And in danger of death, one not only can one baptize, but one is morally bound to do so.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Am I allowed to Baptise people?
- Thread starter Nelka
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Bookcat
Guest
A not exactly. Usually. But not only. If danger of death were intended exclusively it would have said that. That is the usual circumstance but not the only one.“Urgent necessity” for baptism, given the definition of the sacrament, is the imminent loss of the salvation of the soul. This means danger of death ONLY.
Canon law specifically limits emergency baptism to danger of death only. This is what “urgent necessity” means in the context of baptism.
For example Christians living in places where there is persecution and no access to Priest or Deacon or Bishop to baptize…
As has happened in history…whole communities continued as Christians baptizing …but without a Priest available due to the circumstances for years and years and years …
That being said - outside danger of death…one is not to be baptizing…for that is ordinarily to be done by a Priest or Deacon.
I do not see how Canon Law allows for this situation. It’s reasonable, of course, but I don’t read how it can be allowed as the law currently stands. Canon law says “danger of death”.A not exactly. Usually. But not only. If danger of death were intended exclusively it would have said that. That is the usual circumstance but not the only one.
For example Christians living in places where there is persecution and no access to Priest or Deacon or Bishop to baptize…
As has happened in history…whole communities continued as Christians baptizing …but without a Priest available due to the circumstances for years and years and years …
That being said - outside danger of death…one is not to be baptizing…for that is ordinarily to be done by a Priest or Deacon.
I guess in the situation you posit, such a regular action will probably need to be addressed by some other canon law that the Bishop of the area engages to provide a regular faculty for normative lay baptisms, or maybe allow it by virtue of the “last-resort” canon law.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Canon Law says:I do not see how Canon Law allows for this situation. It’s reasonable, of course, but I don’t read how it can be allowed as the law currently stands. Canon law says “danger of death”.
§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2W.HTM
You are correct and it addresses your situation perfectly. This is the canon I was referring to that the bishop could engage.No that is not what it says…
Canon Law says:
§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2W.HTM
However, this does render the baptism regular now, not emergency, because there is a now deputed minister for the ceremony.
B
Bookcat
Guest
The cases I referred to – they had no Bishop.…(and were way prior to CIC 1983).You are correct and it addresses your situation perfectly. This is the canon I was referring to that the bishop could engage.
However, this does render the baptism regular now, not emergency, because there is a now deputed minister for the ceremony.
That being said note too that it says there no where in that canon that it is only the case of danger of death but rather “case of necessity.”
And furthermore it states (aside from cases that involve a Bishop deputing someone)
“*or in a case of necessity *any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly”
That opens quite readily the kind of situation of persecution I was referring too…
(again let me note for readers:
That being said - outside danger of death…one is not normally to be baptizing…for that is ordinarily to be done by a Priest or Deacon.).
P
pianistclare
Guest
Yes. And I believe the poster in question never said why he Baptized his daughters himself.
Yes, your interpretation I believe is correct.The cases I referred to – they had no Bishop.…(and were way prior to CIC 1983).
That being said note too that it says there no where in that canon that it is only the case of danger of death but rather “case of necessity.”
And furthermore it states (aside from cases that involve a Bishop deputing someone)
“*or in a case of necessity *any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly”
That opens quite readily the kind of situation of persecution I was referring too…
(again let me note for readers:
That being said - outside danger of death…one is not normally to be baptizing…for that is ordinarily to be done by a Priest or Deacon.).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.