|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 10, 2021 15:03:00 GMT
This is something I've always wondered about, and to be perfectly honest, I've never been fully satisfied with the answers I've received --- all of which have been, simply put, "no".
Now, mark my words, I'm not contemplating such an action for myself. While my catechesis was in some respects defective (though not as flawed as some I've heard of), and I didn't fully "know what I was getting myself in for" (I was 15), I have no reason to question my own baptism, and no desire "not to be baptized". If I discovered tomorrow that my baptism had been invalid, I would be wasting no time trying to find a priest to baptize me immediately. "All the moving parts" were there --- sufficient knowledge of what baptism is, desire to join the One True Church, priest signing off on it, godparents vouching for me, and so on.
But I've wondered if this is ever possible. (I refer to baptisms taking place in the Catholic Church, not outside of it, and some of those baptisms can be declared invalid for defect of form, if nothing else.) Let's say you have someone who went through "quickie catechism" (hardly possible anymore with RCIA), perhaps who received baptism primarily for the sake of a family member, harmony in the home, or to expedite marriage. They had, at best, a superficial and flawed understanding of Catholicism and Christianity in general, and didn't really comprehend what baptism is, or what it does. Perhaps they never really believed, except perhaps in a vague, gauzy, general sense of "baptism is a good thing and we should believe in Jesus", or something like that.
And then that person later wishes they hadn't done it, doesn't really believe and never did, admits they did it pretty much for external reasons having little if anything to do with faith or discipleship. They never really believed in anything other than just what the general "run" of society believes in the first place, a mush of quasi-Masonic tenets ("be a good person", "affirm the truths that all good men hold in common", and so on) and a kind of atmospheric belief in republican civic virtues and "received wisdom" --- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, don't kill, don't steal, don't cheat on your spouse, and so on. Finer points, such as birth control, the indissolubility of marriage, abortion in hard cases, the authority of the magisterium to teach, and in so teaching, to trump the majority consensus of the largere society if need be, and so on, never really believed what the Church teaches, just kept their mouth shut about their unbelief.
Again, I have to wonder if there is a more sophisticated, nuanced, individualized answer than merely saying "oh, yes, it was valid". Why do we not apply the same subjective psychological factors, that are applied when looking at the validity of a marriage? Again, "all the moving parts" are pretty much the same --- you have a ceremony, in a church, before a priest, vows are taken, a sacrament is putatively conferred... but lo and behold, several years later, a church tribunal is able to declare "there was never a sacrament". So why is baptism different?
Don't get me wrong, it's not something I condone or recommend, but I am simply wondering why it is not theoretically possible, just as marriage annulments are.
(And then again there are the other five sacraments. I suppose, by extension, one could also seek to have a confirmation declared invalid, or for that matter, one's reception of holy orders. An invalid confession is very easy to make --- just deliberately exclude one mortal sin, or fail to have sorrow for at least all of your mortal sins --- and Masses can easily be invalid if incorrect matter is used, such as rice bread, cinnamon honey cakes, and so on. I suppose anointing of the sick could theoretically be invalid too, if for instance bacon grease were used instead of oil. Not trying to be crude there, just trying to think of an oil-like substance that is not oil. So that covers all seven sacraments. Any of the seven could theoretically be invalid.)
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on Mar 11, 2021 0:05:39 GMT
Baptism puts an indelible mark on your soul. The other sacraments do not.
I can become protestant but the mark is still there.
|
|
|
Post by BartholomewB on Mar 11, 2021 0:51:57 GMT
That’s an interesting question. There are seven sacraments; six of them can never be annulled, but the seventh, under certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions, can. It’s an anomaly. I wonder whether it may perhaps be a question for a canon lawyer.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 11, 2021 2:17:21 GMT
Baptism puts an indelible mark on your soul. The other sacraments do not. I can become protestant but the mark is still there. Yes, but that is assuming you were baptized in the first place. By "annul", I am suggesting something similar to annulments of marriages --- the Church declares that a sacrament was never conferred. That is what I am searching for here --- was consent to baptism so defective, that there was no sacrament? Imagine for a moment that an adult is in a coma, or sound asleep. Two people come in the hospital room to witness the baptism. They speak for the comatose or sleeping person, as they either cannot (in the case of the comatose person) or do not (as in the case of the sleeping person) speak for themselves. They take the vows in the person's name. A priest pours water and says the words. He baptizes absolutely --- none of this "if you want to be baptized" business. Is a sacrament conferred? I think not. The will and intellect of the person are not there. They are, if you will, impaired. Now imagine another adult who is awake, goes through the motions of being baptized, has some vague notion of what is going on, but has impaired consent --- let's say they are roaring drunk. Are they validly baptized? I have to question that. I have to think that something like the subjective conditions that annul a marriage could come into play. I just use the drunkenness as an extreme example. There could be more subtle factors.
