Br. Rich wrote:
The Sacrament of Baptism is in no way dependent on the intention of the parents.
Many thanks for the correction, Br. Rich. A more appropriate word may have been “Faith” - for that is what is the required response from the parent or the infant’s sponsor - and, hopefully that is what the parents genuinely intend for the infant; but “consent” IS the required term!
Fr. Jone deals follows with
" 476…2.b) Children of non-Catholic parents…
b) Apart from the danger of death such children may be baptized if their Catholic education is assured and the consent of the father or mother, grandfather or grandmother or guardian is had, or if there is no one who has parental authority over the child or who can exercise such authority." (C. 750).
“If the Catholic education of the child is not assured baptism is forbidden even if the parents request it…”
“MORAL THEOLOGY” pp. 328-9)
The Catechism of the Catholic Church" is not as explicit – nor is the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
“Can. 864 Every unbaptised person, and only such a person, can
Yet, there are some conditions, including:
“Can. 868 §1 For an infant to be baptised lawfully
it is required:
1° that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;
2° that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If the hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.
§2 An infant of catholic parents, indeed even of non-catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptised even if the parents are opposed to it.”
Canon 869 §1 provides for conditional baptism in the event of doubt as to valid Baptism.
§2 Deals with doubt as to validity on the grounds of matter or form “or of the intention of the adult being baptised or of that of the baptising minister.”
Notwithstanding any of the above Canons 870 and 871 respectively deal with the baptism of abandoned infant or a foundling, and aborted foetuses (if alive).
So! What I have in mind is a situation where “consent” is given by a person where a non-Catholic party feigned baptism in order to marry a Catholic – as outlined, for example, in the decision of the Rota, 22 Dec. 1954, and as recorded in “The Canon Law Digest”, Vol IV, by T. Lincoln Bouscaren, S.J., LL.B., S.T.D. and James J. O’Connor, S.J., A.M., S.T.L., J.C.D., pp. 322-3.
The extension of that decision would be, I think, interesting in the event that the “consent” and expectation of the infant receiving a Catholic upbringing was depended upon on the consent of such a person ?
The point is that even highly qualified persons have had to put a Dubium (doubt) on a point of the (1917) Code of Canon Law in order to clarify situations - and, as in civil Law - there is always a Lawyer who will strongly represent his clients case: and, as always, one wins and one looses: one is right and one is wrong. In any event, it all makes for fascinating reading.
What do you think?