Emergency baptism by layperson, baptized Catholic?

[anp1215]

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?

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

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

 

[SecretGarden]

In an ideal world, you would want a Catholic priest, but with the shortage of priests and in dire emergencies I know health workers are allowed without a priest present. Ideally first choice, you want someone who is Catholic but if no one is around, or time doesn’t permit to locate one. Second choice: active Christian from any denomination as long as they believe in the holy trinitarian baptism. Chances are: there will be someone from option one or two. If that isn’t possible, Catholics believe that a grace occurs when a non-christian regardless if they are agnostic or Muslim preforms the baptism. With option three, if the person survives, once they are able, they can always speak with their priest who can make the final decision to accept it as valid or not. Emergencies occur sometimes and that’s where we need to believe in God that he will provide extra grace in these situations.

 

[EasterJoy]

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

This is a very good question. I’d think it would only come up when the question arose about whether you needed to be received into the Church prior to Holy Communion or Confirmation.

I would imagine it depends upon whether you were baptised having parents who held the intention that you would be raised in the faith of the Catholic Church. If your baptism was reported to a priest soon after you were baptised, so that it could be recorded in the parish record, or if there was other evidence that the intention was that you would be raised so that you considered the faith and the Catholic faith to be the same thing, I’d think you would not go through the ritual of being received into the Church prior to Holy Communion and/or Confirmation.

Still, I’d be interested to hear what the real answer is!

 

[anp1215]

In an ideal world, you would want a Catholic priest, but with the shortage of priests and in dire emergencies I know health workers are allowed without a priest present. Ideally first choice, you want someone who is Catholic but if no one is around, or time doesn’t permit to locate one. Second choice: active Christian from any denomination as long as they believe in the holy trinitarian baptism. Chances are: there will be someone from option one or two. If that isn’t possible, Catholics believe that a grace occurs when a non-christian regardless if they are agnostic or Muslim preforms the baptism. With option three, if the person survives, once they are able, they can always speak with their priest who can make the final decision to accept it as valid or not. Emergencies occur sometimes and that’s where we need to believe in God that he will provide extra grace in these situations.

Sorry, I think you misunderstood my question. I am asking if a person baptized by a layman is baptized Catholic. I know they’re validly baptized.

This is a very good question. I’d think it would only come up when the question arose about whether you needed to be received into the Church prior to Holy Communion or Confirmation.

I would imagine it depends upon whether you were baptised having parents who held the intention that you would be raised in the faith of the Catholic Church. If your baptism was reported to a priest soon after you were baptised, so that it could be recorded in the parish record, or if there was other evidence that the intention was that you would be raised so that you considered the faith and the Catholic faith to be the same thing, I’d think you would not go through the ritual of being received into the Church prior to Holy Communion and/or Confirmation.

Still, I’d be interested to hear what the real answer is!

Yeah I thought it was an interesting question. Actually the situation I was thinking of would be two people who decide they want to become Catholic. The husband is baptized and practicing Lutheran. The wife wasn’t raised in any denomination, but she was baptized by her Catholic aunt in the hospital when she was born because she came close to death after birth. So…is the wife already Catholic? If she is, they would need a convalidation. So the answer to this question has a lot of effects. (Note this is a hypothetical situation)

 

[Corki]

Yeah I thought it was an interesting question. Actually the situation I was thinking of would be two people who decide they want to become Catholic. The husband is baptized and practicing Lutheran. The wife wasn’t raised in any denomination, but she was baptized by her Catholic aunt in the hospital when she was born because she came close to death after birth. So…is the wife already Catholic? If she is, they would need a convalidation. So the answer to this question has a lot of effects. (Note this is a hypothetical situation)

In the case of an emergency Baptism by a lay person, the procedure is to have the Baptism recorded in the parish record. I believe this is done even if the child does not survive. If this was done, the wife is undisputably Catholic. If not, it’s a good question. If the aunt is alive or someone can testify to the Baptism, she would be considered Catholic, I think.

 

[anp1215]

In the case of an emergency Baptism by a lay person, the procedure is to have the Baptism recorded in the parish record. I believe this is done even if the child does not survive. If this was done, the wife is undisputably Catholic. If not, it’s a good question. If the aunt is alive or someone can testify to the Baptism, she would be considered Catholic, I think.

If the baptism was recorded, I would think it would be treated as though the wife is certainly Catholic and hence bound by Canon law.

If it wasn’t, though, it’s an interesting scenario. If the aunt has since passed away, what then? Conditional convalidation? Is there such a thing?

 

[runningdude]

This is a question that I am sure has an official answer. Hopefully one of the priests will see this thread in the morning and chime in .

 

[Joe_5859]

In your hypothetical situation, I would encourage the couple to make use of their diocesan Tribunal office to sort it all out.

 

[EasterJoy]

In the case of an emergency Baptism by a lay person, the procedure is to have the Baptism recorded in the parish record. I believe this is done even if the child does not survive. If this was done, the wife is undisputably Catholic. If not, it’s a good question. If the aunt is alive or someone can testify to the Baptism, she would be considered Catholic, I think.

