of the fact that I’m Catholic the child will be Catholic. What if my intent is that the child will be Anglican as I baptize him validly with the Trinitarian formula?

True story, told to me by the priest himself:

He was doing his bi-monthly visit to a mission and there was a snowstorm. An Anglican family had gathered for the baptism of a child but, because of the storm, the Anglican priest was unable to get there for the service that Sunday. He called our priest to see if he would be willing to accommodate the family, many of whom had flown in for the occasion, and baptize the child. Father did so with the ceremony found in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. Is the child Catholic or Anglican?

He’s Anglican. The intent was to baptize him into the Anglican Church.

 

[jmcrae]

So if I illicitly baptize my grandson, will he be Catholic and obligated by Canon Law or will he simply be Christian? Does it really all depend on whether I confess it to my pastor after I’ve done it or keep my mouth shut?

Because I have to tell you that the urge to do just that is great since I know his parents will never have him baptized but I don’t want to obligate him to anything that he’ll never be taught about.

Baptism is how we are initiated into the life of the Church. Since you aren’t a Church, and since the child isn’t going to be going to your Church, there is very little point in initiating him into it.

Best to let the parents make their own decisions, and the child can choose at a later date whether he wants to be baptized or not, and (together with that decision) whether he wants to take up the life of the Church.

It would be kind of like giving someone a “flying up” ceremony who had no intentions of ever attending Girl Guides.

 

[Pug]

Please help me to understand this better.

By virtue of our Catholic baptism, we become Catholic and are obliged to follow certain rules that are not binding on baptized non-Catholic Christians, for example to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days and to marry according to Catholic form.

What is it that makes the baptism “Catholic” vs a valid non-Catholic Christian baptism? Is it the faith of the minister conducting the baptism? The location only? The intention of the parents?

Suppose an infant receives an emergency baptism in the hospital by a hospital staff member. Would the infant be Catholic or not or would it depend on the circumstances?

Thank you and God bless.

Interesting question. The best I can do is a canon law quote:

Can. 111 §1. Through the reception of baptism, the child of parents who belong to the Latin Church is enrolled in it, or, if one or the other does not belong to it, both parents have chosen by mutual agreement to have the offspring baptized in the Latin Church. If there is no mutual agreement, however, the child is enrolled in the ritual Church to which the father belongs.

This seems less interested in emergency baptism than it is in untangling what to do if one parent is in a different rite than the other parent (Latin or Ruthenian or Maronite, etc.). But still, it seems to hang on the parents, not the minister.

 

[dans0622]

Yes! Yes! This is what I mean! This is my question. Is it the “supplying of the ceremonies” after the actual baptism? The profession of faith by the parents? The parents’ adherence to Catholicism at the time of the baptism? Something else.

Hello,

Membership in the Catholic Church is a fact in the external forum. So, there has to be some external action on the part of the parents/minister that makes the intention of the parties clear–this child is to be considered Catholic. That external action should be recorded. The “supplying of ceremonies” could be the external act but it could be as simple as the parents telling the local parish priest “We’re Catholic and attend your parish. Our child was baptized at the hospital yesterday by so-and-so. We want Mr. and Mrs. Smith to be godparents.” The priest could suggest doing the Rite of welcoming a baptized child but if that doesn’t happen, he should still record the fact of baptism. The child is bound by canon law.

You gave the example of two children in post #25. Neither would be bound to canon law. There was no external manifestation of the desire of the Catholic parents and there was no evidence that either child was to be considered Catholic. If the child was brought up in the faith, however, there would be external facts proving the intention of incorporating him into the Church, such as first Communion and/or Confirmation.

Dan

 

[aemcpa]

Hello,

Membership in the Catholic Church is a fact in the external forum. So, there has to be some external action on the part of the parents/minister that makes the intention of the parties clear–this child is to be considered Catholic. That external action should be recorded. The “supplying of ceremonies” could be the external act but it could be as simple as the parents telling the local parish priest “We’re Catholic and attend your parish. Our child was baptized at the hospital yesterday by so-and-so. We want Mr. and Mrs. Smith to be godparents.” The priest could suggest doing the Rite of welcoming a baptized child but if that doesn’t happen, he should still record the fact of baptism. The child is bound by canon law.

You gave the example of two children in post #25. Neither would be bound to canon law. There was no external manifestation of the desire of the Catholic parents and there was no evidence that either child was to be considered Catholic. If the child was brought up in the faith, however, there would be external facts proving the intention of incorporating him into the Church, such as first Communion and/or Confirmation.

Dan

Dan, you are a canon lawyer, are you not? Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[nodito]

What do you mean by “supplying ceremonies”?

In Post 10, aempca mentioned that a child baptized in an emergency situation would later be brought to the church for the “supplying of the ceremonies” and the rest of the baptismal rite.

 

[dans0622]

Dan, you are a canon lawyer, are you not? Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Yes.

 

[JanetBearden]

Hello! In Catholicism -Baptism is the first Sacrament of initiation into the
Roman Catholic Church. We cannot receive the other Sacraments w/o this- the first.
We celebrate Mass at each Baptism. Everyone in attendance recite their Baptismal vows and God parents are present for every word of the entire ceremony. At the ceremony of the Baptism the child or ? ? Is then free of Original Sin. Never to have it return. When Baptized in the Trinity Original Sin is gone it can in no way return. This Sacrament: Baptism is the ultimate in cleansing. Then as the celebratory Mass continues we then listen and watch as the Eucharistic sacrifice is offered. We then receive Our Lord in the form of Bread and Wine…His Body and His Blood. Those able to receive have received the 3 Sacraments of Initiation. Baptism . Penance/Reconciliation. Holy Communion. Please remember catholic defined simply means universal. Christ spoke to everyone…universally. Lastly the Roman Catholic Church and its beginnings, it’s origin, it’s “start” is the only religion/church which has its beginnings or roots on a little piece of dirt called Rome. This is known historical fact! Jesus Christ begun (my beloved) Catholic Church . Like Peter-the rock this church has withstood every possible problem, accusation, scandal and … Sin!