Baptism by immersion: must the head be immersed for validity?

[babochka]

Actually it was not just from the radio guys put from information the radio guys loked up in the catechism.

they said (paraphrsing here) that in a valid baptism the water much touch the skin and flow. It said noting about touching the head.

It’s not like they grab this info from thin air… These “guys” can look this stuff up pretty quickly and are quite konwledgeable about this “Catholic stuff”

I heard that show, and my impression is that they remained in doubt as they concluded their answer, although they both leaned toward the position that it is valid. I can’t remember what they referenced when they looked it up, but they didn’t view it as a definitive answer.

Fr. Z is of the opinion that it is not valid.

catinfor.com/en/2010/08/02/quaeritur-validity-of-baptism-if-water-doesn%E2%80%99t-touch-the-head/

QUAERITUR: validity of baptism if water doesn’t touch the head

CatInfor.com recently was asked by a priest about a problematic baptism: The pastor of a local parish baptized a child supposedly by immersion. The head of the child was never touched with water.
Is this a valid baptism?
No. The baptism is not valid.
In researching this answer I consulted various authors and I also contacted the baptism man, so to speak, in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The CDF has competence to determine the validity of sacraments.
The answer from the baptism guy at the CDF came back to me this way: If no water has touched any part of the head, there was no baptism: it is invalid.
At least the back/base of the head needs to be in contact with water.
Keep this in mind. If you read around the internet, you might find that a few modern writers have opined that even if water does not touch the head, but it touches other parts of the body, the baptism is valid. According to the CDF, they are wrong. In baptism conferred in the rites of the Latin Church water must touch some part of the the head, even it it runs only on the hair. Water touching the head for baptism is part of the most ancient of all Christian rites.
Also, the reliable St. Alphonsus Liguori, whose feast it is today in the traditional Roman calendar, says that – in an emergency a person is baptized but water could not reach the head, then if the person survives the baptism must be repeated conditionally.
So here is a message for priests:
If you are too thick to do immersion properly,* just don’t do it*. Otherwise, next time throw yourself into the immersion pool, preferably wearing a millstone.
Remember: All people have the right to seek their own responses. If someone doesn’t like my answer, fine. You would be wrong, but you may write to your bishops and you may write to the Holy See for clarifications. You will get the answer I just gave.
Some water must touch some part of the head.

 

[FriendlySkeptic]

Water must at least touch the head.

If the priest just dipped the baby, for example, butt first and only the butt/torso got wet this is NOT a valid baptism. You can find info on “butt baptisms” at places like Fr Z’s blog. Fr. Z received confirmation from the CDF that the head MUST touch water.

Who is Fr. Z? Just another blogger with an opinion? Where is his CDF document providing “confirmation from the CDF”??

Looks to me like this letter from the CDF totally contradicts Fr. Z:

cleansingfiredor.com/2012/07/rome-responds-any-part-of-the-body-is-sufficient-for-valid-baptism/

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Fr. Z is a Catholic priest and deserves respect. A clarification regarding your link is that the letter is from the Congregation for Divine Worship, not the CDF. The blogger posted a note from another priest in an update at the bottom.

The CDW [whom the above letter is from] says how sacraments should be celebrated and will impose discipline. The CDF [for which +Di Noia previously was the undersecratary] determines if the sacraments and their celebration are valid. I consulted an official of the CDF about this question and got a different response. The above letter doesn’t resolve the point, but it is interesting.

Sounds like it would be safer to just baptize people’s heads.

 

[FrDavid96]

Here’s a quote from the 1964 edition of the Roman Ritual

1. No child is to be baptized while still enclosed in the mother’s womb, as long as there is a probable hope that it can be properly brought forth and then baptized. If only the head of the child has come forth and there is danger of its dying, it should be baptized on the head; if afterward it is born and lives, baptism may not be repeated conditionally. If another member of the body makes its appearance and there is danger of death, the baptism should be conferred conditionally upon that member; if the child lives after birth it must be rebaptized conditionally. Should a mother die in confinement, the fetus should be extracted by those obliged thereto by their profession, and if there is a certainty that it lives, it should be baptized absolutely, otherwise conditionally. A fetus baptized while in the mother’s womb must be rebaptized conditionally after birth.

It gives us some insight into the mind of the Church.

Baptism when only a part of the body is accessible is permitted, however, there’s a stipulation that baptism should be conferred conditionally afterwards if the water did not touch the head.

So, on the one hand, baptism where the water doesn’t touch the head MIGHT be valid, but on the other hand there’s also the requirement to baptize conditionally afterwards.