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on Mar 11, 2021 2:24:21 GMT
If someone was improperly baptized they or parents need to speak to a priest.
I know someone from the old days that was baptized in an orphanage ran by nuns.The adoptive parents went to the priest and the baby got a special blessing ceremony.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 11, 2021 4:05:35 GMT
That’s an interesting question. There are seven sacraments; six of them can never be annulled, but the seventh, under certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions, can. It’s an anomaly. I wonder whether it may perhaps be a question for a canon lawyer. I'm sure you know this, but as noted above, any of the seven sacraments can end up having been invalid, null, and void, if there is a defect of form, matter, or intention, grave enough to invalidate the sacrament. The Church has a mechanism in place to declare upon the validity or nullity of a sacramental marriage. I merely broached the possibility that the Church could find a particular baptism --- even one within the Catholic Church --- to have been invalid. In fact, in the "we baptize..." controversy that came to light recently, the Church did precisely that (because of defect of form).
Marriages are declared invalid all the time, many times due to subtle psychological factors that weren't "caught" on the wedding day. I have to wonder whether the same might be done for baptisms, and if not, why not? The "indelible mark" can only be made if the sacrament is valid to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by Beryllos on Mar 11, 2021 6:27:38 GMT
Mental incapacity might do it. If a person can go through the motions while lacking understanding or consent, the baptism would be invalid, or null. I doubt that this could actually happen if the catechist, sponsor, and priest are reasonably diligent. If it did happen, I am not sure how one could prove nullity later on.
|
|
|
Post by Beryllos on Mar 11, 2021 6:39:47 GMT
Bear in mind, however, that mental capacity is not strictly required for baptism. In the case of babies, the parents and godparents act on behalf of the child. In the case of a person near death, baptized by a non-Christian who happens to be at hand, I believe the Church itself acts on behalf of the baptized.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 11, 2021 10:05:01 GMT
Mental incapacity might do it. If a person can go through the motions while lacking understanding or consent, the baptism would be invalid, or null. I doubt that this could actually happen if the catechist, sponsor, and priest are reasonably diligent. If it did happen, I am not sure how one could prove nullity later on. Bear in mind, however, that mental capacity is not strictly required for baptism. In the case of babies, the parents and godparents act on behalf of the child. In the case of a person near death, baptized by a non-Christian who happens to be at hand, I believe the Church itself acts on behalf of the baptized. I see what you are saying. The simple answer might be that the threshold for valid baptism, is lower than the threshold for valid marriage. Also, marriage is unique among sacraments, in that two people are conferring it upon each other, and frequently, those two people have got so much going on in their minds, their souls, their bodies, that a whole lot of things can enter into the stew, to make full consent and volition questionable. If so many of these marriages are invalid, that's where the invalidity comes from.
|
|
|
Post by BartholomewB on Mar 11, 2021 18:07:47 GMT
That’s an interesting question. There are seven sacraments; six of them can never be annulled, but the seventh, under certain circumstances and subject to certain conditions, can. It’s an anomaly. I wonder whether it may perhaps be a question for a canon lawyer. I'm sure you know this, but as noted above, any of the seven sacraments can end up having been invalid, null, and void, if there is a defect of form, matter, or intention, grave enough to invalidate the sacrament. Yes, other sacraments are sometimes declared invalid, such as the recent case of baptisms where the celebrant used the plural form, “We baptize.” But I don’t think I ever heard of an “annulment” of a baptism or of any other sacrament except matrimony. “Annul” is the word you’re using in the title of this thread. A quick search through the CCC suggests — subject to confirmation — that the term “nullity” appears only one time in the whole book, in paragraph 1629, referring to marriage: www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm#1629
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 11, 2021 21:35:52 GMT
I'm sure you know this, but as noted above, any of the seven sacraments can end up having been invalid, null, and void, if there is a defect of form, matter, or intention, grave enough to invalidate the sacrament. Yes, other sacraments are sometimes declared invalid, such as the recent case of baptisms where the celebrant used the plural form, “We baptize.” But I don’t think I ever heard of an “annulment” of a baptism or of any other sacrament except matrimony. “Annul” is the word you’re using in the title of this thread. A quick search through the CCC suggests — subject to confirmation — that the term “nullity” appears only one time in the whole book, in paragraph 1629, referring to marriage: www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm#1629True, I concede, matrimony is the only sacrament of the seven, to have a formalized, codified mechanism for finding it invalid, or null and void (the same thing). I have to think that it's in the Church's power to declare other sacraments invalid/null/void, but it would be fairly out of the ordinary, and not something for which a mechanism would probably even need to exist. For ad hoc cases, such as the "we baptize" phenomenon, the Church can address matters as needed. She also did likewise with Apostolicae curae, declaring Anglican orders invalid.