I was thinking of the case of where a Lutheran baptised the child of a Catholic parent or Catholic parents. If the child was raised Catholic by her parents, the child would not have to formally enter the Catholic Church, would she? Or when they took the child to be prepared for 1st Holy Communion, would the child have to go through RCIC, as if she were changing denominations? I would think that if a Catholic baptised her, but the baptism had never been recorded* because *she had Lutheran parents and had been raised Lutheran as they’d always intended, she’d be considered Lutheran and would need to go through RCIC, even though the person who baptised her was a Catholic layperson.

But what if the parents, though baptised Catholic themselves, had not raised her with any practice that was specifically Catholic or had started taking her to church within another denomination the meantime? If her baptism hadn’t already been registered at a Catholic parish way back when, maybe she’d be a candidate for RCIC…well, I don’t know! Maybe the pastor would interview the child and decide if she had been raised Catholic?

No lo sé

 

[Phemie]

It’s an interesting question.

Our pastor was visiting a mission in a community a few hundred Km from our parish. The Anglican priest was supposed to be there that weekend, visiting his own mission, but there was a storm and the flight was cancelled. An Anglican family had planned for a Baptism at their service that Sunday and family had flown in to attend. The Anglican priest asked our pastor to perform the Baptism and told him he could do the Catholic rite but our pastor opted to use the Anglican rite for that family.

I was told in no uncertain terms that the very fact that that baby was baptized by a Catholic priest made him a Catholic bound by Canon Law even though the priest had no such intention. Doesn’t the fact that even a non-Christian can baptize a child Catholic as long as he has the intention of doing what the Church does mean that a priest could baptize a child ‘Anglican’ as long as he has that intention?

 

[runningdude]

It’s an interesting question.

Our pastor was visiting a mission in a community a few hundred Km from our parish. The Anglican priest was supposed to be there that weekend, visiting his own mission, but there was a storm and the flight was cancelled. An Anglican family had planned for a Baptism at their service that Sunday and family had flown in to attend. The Anglican priest asked our pastor to perform the Baptism and told him he could do the Catholic rite but our pastor opted to use the Anglican rite for that family.

I was told in no uncertain terms that the very fact that that baby was baptized by a Catholic priest made him a Catholic bound by Canon Law even though the priest had no such intention. Doesn’t the fact that even a non-Christian can baptize a child Catholic as long as he has the intention of doing what the Church does mean that a priest could baptize a child ‘Anglican’ as long as he has that intention?

I’d image this has a simple answer: Did the priest ask the family during the rite if the child would be raised Catholic? Did the family answer “yes”? If the baptism took place despite a “no” to answer either question, I would image that the child simply received baptism without any formal obligation to join/remain in the church.

Again, hopefully a priest will happen by and clarify this all!

 

[Phemie]

I’d image this has a simple answer: Did the priest ask the family during the rite if the child would be raised Catholic? Did the family answer “yes”? If the baptism took place despite a “no” to answer either question, I would image that the child simply received baptism without any formal obligation to join/remain in the church.

Again, hopefully a priest will happen by and clarify this all!

I don’t have the rite at hand but I don’t think the Catholic rite asks about raising the child ‘Catholic’, just about raising him/her in the Faith. The Anglican rite is pretty close to the same words. I’d have to compare the two to see if there was a major difference. IIRC, the Profession of Faith is the same in both rites.

 

[dans0622]

… 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?

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

Hello,

Several remarks. 1. The general rule is that a baby belongs to the Church/ecclesial community of the minister of baptism. To regularly allow ministers to baptize people into other Churches/ecclesial communities–on their own volition–would open the door to all sorts of doubts and it would be practically impossible to have a workable standard by which we could know who is baptized into this or that faith. That being said, there are extraordinary circumstances when, for example, a Catholic could be asked to baptize a baby into another community and, for the sake of the salvation of the baby, the Catholic could agree to do it. Since we can’t force people to be Catholic, it follows that the baby would be whatever faith the parents desire. In any event, this should not happen unless absolutely necessary: if a parent is there and can baptize, the parent should do it, not the Catholic.

1. It isn’t possible (except in one strange circumstance that I can think of, that is not worth mentioning) to be “just baptized” and not part of a particular Church/ecclesial community. Nevertheless, the membership of the person might be difficult to determine.
2. The reporting of a baptism to the local parish is what makes the baby’s membership in the Catholic Church a public fact. If the minister of baptism was Catholic, this reporting would not really change anything but would make the facts clear/more easily proven. However, if it should happen that a (e.g.) Lutheran baptized a baby but then the baptism was recorded in a Catholic parish, that would be a sort of “reception into full communion” for that baby: the parents request the child to be part of the Catholic Church and the Church accepts that request.
3. In the Church, we depend on baptismal records to establish someone’s status. So, if someone says “I was baptized by my Catholic aunt” but there is no record of this anywhere, the Church would try to establish the fact of the baptism through testimony. If there is absolutely no corroboration of the “story,” then the baptismal status is doubtful. Such a person would have to be baptized (at least conditionally). To be safe, it would be best to convalidate the marriage as long as there is doubt about the baptism. (There is no such thing as a conditional convalidation.)

