Baptize in Emergencies?

[MulusChristi]

Greetings Brothers and Sisters,

I am leading a group of Boy Scouts thru their Ad Altere Dei medal, which is a Catholic religious medal.  The work focuses on sacraments and a question came up during our discussion of the sacrament of the sick.  

The moderator's guide says that, if we were to happen upon an unconcious accident victim, we should assume the victim would desire baptism and, as a baptized Christian, baptize them.  Obviously, we want the best for the victim, physically and spiritually, but this seems to infringe on their free will.  My question is, is this ethical and the optimal response?  If there is an official Church teaching on this, I'd like to pass it on to the boys.  I don't remember seeing this point in the CCC.

Thanks in advance for your contributions,

                  In Christ, Mulus

 

[TableServant]

Mulus,

I can’t imagine who wrote the moderator’s guide that you are using, but on this point, I believe it is incorrect. While I don’t have relevant citations at hand (I’m posting from work at the end of my lunch break), I can say that baptism does require intent and consent of the person to be baptized, or, in the case of a child, their guardian (parent). You cannot baptize a person against their wishes, and, without their conscious assent, you can’t know this person’s desire.

During the regular baptismal rite (e.g., not baptism in an emergency), there are questions that are asked of the individual or their parents regarding their intent to live out their baptismal promises (as the deacon baptising children, I usually go over these questions and responses with parents in some depth during preparation - classes before the rite). While, in an emergency, that intent can be reduced to the person or their parent asking for the baptism itself, it cannot be ommitted.

Of course, then again, you also cannot discount the possibility that the individual is already baptized!

If someone has the Rite of Baptism handy, I believe that there are relevant passages in the introductory text, and, as always, if someone has something contradictory, please post that, as well.

P.S. Thank you, and God Bless you for assisting these young men in learning more about their faith through this medal.

 

[axolotl]

MulusChristi:

The moderator’s guide says that, if we were to happen upon an unconcious accident victim, we should assume the victim would desire baptism and, as a baptized Christian, baptize them.

I learned the same thing in second grade religion class. Sr. even said use spit if there is no water handy.

Wonder if she was wrong about this.

 

[TableServant]

axolotl:

I learned the same thing in second grade religion class. Sr. even said use spit if there is no water handy.

Wonder if she was wrong about this.

Wow - while I would certainly look for some other source of water, I would say that she is correct in this. Human spittle is water, which, in an emergency, is the one element needed (though arguments for baptism of desire could, of course, be made, in an emergency and in absence of a baptized person to be the minister of the sacrament). I’d just have to really be in an emergency situation with absolutely no access to water, though!

 

[Joe_Monahan]

Canon 864 Every unbaptised person, and only such a person, can be baptised.

**Canon 865 §1 To be admitted to baptism, an adult must have manifested the intention to receive baptism, must be adequately instructed in the truths of the faith and in the duties of a christian, and tested in the christian life over the course of the catechumenate. The person must moreover be urged to have sorrow for personal sins. **

**§2 An adult in danger of death may be baptised if, with some knowledge of the principal truths of the faith, he or she has in some manner manifested the intention to receive baptism and promises to observe the requirements of the christian religion. **

There is no presumption of desire under Canon Law.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

MulusChristi:

Greetings Brothers and Sisters,

I am leading a group of Boy Scouts thru their Ad Altere Dei medal, which is a Catholic religious medal. The work focuses on sacraments and a question came up during our discussion of the sacrament of the sick.

The moderator’s guide says that, if we were to happen upon an unconcious accident victim, we should assume the victim would desire baptism and, as a baptized Christian, baptize them. Obviously, we want the best for the victim, physically and spiritually, but this seems to infringe on their free will. My question is, is this ethical and the optimal response? If there is an official Church teaching on this, I’d like to pass it on to the boys. I don’t remember seeing this point in the CCC.

