Quote from: JohnGrey

Quote from: SJB

Quote from: Moral Theology, Koch-Preuss

I. The efficacy of the Sacraments depends solely on the will of God, and hence all that is required for their valid administration on the part of the minister is power and jurisdiction, proper application of matter and form, and an actual or at least a virtual intention of doing what the Church does.

Quote from: Woywod, commentary on CIC

585. Private Baptism may be given by any one who uses the proper matter and form and has the right intention. As far as possible two witnesses, or at least one, should be present at such a private Baptism, by whom the conferring of Baptism may be proved, (cf. Canon 759.)

If a priest is present he should be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a lay person, a man to a woman, unless decency demand that the woman be preferred, or in case the woman knows better the form and manner of Baptism.

The father and mother are not allowed to baptize their own child except in danger of death if there is no one else at hand who can baptize. (Canon 742.)

I guess I'm missing the point.

Are you assuming I'm arguing with you?

No, not at all.  It's just that there was no supplemental writing that I wasn't quite positive.

In addressing the question of intent, the Angelic Doctor states the following concerning heretical ministers:

But if his faith be defective in regard to the very sacrament that he confers, although he believe that no inward effect is caused by the thing done outwardly, yet he does know that the Catholic Church intends to confer a sacrament by that which is outwardly done. Wherefore, his unbelief notwithstanding, he can intend to do what the Church does, albeit he esteem it to be nothing. And such an intention suffices for a sacrament: because as stated above (8, ad 2) the minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the Church by whose faith any defect in the minister's faith is made good.

Now, it would seem on the surface that the preceding would argue against a necessity of intent on the part of the minister.  However, the final line is clear that it is the character of one acting as a minister of the Church, in persona Christi by virtue of his office as the ordinary minister of the sacrament.  A member of a heretical sect by definition does not enjoy the charism imparted by Holy Orders.

Moreover, Thomas Aquinas asserts:

But some do observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these confer indeed the sacrament but not the reality. I say this in the supposition that they are outwardly cut off from the Church; because from the very fact that anyone receives the sacraments from them, he sins; and consequently is hindered from receiving the effect of the sacrament.

Even in those cases where a performer of the sacrament is outside the bounds of the Church on account of heresy, it may be possible that the sacrament is enacted, but its effect is not conferred.

I merely pointed at the Jehanne's position that all baptisms, by virtue of form and matter, are automatically valid is theologically incorrect.

I should have added "intent" to the list.  (Ooops.)

It would seem that a heretic baptizing an infant (of say, Catholic parents) in danger of death is valid and the effect conferred if the correct matter and form is used. I would think the intention to "do what the Church does" is fulfilled here. In other cases, it is not as clear.

Eh, that's a contentious question, which is really why such situations should be avoided by any means possible.  Could the sacrament be coferred validly?  Sure, I believe so.  Does it necessarily follow that it would always be conferred validly?  I would say in the case of baptism, so long as either there was a compatible interior assent (i.e., the minister's theology held baptism to be salvific) or the minister had the sacerdotal charism, I would accept conference as being likely, or at least less than gravely doubtful.  I would posit that the barrier of proper conference in the second quote of Thomas Aquinas has to do with the willful act of receiving sacraments from one formally in schism (in the case of receiving the Eucharist or an adult baptism).  However, I would consider the case of an atheist or one denying original sin or the necessity of baptism, to be suspect in the conference of a baptism in the abstract.  Of course, it seems to me unlikely that someone denying original sin or its remittance by baptism would bother, especially in an emergency setting, to baptise the child.  If they did so, it would logically follow that they believed there was a grave spiritual need to do so, and that the baptism fulfilled that need.  It's probably a moot consideration.

If I'm not mistaken, weren't some converts from heretical sects NOT conditionally baptised when they converted?

Sure, conditional baptism is examined on a case-by-case basis, to determine if the form, matter and intent of the original minister was sufficient to confer the sacrament.  For those baptised by a minister who possessed the intent properly formed by the theology of original sin and the laver of regeneration (Orthodox or other schismatics, Lutherans, Methodist, some Presbyterians, etc.), or have the sacerdotal charism necessary to correct the defect of faith by virtue of acting in persona Christi, the baptism is probably going to be considered valid.

As atheists can baptize validly, it seems clear that explicit, personal desire (on the part of the minister) to remove the guilt of original sin is not necessary.

I find this statement odd, and at odds with both the teachings of Aquinas, and this remark which I found in the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding sacramental intent:

The Church teaches very unequivocally that for the valid conferring of the sacraments, the minister must have the intention of doing at least what the Church does. This is laid down with great emphasis by the Council of Trent (sess. VII). The opinion once defended by such theologians as Catharinus and Salmeron that there need only be the intention to perform deliberately the external rite proper to each sacrament, and that, as long as this was true, the interior dissent of the minister from the mind of the Church would not invalidate the sacrament, no longer finds adherents. The common doctrine now is that a real internal intention to act as a minister of Christ, or to do what Christ instituted the sacraments to effect, in other words, to truly baptize, absolve, etc., is required. This intention need not necessarily be of the sort called actual. That would often be practically impossible. It is enough that it be virtual. Neither habitual nor interpretative intention in the minister will suffice for the validity of the sacrament. The truth is that here and now, when the sacrament is being conferred, neither of these intentions exists, and they can therefore exercise no determining influence upon what is done. To administer the sacraments with a conditional intention, which makes their effect contingent upon a future event, is to confer them invalidly. This holds good for all the sacraments except matrimony, which, being a contract, is susceptible of such a limitation.

It seems that while a virtual intent is sufficient to confer the sacrament, this intent would by definition have to be ratified by a previous volition that the minister understood and assented to the effect of the sacrament being conferred.

In danger of death is not usually something that can be avoided of postponed.

Certainly, but historically in hospitals, especially Catholic institutions, priests have been present to perform this function as needed.  Naturally, there are, as you say, cases of unavoidable necessity.  I suppose in those instances, we must simply trust to hope.

Are you calling into question what the Church clearly instructs in a situation where there is a danger of death? Are you sure this really never happens?

I'm not sure I follow what I'm calling into question.  As for the frequency of such a thing, happening, I find it odd in the extreme, at least from a logical standpoint.  If the child had parents that were Catholic, then they would baptise the child, not their atheist acquaintance.  I just find it difficult to imagine that an atheist, having no impetus, would choose of their own volition and desire to perform on a dying child a spiritual rite of a religion they don't believe it.  I'm afraid that doesn't seem likely to me.  

Yes, but you seem to be applying this to other situations in which the Church seems to have already decided.

Can you quote some text that explains it the way you interpret it?

Can you clarify what you're asking?