Emergency baptism by layperson, baptized Catholic?

[runningdude]

It being a Catholic ritual book, it would be implied. However, using an Anglican prayer book (which would be illicit - i.e. canonically illegal - to use in a Catholic context), in an Anglican mission, to a couple who understands there child to be baptized “Anglican”, I’m not sure there would be any reason to assume the child would be bound by Catholic Canon Law in such a situation.

As there is no valid canon law in Anglicanism, I’d image the child would simple be a baptized non-Catholic, and have no formal obligation to any church, even despite it being a Catholic priest performing the ceremony. Perhaps it would be best for the priest to politely refrain from performing the actual baptism, deferring it to another member of the Anglican mission. The priest could still attend as a witness, and even offer assurances to the hypothetical Anglican community that the baptism would be valid even performed by a layman.

I apologize, the Anglican missionary situation was not hypothetical…

 

[adrift]

Yes, I know this. That’s not what I was asking. Thank you though.

Another thread prompted my curiosity about something I have wondered about in the past.

If a baby is baptized by someone in the event of an emergency, is the baby considered to be baptized Catholic? Or just baptized? I know a layperson baptizing can report it to the local parish, does this change anything?.

Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."73

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: **"For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. **Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 "Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn."82

The baby is considered baptized into the Church. There isn’t such a thing as just baptized. Baptism

is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; **we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church **and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.82 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

Does the person doing the baptism affect this? For example, a Catholic, a Lutheran, an agnostic, etc?

No.

Being baptized Catholic completely changes a person’s life, e.g. binds them to Canon Law. So I was wondering about this

If this does not answer your question, then tell me why it doesn’t.

 

[BettyBoop416]

A friend of mine is actually in a situation similar to this. Her mother was raised Catholic but left the Church when she married my friend’s father. My friend’s grandparents were “not happy” about this fact, to use an extreme understatement. The father practiced no religion and as a result, my friend was not baptized in any church. However…one day while she was babysitting my friend, the grandmother got out her missal, looked up the rite for baptism, and proceeded to baptize her. Just as she finished the parents walked in. The father just about went into orbit and there was a very ugly scene. The baptism was never recorded in the Church. (At least not the grandmother’s parish.) Other than weddings and funerals, I doubt if my friend has ever had occasion to set foot in any church since that time.

Fast forward 20 years or so…my friend married a man who also practiced no religion. They were married at the courthouse by a judge.

Hypothetical question…according to the Church, would my friend’s marriage be valid?

 

[anp1215]

The baby is considered baptized into the Church. There isn’t such a thing as just baptized. Baptism

No.

If this does not answer your question, then tell me why it doesn’t.

Because there is such a thing as “just being baptized” without being Catholic. A baby who is baptized Episcopalian is not considered Catholic and thus not bound by Canon Law.

 

[runningdude]

…
The baby is considered baptized into the Church. There isn’t such a thing as just baptized. …
If this does not answer your question, then tell me why it doesn’t.

He is asking if an emergency Baptism binds the child to Catholic Canon law.

 

[anp1215]

He is asking if an emergency Baptism binds the child to Catholic Canon law.

Thank you.

 

[DhuAlQarnayn]

In the case of an emergency baptism whether the child is to be considered Catholic or not depends on the intentions of the parents or guardians. If they intend for the child to be Catholic, then he or she is Catholic and is thus bound by canon law. If they are not Catholic and do not intend for the child to be Catholic, even if the emergency baptism is done by a Catholic priest, they are not bound by canon law. If they are secretly baptized by an overbearing relative who wishes for them to be Catholic, but the parents themselves had no intention of having a Catholic baptism, then they are validly baptized but not Catholic. If it is impossible to determine whether or not a baptism actually occurred, then a conditional baptism (and a convalidation, if you’re married) should be performed.

Normally ministers should only baptize children into their own churches, but in extraordinary circumstances they may make exceptions. In the situation you described with the Anglican mission church, it would have been perfectly fine for the parents to baptize their child themselves, but there is no harm in a Catholic priest doing it if their own priest is unavailable. Likewise, if Catholic parents have their child baptized by an Anglican priest because their are no ordained Catholics available, the child will still be Catholic.