I hope this makes sense.
Dan

 

[Anna_Claire]

rpinet.com/ml/2410bi1.html

 

[anp1215]

Hello,

Several remarks. 1. The general rule is that a baby belongs to the Church/ecclesial community of the minister of baptism. To regularly allow ministers to baptize people into other Churches/ecclesial communities–on their own volition–would open the door to all sorts of doubts and it would be practically impossible to have a workable standard by which we could know who is baptized into this or that faith. That being said, there are extraordinary circumstances when, for example, a Catholic could be asked to baptize a baby into another community and, for the sake of the salvation of the baby, the Catholic could agree to do it. Since we can’t force people to be Catholic, it follows that the baby would be whatever faith the parents desire. In any event, this should not happen unless absolutely necessary: if a parent is there and can baptize, the parent should do it, not the Catholic.

1. It isn’t possible (except in one strange circumstance that I can think of, that is not worth mentioning) to be “just baptized” and not part of a particular Church/ecclesial community. Nevertheless, the membership of the person might be difficult to determine.
2. The reporting of a baptism to the local parish is what makes the baby’s membership in the Catholic Church a public fact. If the minister of baptism was Catholic, this reporting would not really change anything but would make the facts clear/more easily proven. However, if it should happen that a (e.g.) Lutheran baptized a baby but then the baptism was recorded in a Catholic parish, that would be a sort of “reception into full communion” for that baby: the parents request the child to be part of the Catholic Church and the Church accepts that request.
3. In the Church, we depend on baptismal records to establish someone’s status. So, if someone says “I was baptized by my Catholic aunt” but there is no record of this anywhere, the Church would try to establish the fact of the baptism through testimony. If there is absolutely no corroboration of the “story,” then the baptismal status is doubtful. Such a person would have to be baptized (at least conditionally). To be safe, it would be best to convalidate the marriage as long as there is doubt about the baptism. (There is no such thing as a conditional convalidation.)

I hope this makes sense.
Dan

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

rpinet.com/ml/2410bi1.html

Thank you but this wasn’t really what I was looking for.

 

[EasterJoy]

Hello,

Several remarks. 1. The general rule is that a baby belongs to the Church/ecclesial community of the minister of baptism. To regularly allow ministers to baptize people into other Churches/ecclesial communities–on their own volition–would open the door to all sorts of doubts and it would be practically impossible to have a workable standard by which we could know who is baptized into this or that faith. That being said, there are extraordinary circumstances when, for example, a Catholic could be asked to baptize a baby into another community and, for the sake of the salvation of the baby, the Catholic could agree to do it. Since we can’t force people to be Catholic, it follows that the baby would be whatever faith the parents desire. In any event, this should not happen unless absolutely necessary: if a parent is there and can baptize, the parent should do it, not the Catholic.

1. It isn’t possible (except in one strange circumstance that I can think of, that is not worth mentioning) to be “just baptized” and not part of a particular Church/ecclesial community. Nevertheless, the membership of the person might be difficult to determine.
2. The reporting of a baptism to the local parish is what makes the baby’s membership in the Catholic Church a public fact. If the minister of baptism was Catholic, this reporting would not really change anything but would make the facts clear/more easily proven. However, if it should happen that a (e.g.) Lutheran baptized a baby but then the baptism was recorded in a Catholic parish, that would be a sort of “reception into full communion” for that baby: the parents request the child to be part of the Catholic Church and the Church accepts that request.
3. In the Church, we depend on baptismal records to establish someone’s status. So, if someone says “I was baptized by my Catholic aunt” but there is no record of this anywhere, the Church would try to establish the fact of the baptism through testimony. If there is absolutely no corroboration of the “story,” then the baptismal status is doubtful. Such a person would have to be baptized (at least conditionally). To be safe, it would be best to convalidate the marriage as long as there is doubt about the baptism. (There is no such thing as a conditional convalidation.)

I hope this makes sense.
Dan

It was a totally theoretical question on my part, but this is extremely helpful! Thank you!

 

[thiltgen99]

Being baptized Catholic completely changes a person’s life, e.g. binds them to Canon Law. So I was wondering about this. http://www.infoocean.info/avatar4.jpg

 

[runningdude]

I don’t have the rite at hand but I don’t think the Catholic rite asks about raising the child ‘Catholic’, just about raising him/her in the Faith. The Anglican rite is pretty close to the same words. I’d have to compare the two to see if there was a major difference. IIRC, the Profession of Faith is the same in both rites.

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.

 

[adrift]

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59

1267 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

1272 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.83 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

Ephesians Chapter 4

5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism

The above is from the Catechism. There is only one baptism that is why when someone enters the Church they are not baptized if they were baptized in another Church. You can only receive baptism once.

 

[anp1215]

Ephesians Chapter 4

The above is from the Catechism. There is only one baptism that is why when someone enters the Church they are not baptized if they were baptized in another Church. You can only receive baptism once.

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