Illicit Baptism?

[PapaMattK]

A week ago I attended the Baptism of my 8th Grand Child have a question regarding the validity of some of the Baptisms that were performed.

There were 15 children presented for Baptism. The parents were given the option of “Immersion” or Infusion" (pouring water over the head). My Gand daughter was Baptized by Infusion however, several other were Baptized by a “modified” Immersion method. That is, the Deacon held the head and feet up and simply dipped the childs butt into the baptismal font once. Never pouring water or submerging the child’s head in the water. Were those Baptism valid or do those children have to be Baptized again?

 

[TheDoctor]

I checked both the Code Of Canon Law (Canon 854) and the USCCB website and all they is “immersion” is one of the two valid methods for Baptism. I can’t find guidance for what exactly “immersion” means, however I presume that body immersion is what the Chruch had in mind. I would ask the pastor of the parish to be sure.
Warning - Personal Opinion Only: I don’t think the butt dunk baptisms are valid. Although I have known many whose head may have indeed been located in that region, I believe the idea behind immersion was at least have the water run over the head/upper torso.

 

[Cristiano]

A week ago I attended the Baptism of my 8th Grand Child have a question regarding the validity of some of the Baptisms that were performed.

There were 15 children presented for Baptism. The parents were given the option of “Immersion” or Infusion" (pouring water over the head). My Gand daughter was Baptized by Infusion however, several other were Baptized by a “modified” Immersion method. That is, the Deacon held the head and feet up and simply dipped the childs butt into the baptismal font once. Never pouring water or submerging the child’s head in the water. Were those Baptism valid or do those children have to be Baptized again?

Baptism with use of water is not a “conditio sine qua non”. What is critical is the intent and the use of the proper Trinitarian formula.

 

[TheDoctor]

Baptism with use of water is not a “conditio sine qua non”. What is critical is the intent and the use of the proper Trinitarian formula.

Cristiano - I am not sure I agree. According to Canon 849 (bold part is mine):Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.

The Canon seems to clearly state that water is required. Note that in an emergency, it does not have to be Holy Water per Canon 853:Apart from a case of necessity, the water to be used in conferring baptism must be blessed according to the prescripts of the liturgical books.
If Baptism without water is valid (other than Baptism of Desire), I would like to have a reference for my library. Would you have something you can kindly point me to?

 

[Cristiano]

Cristiano - I am not sure I agree. According to Canon 849 (bold part is mine):Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.

The Canon seems to clearly state that water is required. Note that in an emergency, it does not have to be Holy Water per Canon 853:Apart from a case of necessity, the water to be used in conferring baptism must be blessed according to the prescripts of the liturgical books.
If Baptism without water is valid (other than Baptism of Desire), I would like to have a reference for my library. Would you have something you can kindly point me to?

You are correct, I was referring to the case of necessity. I was just trying to make a point that sometimes it is difficult to automatically draw the line between licit/valid. illicit/valid and invalid sacraments. From my point of view that baptism is probably valid but illicit.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I checked both the Code Of Canon Law (Canon 854) and the USCCB website and all they is “immersion” is one of the two valid methods for Baptism. I can’t find guidance for what exactly “immersion” means, however I presume that body immersion is what the Chruch had in mind. I would ask the pastor of the parish to be sure.Warning - Personal Opinion Only: I don’t think the butt dunk baptisms are valid. Although I have known many whose head may have indeed been located in that region, I believe the idea behind immersion was at least have the water run over the head/upper torso.

From what I have read, water must run on the head. I have seen some discussion about wetting other parts of the body. From what I have read, the baptism is at best doubtful and should be repeated.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I checked both the Code Of Canon Law (Canon 854) and the USCCB website and all they is “immersion” is one of the two valid methods for Baptism. I can’t find guidance for what exactly “immersion” means, however I presume that body immersion is what the Chruch had in mind. I would ask the pastor of the parish to be sure.Warning - Personal Opinion Only: I don’t think the butt dunk baptisms are valid. Although I have known many whose head may have indeed been located in that region, I believe the idea behind immersion was at least have the water run over the head/upper torso.

Actually the Rite of Baptism mentions pouring water over the forehead. However in Emergencies pouring water on any accessable part of the preson is acceptable. It is required that the person be conditionally Baptized if they survive and are then their head is fully accessable.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Baptism with use of water is not a “conditio sine qua non”. What is critical is the intent and the use of the proper Trinitarian formula.

Form (words), Matter (water) and Intent (to do what the Church does) are ALL required for valid Baptism. Any one of the three missing and the Baptism is not valid.

 

[Cristiano]

Form (words), Matter (water) and Intent (to do what the Church does) are ALL required for valid Baptism. Any one of the three missing and the Baptism is not valid.