I think this will cause more confusion than it helps, but nevertheless it does show us the mind of the Church.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Here’s a quote from the 1964 edition of the Roman Ritual

1. No child is to be baptized while still enclosed in the mother’s womb, as long as there is a probable hope that it can be properly brought forth and then baptized. If only the head of the child has come forth and there is danger of its dying, it should be baptized on the head; if afterward it is born and lives, baptism may not be repeated conditionally. If another member of the body makes its appearance and there is danger of death, the baptism should be conferred conditionally upon that member; if the child lives after birth it must be rebaptized conditionally. Should a mother die in confinement, the fetus should be extracted by those obliged thereto by their profession, and if there is a certainty that it lives, it should be baptized absolutely, otherwise conditionally. A fetus baptized while in the mother’s womb must be rebaptized conditionally after birth.

It gives us some insight into the mind of the Church.

Baptism when only a part of the body is accessible is permitted, however, there’s a stipulation that baptism should be conferred conditionally afterwards if the water did not touch the head.

So, on the one hand, baptism where the water doesn’t touch the head MIGHT be valid, but on the other hand there’s also the requirement to baptize conditionally afterwards.

I think this will cause more confusion than it helps, but nevertheless it does show us the mind of the Church.

That is very good help, father.

 

[FriendlySkeptic]

Here’s a quote from the 1964 edition of the Roman Ritual

1. No child is to be baptized while still enclosed in the mother’s womb, as long as there is a probable hope that it can be properly brought forth and then baptized. If only the head of the child has come forth and there is danger of its dying, it should be baptized on the head; if afterward it is born and lives, baptism may not be repeated conditionally. If another member of the body makes its appearance and there is danger of death, the baptism should be conferred conditionally upon that member; if the child lives after birth it must be rebaptized conditionally. Should a mother die in confinement, the fetus should be extracted by those obliged thereto by their profession, and if there is a certainty that it lives, it should be baptized absolutely, otherwise conditionally. A fetus baptized while in the mother’s womb must be rebaptized conditionally after birth.

It gives us some insight into the mind of the Church.

Baptism when only a part of the body is accessible is permitted, however, there’s a stipulation that baptism should be conferred conditionally afterwards if the water did not touch the head.

So, on the one hand, baptism where the water doesn’t touch the head MIGHT be valid, but on the other hand there’s also the requirement to baptize conditionally afterwards.

I think this will cause more confusion than it helps, but nevertheless it does show us the mind of the Church.

Fr. David, thank you for this citation. However, I’ve come to learn in my exploration of the Catholic Church that the “baby was thrown out with the bath water” (no pun intended) since Vatican II.

Therefore, is the 1964 edition of the Roman Ritual still in force, or has it also been superceded? What is the “current” law of the Church?

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David, thank you for this citation. However, I’ve come to learn in my exploration of the Catholic Church that the “baby was thrown out with the bath water” (no pun intended) since Vatican II.

Therefore, is the 1964 edition of the Roman Ritual still in force, or has it also been superceded? What is the “current” law of the Church?

We need to make a distinction here between “what is the current ritual law?” and “what constitutes validity?”

Ritual can and does change. However, what constitutes a valid sacrament does not.

(Now, the exception here is when the validity of a sacrament depends upon the law itself----so the Church can change laws about jurisdiction for the validity of a marriage…but that’s an altogether different topic).

The 1964 edition of the Roman Ritual is actually the current Ritual form in the Latin Rite—it’s called the “Extraordinary Form”

The point is that what constituted a valid baptism, in the eyes of the Church, in 1964 still applies today, even if the ritual itself has been revised.

The reason why the Roman Ritual of 1964 can sometimes be very useful is because the “new” rites often omit the explanatory notes that the previous editions had.

 

[FriendlySkeptic]

Fr. David,

This is getting more and more convoluted.

My layman’s understanding of this document ben.cleansingfiredor.com/img/dinoia.jpg is that a “butt baptism” would be valid because of this key sentence:

“However, it has been the clear opinion of theologians – an opinion never rejected by the hierarchy – that the recitation of the proper Baptismal formula in conjunction with water contacting any part of the body is sufficient for the validity of the Sacrament.”

Note the phrase “any part of the body is sufficient for validity”. This contradicts the claim by Fr. Z. Perhaps Fr. Z hasn’t see this document from Rome yet?

 

[FrDavid96]

Fr. David,

This is getting more and more convoluted.

My layman’s understanding of this document ben.cleansingfiredor.com/img/dinoia.jpg is that a “butt baptism” would be valid because of this key sentence:

“However, it has been the clear opinion of theologians – an opinion never rejected by the hierarchy – that the recitation of the proper Baptismal formula in conjunction with water contacting any part of the body is sufficient for the validity of the Sacrament.”

Note the phrase “any part of the body is sufficient for validity”. This contradicts the claim by Fr. Z. Perhaps Fr. Z hasn’t see this document from Rome yet?

I don’t think they contradict each other.

In N. 198/11/L

Note the concluding sentence “this Dicastery cannot recommend any practices for Baptism other than complete immersion, or the pouring of the water over the head.”

I think this is in complete harmony with Fr. Z’s statement “Just don’t do it!” although the word choice is a bit different.

We need to keep in mind that if the water does not touch the head, the Church insists on a conditional Baptism.

