Baptismal questions

[Among_Strangers]

Situation: A 1 to 2 yr old boy in emergency care of people other than his parents. The care givers self ID as Catholic. They discover the boy is not baptized.

Known action: One of the care givers along with a family friend baptized the boy with holy water.

Unknown action(s):
Why they didn’t just go to their priest instead of taking matters into hand.
What baptismal formula was used during their baptismal action.

My Questions:
Could this be a valid baptism?
If so how do I get it documented if the boy in question were to come into my care (foster or adopted parent)?
If this is not a valid baptism and the boy came into my care but I did not know if I would be raising him in my home permanently, am I allowed to seek his baptism into the Church?

I know I’ll be talking to Father about all this, but I wanted to get ya alls views too.

Thanks,
A.S.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

From what I understand, lay persons, not being ordinary ministers of the Sacrament of Baptism, are only allowed to baptize in cases of emergency (when the person to be baptized is in immediate danger of death), or in the case of extended absence of a priest, lay persons may be deputed by the bishop to baptize.

Furthermore, it is primarily the right and duty of parents to see that their children are baptized. Doing this without the parents’ permission denies them the right to make this important decision in the life of their child.

I know a devout Catholic couple who serve as foster parents for infant children. They are not allowed to have the children in their care baptized without the express permission of at least one of the child’s natural parents.

If such a baptism took place and was done in the proper way — pouring of water over the child and use of the Trinitarian formula, “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” with the intent of doing what the Church does when it baptizes, then it is a valid baptism. It may be illicit, i.e., it was done with disregard for the laws of the Church, but the child is truly baptized.

Baptism brings responsibilities with it. Once baptized, the child is obligated to follow all the laws of the Church. It is an injustice to a child to baptize when there is little or no hope that the child will be raised in the Church.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

To add one thing to Philothea’s excellent answer, it would be good to have this baptism recorded in church. Right now there’s no proof of his baptism and it could become an issue later on.

Something should also be done about the care-givers who took this on. Perhaps the priest could explain to them that they were way out of line in what they did.

 

[PhilotheaZ]

From the Code of Canon Law:

Can. 861 ß1 The ordinary minister of baptism is a Bishop, a priest or a deacon, without prejudice to the provision of can. 530, n. 1.

ß2 If the ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or some other person deputed to this office by the local Ordinary, may lawfully confer baptism; indeed, in a case of necessity, any person who has the requisite intention may do so. Pastors of souls, especially parish priests, are to be diligent in ensuring that Christ’s faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.

Can. 862 Except in a case of necessity, it is unlawful for anyone without due permission to confer baptism outside his own territory, not even upon his own subjects.

Can. 868 ß1 For an infant to be baptized lawfully it is required:

1ƒ that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;

2ƒ that there be a well founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.

ß2 An infant of Catholic parents, indeed even of non-Catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptized even if the parents are opposed to it.

 

[Phemie]

Someone who baptizes in an emergency, or even the way that was done as described by the OP, has a duty to inform the pastor of the parish where the baptism took place ASAP so that it can be recorded.

 

[Among_Strangers]

Can. 868 ß1 For an infant to be baptized lawfully it is required:

1ƒ that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent;

This did occur. The care giver has legal guardianship of the child in question and did consent to the action, albeit appearing to be illicit. The birth parents are bouncing between rehab and jail depending on what day of the week it is and have been so doing for over a year, thus the need for the emergency guardianship being granted through the court system.

2ƒ that there be a well founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this.

This is a big area for us (DW and I) because we simply do not know who the child will be raised by and we may not know for years. It is possible this child could come into our lives as a foster child pending a contested adoption. That process could be rather lengthy. Or, does this turn on the term “hope.” We hope he comes to be with us permanently but we really don’t know. What does “well founded hope” mean here? Maybe we have to wait until it is more certain of the child’s permanent placement?

ß2 An infant of Catholic parents, indeed even of non-Catholic parents, may in danger of death be baptized even if the parents are opposed to it.

Nonapplicable in this case as the child is not in danger of death.

 

[Among_Strangers]

Someone who baptizes in an emergency, or even the way that was done as described by the OP, has a duty to inform the pastor of the parish where the baptism took place ASAP so that it can be recorded.

I am pretty sure that didn’t happen. So now that I know sort of what happened through a third party I guess it’s up to me to find out for sure and let Father know? sigh Well, isn’t that just dandy? I wish I didn’t know anything about any of this.

 

[IrishAm]

In the long run, it should not be a problem. If the child is ultimately to be a member of the Church, the priest can conditionally baptize him/her – a baptism that basically says “if you have never been validly baptized before, this is your baptism . . . if you have been validly baptized before, it is not.”

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Situation: A 1 to 2 yr old boy in emergency care of people other than his parents. The care givers self ID as Catholic. They discover the boy is not baptized.

Known action: One of the care givers along with a family friend baptized the boy with holy water.

Unknown action(s):
Why they didn’t just go to their priest instead of taking matters into hand.
What baptismal formula was used during their baptismal action.

My Questions:
Could this be a valid baptism?
If so how do I get it documented if the boy in question were to come into my care (foster or adopted parent)?
If this is not a valid baptism and the boy came into my care but I did not know if I would be raising him in my home permanently, am I allowed to seek his baptism into the Church?

I know I’ll be talking to Father about all this, but I wanted to get ya alls views too.

Thanks,
A.S.

They may Baptise him if he is in danger of death and a priest or Deacon will not arrive quick enough.

If they have permanent legal custody of him they may request his Baptism in his parish church.

If thry Emergency Baptize him they are required to register the Baptism in the parish church where the Baptism took place.

Yes, if it’s not recorded, he may be conditionally Baptized, and that recorded.