Thanks in advance for your contributions,

In Christ, Mulus

That is correct. The Church wants to take no chances if a person is near death or has a real possibility of dying. They should be Baptized. Only if a person is not seriously injured or not seriously ill should Baptism wait. Canon Law says that a child or infant should be Baptized if near death even against the parents wishes. So only if a person specifically and intentionally refuses Baptism they should not be, otherwise they should be Baptized no matter what any others around them say.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

TableServant:

Wow - while I would certainly look for some other source of water, I would say that she is correct in this. Human spittle is water, which, in an emergency, is the one element needed (though arguments for baptism of desire could, of course, be made, in an emergency and in absence of a baptized person to be the minister of the sacrament). I’d just have to really be in an emergency situation with absolutely no access to water, though!

Human spittle is NOT water as far as validity as an element of Baptism.

 

[MulusChristi]

Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Thanks for the help so far; just the high quality info I have come to expect from skulking around on these pages .

Joe, from your quote of Canon law, I assume the answer then is no, do not baptize unless there is evidence of desire.

Bro. Rich, what is the source of your conviction that they should be baptized unless specifically refused?

In framing my original question, I was presupposing that we were talking about a previously unbaptized person. Of course, I am not holy enough to be able to distinguish the baptized from the unbaptized, and in a real situation we probably would not know. If the rule were to always baptize, one risks rebaptizing the baptized, but given the severity of the presumed situation, I would consider this a minor concern.

The guide for this religious medal comes from the National Catholic Committee on Scouting (website here:
nccs-bsa.org/#whatIs)), which works with the USCCB secretariat on the Laity on Family Life. I have found the guide to
be less than satisfactory (very 70’s and 80’s in catechetical style) and have learned not to trust it on doctrinal issues. The section on Eucharist would make a Lutheran very comfortable, so I beefed that discussion up with transubstantiation and supporting scripture.
In Christ, Mulus

 

[viktor_aleksndr]

in case of adult he must be informed or the willingness to be baptised. but in case of infant the parents will decide wether the infant be baptised or not.

one doesn’t need a handy booklet of rite of baptism. what he need is a pure water (water in the faucet, river, creeks etc.).

But be sure that the person that you will be baptised is still alive.

If you are not sure if the person is baptised or not then you just say “if thou is not yet baptised i baptised thee in the name of …”

If you are not sure if the person is still alive then you can say
" If thou art alive i baptised thee in the name of …"

Then pour water in the forehead three times once in each name of the Holy Trinity.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

MulusChristi:

Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Thanks for the help so far; just the high quality info I have come to expect from skulking around on these pages .

Joe, from your quote of Canon law, I assume the answer then is no, do not baptize unless there is evidence of desire.

Bro. Rich, what is the source of your conviction that they should be baptized unless specifically refused?

In framing my original question, I was presupposing that we were talking about a previously unbaptized person. Of course, I am not holy enough to be able to distinguish the baptized from the unbaptized, and in a real situation we probably would not know. If the rule were to always baptize, one risks rebaptizing the baptized, but given the severity of the presumed situation, I would consider this a minor concern.

The guide for this religious medal comes from the National Catholic Committee on Scouting (website here:
nccs-bsa.org/#whatIs)), which works with the USCCB secretariat on the Laity on Family Life. I have found the guide to
be less than satisfactory (very 70’s and 80’s in catechetical style) and have learned not to trust it on doctrinal issues. The section on Eucharist would make a Lutheran very comfortable, so I beefed that discussion up with transubstantiation and supporting scripture.

In Christ, Mulus

My view comes from the teaching of the Church on the necessity of Baptism. When in doubt err on the side of Salvation. If unsure a conditional form would be appropriate. The Church allows anyone, Baptized or not, in any circumstances, anywhere, to Baptize another person validly. Because of the necessity of Sacramental Baptism. The Canon Law quoted applies to most cases of Baptism where a person is able to respond. If death is imminent a simple are you Baptized? “no” Do you want to be Baptized? “yes” is all that is necessary. Instruction in the Faith can follow if they happen to survive.