 

[runningdude]

In the case of an emergency baptism whether the child is to be considered Catholic or not depends on the intentions of the parents or guardians. If they intend for the child to be Catholic, then he or she is Catholic and is thus bound by canon law. If they are not Catholic and do not intend for the child to be Catholic, even if the emergency baptism is done by a Catholic priest, they are not bound by canon law. If they are secretly baptized by an overbearing relative who wishes for them to be Catholic, but the parents themselves had no intention of having a Catholic baptism, then they are validly baptized but not Catholic. If it is impossible to determine whether or not a baptism actually occurred, then a conditional baptism (and a convalidation, if you’re married) should be performed.
…

I appreciate this , as it is directly applicable to a real life situation I know of (and greatly alleviates the concerns I had about it!). Do you have citations in Canon law or elsewhere that I could follow up with?

 

[DhuAlQarnayn]

I appreciate this , as it is directly applicable to a real life situation I know of (and greatly alleviates the concerns I had about it!). Do you have citations in Canon law or elsewhere that I could follow up with?

Whether this point is explicitly covered in canon law I’m not sure, but I would start with Canon 868:

For an infant to be baptized licitly:

1. the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;

1. there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.

Without either of these conditions, the baptism would be illicit. The sacrament is conferred, but the recipient is not successfully brought into communion with the Catholic Church, and is therefore not bound by canon law.

 

[anp1215]

In the case of an emergency baptism whether the child is to be considered Catholic or not depends on the intentions of the parents or guardians. If they intend for the child to be Catholic, then he or she is Catholic and is thus bound by canon law. If they are not Catholic and do not intend for the child to be Catholic, even if the emergency baptism is done by a Catholic priest, they are not bound by canon law. If they are secretly baptized by an overbearing relative who wishes for them to be Catholic, but the parents themselves had no intention of having a Catholic baptism, then they are validly baptized but not Catholic. If it is impossible to determine whether or not a baptism actually occurred, then a conditional baptism (and a convalidation, if you’re married) should be performed.

Normally ministers should only baptize children into their own churches, but in extraordinary circumstances they may make exceptions. In the situation you described with the Anglican mission church, it would have been perfectly fine for the parents to baptize their child themselves, but there is no harm in a Catholic priest doing it if their own priest is unavailable. Likewise, if Catholic parents have their child baptized by an Anglican priest because their are no ordained Catholics available, the child will still be Catholic.

Thanks for this answer. This is helpful.

 

[Phemie]

Normally ministers should only baptize children into their own churches, but in extraordinary circumstances they may make exceptions. In the situation you described with the Anglican mission church, it would have been perfectly fine for the parents to baptize their child themselves, but there is no harm in a Catholic priest doing it if their own priest is unavailable. Likewise, if Catholic parents have their child baptized by an Anglican priest because their are no ordained Catholics available, the child will still be Catholic.

Do Anglicans see the parents baptizing their own children as a valid Baptism? We do, but do they?

 

[runningdude]

Whether this point is explicitly covered in canon law I’m not sure, but I would start with Canon 868:

Without either of these conditions, the baptism would be illicit. The sacrament is conferred, but the recipient is not successfully brought into communion with the Catholic Church, and is therefore not bound by canon law.

Ok, but by this logic, it would not have been acceptable for a Catholic priest to perform such a baptism in an Anglican setting. Illicit = illegal, which would be a big No No!

Since I do not hold all the facts, I will assume though that the priest acted properly based on some provision of law or custom I am not aware of.

 

[PLAT]

So say if the baby is in emergency, and a priest is rushing to the scene but not quite there yet, should a lay catholic present perform emergency baptism or wait until the priest arrives?

And if the baby survives after being baptised by a lay Catholic, would he/she be considered like any other babies baptised in the church if parents are Catholic enough?

 

[DhuAlQarnayn]

Ok, but by this logic, it would not have been acceptable for a Catholic priest to perform such a baptism in an Anglican setting. Illicit = illegal, which would be a big No No!

Since I do not hold all the facts, I will assume though that the priest acted properly based on some provision of law or custom I am not aware of.

No, because here the intent of the priest was to baptize the child as a Christian, not to bring them into the Catholic Church. If he then wrote up a certificate of Catholic baptism and entered it into his own parish records without the knowledge or consent of the parents, that would be illicit.

 

[DhuAlQarnayn]

So say if the baby is in emergency, and a priest is rushing to the scene but not quite there yet, should a lay catholic present perform emergency baptism or wait until the priest arrives?

And if the baby survives after being baptised by a lay Catholic, would he/she be considered like any other babies baptised in the church if parents are Catholic enough?

The effect is exactly the same whether the baptism is performed by the Pope or by the Muslim nurse, assuming water is used and the words are spoken correctly. If there is no impediment to having it done in a Catholic Church, then that is the proper course of action. But if there is a danger of imminent death, then anyone can do it.