It would probably be a rare instance for someone received into the Church after the age of reason (i.e., not an infant under canon law) to come back later and say "hey, I didn't know what I was doing, I really didn't mean it, Church, can you declare my baptism null and void?", but that is not to say it couldn't happen. I had one friend (pen pal, never met, we had a falling-out) many years ago who claimed she had been baptized as an adult, but got soured on Catholicism and religion in general, and said she would get her baptism annulled if that were possible. (As I later discovered, she was also a pathological liar who actually created for herself an ethnic identity not her own, claimed she'd been raised on a yacht by Gujarat Indians and was a non-native speaker of English, while in her obituary it indicated that she had, in fact, grown up in the United States and was a white Anglo-Saxon American from a fairly affluent family. She had changed her name to a common Indian name. In other words, another Rachel Dolezal, at least psychologically. So she may have been telling the truth about having been baptized, or she may have just made the whole thing up to troll me. As I later discovered, about half the things she told me were lies. More issues than Sports Illustrated, if you ask me. Had to be some kind of sickness. May she rest in peace.)
But not to digress. Bottom line, there could conceivably be converts who would later change their mind, and question the validity of their baptism ab initio. If they later did this, the Church might want to suggest "well, if you'd still like to be a baptized Catholic, we can do a private conditional baptism". But if they say "no thanks, I don't want to be a Catholic or a Christian, can I just get out of this?", then that might be something pastoral the Church could look at.
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Mar 11, 2021 22:41:59 GMT
There was recently a brief period of time when written, formal declarations of defection/baptismal renunciation were accepted in some jurisdictions. I believe the phenomenon originated in Germany with an eye toward relieving oneself from the Church Tax. In these jurisdictions a notation was sometimes made in the person’s baptismal/sacramental record.
I recall being in a parish office when such a written declaration was received and given to the pastor. The pastor commented this was indeed ‘a thing’ and not the first time he had seen one. The matter was passed to the local ordinary for consideration. I do not know if any action was taken in regards to this particular person’s sacramental record.
This would of course have potential juridical consequences as opposed to affecting the nature of the baptism itself.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 12, 2021 0:16:50 GMT
There was recently a brief period of time when written, formal declarations of defection/baptismal renunciation were accepted in some jurisdictions. I believe the phenomenon originated in Germany with an eye toward relieving oneself from the Church Tax. In these jurisdictions a notation was sometimes made in the person’s baptismal/sacramental record. I recall being in a parish office when such a written declaration was received and given to the pastor. The pastor commented this was indeed ‘a thing’ and not the first time he had seen one. The matter was passed to the local ordinary for consideration. I do not know if any action was taken in regards to this particular person’s sacramental record. This would of course have potential juridical consequences as opposed to affecting the nature of the baptism itself. I've actually heard of this. It's pretty pathetic, that one's baptism would mean so little to someone, that they would go through some kind of quasi-legal renunciation process, just not to have to pay the "church tax" that exists in certain countries. This actually makes an excellent case for having the state entirely out of the business of funding religions.
As you point out, this would not "annul the baptism", nor erase the indelible sacramental mark upon one's soul. Again, this illustrates precisely why secular states shouldn't be collecting "taxes" based upon one's religion. A Catholic confessional state, which really doesn't exist anymore aside from Vatican City State, might be another matter.
|
|
|
Post by ratioetfides on Mar 12, 2021 4:08:29 GMT
I agree with all of the above post. I would like to point out the mentioned occurrence was not an effort to avoid a Church Tax, nor in Germany. The document was received by a parish in the USA. It was a multi-page, signed and attested rant against the ‘evils of The Church,’ and a renunciation of baptism as well as any juridical powers held over the individual by the same church.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Mar 12, 2021 11:36:00 GMT
I agree with all of the above post. I would like to point out the mentioned occurrence was not an effort to avoid a Church Tax, nor in Germany. The document was received by a parish in the USA. It was a multi-page, signed and attested rant against the ‘evils of The Church,’ and a renunciation of baptism as well as any juridical powers held over the individual by the same church. I see. While I cannot defend anyone's "right to leave the Church", and the Church never ceases to regard anyone as "not a Catholic anymore" --- you can always "come back", all it takes is a good confession --- I have always found it just a bit disingenuous, for the Church to claim for statistical purposes that she has members who have, in fact, left for another religion (or none at all), and are likely not coming back. There is, however, no way to track how many people have done this, nor, unless they go to the trouble to file the kind of affidavit you describe, who has done this and who hasn't.
"Used to be Catholic" are the four saddest words in the English language. However, our modern society does absolutely nothing to encourage people to stay in the Church, and everything to encourage them to leave it.
|
|