Also, you have to understand “Romespeak”
Understand that
“an opinion never rejected by the hierarchy”
is not the same thing as
“an opinion accepted by the hierarchy”
My point, here, is that we cannot take the statement too far. By no means is the Dicastery saying “go out and do it this way.” or even “there’s nothing wrong with doing it this way.”

The Archbishop Secretary does refer to the “old manuals” (meaning the 1964 Ritual and earlier) which state that any body part could be baptized, however, what he does not mention is that the same texts also required a conditional baptism later, if that was possible. I don’t know why he didn’t mention it, but I will say that it’s important to note that the 2nd baptism was “conditional” and we must not confuse that saying that the 2nd baptism was absolute.

I think we can all conclude that both the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Divine Worship would both agree with Fr. Z’s so eloquently phrased conclusion:

Just don’t do it!

 

[dans0622]

…This is getting more and more convoluted.

My layman’s understanding of this document ben.cleansingfiredor.com/img/dinoia.jpg is that a “butt baptism” would be valid because of this key sentence:

“However, it has been the clear opinion of theologians – an opinion never rejected by the hierarchy – that the recitation of the proper Baptismal formula in conjunction with water contacting any part of the body is sufficient for the validity of the Sacrament.”

Note the phrase “any part of the body is sufficient for validity”. This contradicts the claim by Fr. Z. Perhaps Fr. Z hasn’t see this document from Rome yet?

Hello,

Frankly, I think Archbishop DiNoia went a little too far there. The requirement for conditional baptism if the person does not have water on the head (as noted in the post from Fr. David) obviously suggests that the Church had doubts about the validity of baptism when “water contact(ed) any part of the body” other than the head. The Code of 1917 had similar requirements in c. 746. Speaking of going a little too far, I think the correspondent of Fr. Z went a little too far, too. You may notice that Fr. Z’s post about the “baptism man” at the CDF is no longer up for public viewing at his blog.

The noted canonist Cappello said that one can speculate that baptism is valid if water flows over any notable part of the body, like the chest or shoulder. Other canonists might be more certain that a baptism is valid if the water flows over a substantial part of the body (see Huels, Liturgy and Law, p. 192, note 15).

The bottom line, in my opinion, is: If water flows over the head, the baptism is certainly, always valid–all other necessary elements being in place. I think everyone would agree with that. If the water does not touch the head but only some other substantial part of the body, maybe it is valid and maybe it isn’t. If it touches only some insignificant part (finger or toe), it’s probably not valid but it might still be.

Therefore, to remove all doubt about such an important matter, baptism should be repeated conditionally if no water touched the person’s head.

Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

Hello,

Frankly, I think Archbishop DiNoia went a little too far there. …

Dan

In what way?

I think if we read just the one sentence “it has been the clear opinion of theologians…”
then it appears he went too far.

On the other hand, when we read the letter in its entirety and especially the conclusion “this Dicastery cannot recommend any practices for Baptism other than…”

That part seems (to me) to considerably temper the first part.

That’s why I am curious as to why you think he went too far?

 

[FriendlySkeptic]

I don’t think they contradict each other.

In N. 198/11/L

Note the concluding sentence “this Dicastery cannot recommend any practices for Baptism other than complete immersion, or the pouring of the water over the head.”

I think this is in complete harmony with Fr. Z’s statement “Just don’t do it!” although the word choice is a bit different.

We need to keep in mind that if the water does not touch the head, the Church insists on a conditional Baptism.

Also, you have to understand “Romespeak”
Understand that
“an opinion never rejected by the hierarchy”
is not the same thing as
“an opinion accepted by the hierarchy”
My point, here, is that we cannot take the statement too far. By no means is the Dicastery saying “go out and do it this way.” or even “there’s nothing wrong with doing it this way.”

The Archbishop Secretary does refer to the “old manuals” (meaning the 1964 Ritual and earlier) which state that any body part could be baptized, however, what he does not mention is that the same texts also required a conditional baptism later, if that was possible. I don’t know why he didn’t mention it, but I will say that it’s important to note that the 2nd baptism was “conditional” and we must not confuse that saying that the 2nd baptism was absolute.

I think we can all conclude that both the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Divine Worship would both agree with Fr. Z’s so eloquently phrased conclusion:

Just don’t do it!

Yet Fr. Z says: “If water does not touch the head, baptism is invalid.”
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/06/quaeritur-baptism-practices-again-fr-z-rants/

 

[FrDavid96]

Yet Fr. Z says: “If water does not touch the head, baptism is invalid.”
wdtprs.com/blog/2009/06/quaeritur-baptism-practices-again-fr-z-rants/

Yes. I did read that.

If it were me, my choice of words would be “the validity of the baptism is doubtful, at best”…

…and I would further add that if I found myself in such a situation* I would (without any hesitation) perform a conditional baptism.

---

• Not “my” baptism, of course, but the baptism of one of my parishioners