From: jocallag@darwin.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan)
Subject: Re: baptismal rites for infants in the roman catholic church
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:23:48 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.223846.20209@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> bobv@spike.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Bob von Buelow) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.190404.3641@news.nd.edu> jocallag@vyasa.helios.nd.edu (john ocallaghan) writes:
>>In article <9212140723.AA25577@pegasus.com> Len Howard <tas@PEGASUS.COM> writes:
>>
>>Len,  ...
>>it was the Donatist heresy of the fourth century (?) that suggested
>>that the moral character of the minister of the sacrmament could
>>undermine its efficacy.  By citing that I am not calling you a 
>>heretic.  I'm just suggesting that the Church has addressed this
>>issue already a long time ago.  Its conclusion at the time, which
>>I take to still be its conclusion, is that the personal character
>>of the human beings involved has nothing to do with the efficacy
>>of Christ's sacraments.
>>John
>
>John, if the parties to a marriage do not enter into the marriage with
>good intentions then that marriage is subject to annulment.  That is,
>the church states that there was indeed no marriage. The personal
>inclination, if not their character, certainly does bear on that sacrament.
>If an adult were to lie about intentions at baptism I would think that too
>would have some meaning.  Len was not talking about the character of the
>presider, but about the participants.  What I think matters is the
>acceptance of the baptized when the age of reason is reached.  Remember God
>exists outside of time. The fact that a few years may have elapsed is
>inconsequential and the infant-turned-adult has the same right to accept
>or reject their baptism.  God's grace while freely given certainly can 
>be rejected. Even thought the church teaches that baptism, confirmation, and
>orders "imprint a character" and cannot be repeated, they must be 
>accepted, don't you think?

Bob, I'm not sure the analogy to marriage fits.  For two reasons. 
1) The intention of the couple is part of the "form" (sorry for the outdated
philsophical claptrap -:), but in the abscence of any alternative terms, I don't
know how to make the distinction) of the sacrament, or the matter; I'm
felling a little sick right now, so I may be a little confudes.  Bear with me.
The personal character of the couple is not.  Their intention is.  But the
"form" does not communicate the grace or effect it; it is the precondition of
it.  Christ's power, and Christ's power alone effects the grace.
Now in the case of baptism, neither the intentions nor the character of the parents are part of the form or matter of the sacrament, nor certainly do they 
communicate the grace received.  Consequently, though it might be highly desirable to have parents in good standing with the Church, it certainly is not 
essential to the *validity* of the sacrament. (*valid* being the term Len
chose to use.)  In fact if you look closely at your citation it said *legal*
(i.e. licit(?)) not *valid*.

2) You are in a better postion than I, since you own a copy of the Code of
Cannon Law to check on how the "acceptance" of the infant bears on the validity
infant baptism.  But certainly, even from your point of view, the character
or intention of the parents cannot have anything to do with the acceptance
of the infant, which after all is the point at issue?
3)Even if the "intention" of the parents were to play a part in the form of
baptism, which I do not think it does, their character is different from their
intention.  One would have to show that people of bad character of necessity
cannot have good intentions to say that the character of the parents bears
on the validity of the sacrament.
4) The parents are not, in ordinary circumstances the minister of baptism, as
I'm sure the Code of Cannon Law would point out.  In marriage, the couple, not
the priest, are the ministers of the sacrament, as again I'm sure the code
of Canon Law would attest.  So if the parents neither receive nor adiminister the sacrament of baptism, I think you have a tough job ahead of you to show
that either their inention or their character bears upon the *validity* of
the sacrament.

Peace,
and Happy Advent.
John

of the infant, can it, which after all is the poi9n>Bob
>
>--
>Bob von Buelow             Mars Observer Planning and Sequencing Element
>bobv@spike.jpl.nasa.gov          - standard disclaimers apply -


Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU