In another thread (post 25), I made the following statement:
… protestant Baptism would not be considered illicit Baptism. If a Catholic layman/laywoman Baptized someone who could have otherwise been Baptized by Catholic clergy, it would be illicit (ie, valid but not done in the proper fashion). But, if an extraordinary minister acts when no ordinary minister is available or reasonably expected to be available, it is not illicit. Protestant baptism (using water and the Trinitarian form) is both valid and licit. (emphasis added)
But, thinking about it later, it occurs to me that my statement was my own opinion, and I could not think of any actual teaching to back it up. It seems correct, but it also seems very strange.
If a colony of Catholics (with no clergy) were stranded on an island, and they Baptized their children, it would be both valid and licit. It seems that protestants are stranded on an island of their own making, but stranded nonetheless - separated from Catholic clergy. They have no recourse to Catholic clergy while they remain protestant. Their Baptisms should be just as licit as Gilligan’s.
What sayeth you?
(if you are unaware that protestant Baptism is (usually) valid, refer to CCC 1256.)