Dear Brothers Dimond,
Your work compels me to say that You are truly worthy of Your respective names. Seen as a whole it is strikingly obvious that this work of yours bases itself on the unfailing Faith of Peter troughout the centuries and on the uncompromising zeal for God and His holy Truth of St. Michael the Archangel. For the past two years Your writings have for me been a daily spiritual refreshment in this Hour of darkness that we are in. I want to be as brief as possible so I have one question for You. It has to do with the much mentioned Sess.6, Chap. 4 of the Council of Trent that the dogma deniers use in favor of the so called ''baptism of desire'' which You refute in Your book. In it You also give an answer why the Council mentions desire for baptism along with water being necessary for Justification. Can it be that with the mention of desire in that canon the Council also solemnly condemned the practise of forced baptism wich unfortunately did occur (although rarely). Maybe the question is off the mark or I have missed something that you have already written on but what does the Church say of such people who have recieved the Sacrament but against their will/desire. Is it considered valid. It would seem they are not justified although they recived the water of baptism. Thank You in advance and may Our Lord bless You.
Vedran from Croatia
Thanks for the e-mail. You are correct: a forced baptism would be invalid. Desire is a necessary disposition for one above the age of reason to have in receiving baptism.
Catechism of the Council of Trent, On Baptism - Dispositions for Baptism, Tan Books, p. 180: "INTENTION - ... In the first place they must desire and intend to receive it…"