I disagree with you. As I stated before water is not necessary in case of emergency.

 

[cameron_lansing]

I disagree with you. As I stated before water is not necessary in case of emergency.

I’m just a canon lawyer myself, but I don’t understand what this means to say. Perhaps I am just being dense.

Canon 849, cited earlier, establishes the requirement of the formula, which the rite identifies, and the use of true water. When baptism is administered in fact, rather than by desire, both are required for validity, along with the intention to baptize by the one who administers it, and in the case of an adult, the intention to receive it.

If baptism is administered in an emergency, i.e., danger of death, true water remains among the requirements for its valid administration.

The use of holy water arises in the Rite of Baptism in that the rite calls for the water to be blessed, or during Easter season an invocatory prayer rather than a blessing is used. This is for liceity since the canon only requires true water and does not impose a further condition for validity.

In the case of baptism in danger of death, water, even if not blessed, is used according to the Rite.

 

[AMDGtoo]

From what I have read, water must run on the head. I have seen some discussion about wetting other parts of the body. From what I have read, the baptism is at best doubtful and should be repeated.

I have heard this too. EWTN’s Web of Faith had a similar question brought up to Fr. Levi and Fr. Trijillo. Both priests said that the water must run on the head, and they recommended that the Baptism be repeated (correctly).

 

[Cristiano]

I’m just a canon lawyer myself, but I don’t understand what this means to say. Perhaps I am just being dense.

Canon 849, cited earlier, establishes the requirement of the formula, which the rite identifies, and the use of true water. When baptism is administered in fact, rather than by desire, both are required for validity, along with the intention to baptize by the one who administers it, and in the case of an adult, the intention to receive it.

If baptism is administered in an emergency, i.e., danger of death, true water remains among the requirements for its valid administration.

The use of holy water arises in the Rite of Baptism in that the rite calls for the water to be blessed, or during Easter season an invocatory prayer rather than a blessing is used. This is for liceity since the canon only requires true water and does not impose a further condition for validity.

In the case of baptism in danger of death, water, even if not blessed, is used according to the Rite.

I checked again. You are right and I am wrong.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I disagree with you. As I stated before water is not necessary in case of emergency.

Incorrect. No water, no Sacramental Baptism!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Can. 849 Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.

Can. 854 Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed.

 

[jmcrae]

If I were the mother of any of those children, they would be receiving a kitchen sink baptism as soon as possible - if it’s to be immersion, the whole body is to be immersed, isn’t it?

 

[TheDoctor]

If I can sum up so far, are we mostly in agreement then that the butt baptisms are invalid and that the children need to be re-baptized? While the discussion has been interesting so far, I don’t want to lose sight of the OP’s original question and I am also concerned because this is probably not the first time it has been done that way and there may be more children with invalid baptisms.

PappaMattK - I think someone needs to talk to the Pastor (in charity) about this to at least understand his position on the matter.

P.S. - Is anyone else a little disturbed that the Deacon would baptize this way? Was he taught this or does he do it on his own? Why was the Sacrament offerred both ways if they were not going to fully immerse? (I can understand not wanting to undress the baby and dunk it - sorry if I make it sound like the baby is a donut - so this may be a good thought gone astray.)

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

If I can sum up so far, are we mostly in agreement then that the butt baptisms are invalid and that the children need to be re-baptized? While the discussion has been interesting so far, I don’t want to lose sight of the OP’s original question and I am also concerned because this is probably not the first time it has been done that way and there may be more children with invalid baptisms.

PappaMattK - I think someone needs to talk to the Pastor (in charity) about this to at least understand his position on the matter.

P.S. - Is anyone else a little disturbed that the Deacon would baptize this way? Was he taught this or does he do it on his own? Why was the Sacrament offerred both ways if they were not going to fully immerse? (I can understand not wanting to undress the baby and dunk it - sorry if I make it sound like the baby is a donut - so this may be a good thought gone astray.)

No, I’m not in agreement that these are invalid Baptisms. I say that these are questionable Baptisms and probably need to be looked into by the Bishop of the diocese.

 

[PapaMattK]

If I can sum up so far, are we mostly in agreement then that the butt baptisms are invalid and that the children need to be re-baptized? While the discussion has been interesting so far, I don’t want to lose sight of the OP’s original question and I am also concerned because this is probably not the first time it has been done that way and there may be more children with invalid baptisms.

PappaMattK - I think someone needs to talk to the Pastor (in charity) about this to at least understand his position on the matter.

P.S. - Is anyone else a little disturbed that the Deacon would baptize this way? Was he taught this or does he do it on his own? Why was the Sacrament offerred both ways if they were not going to fully immerse? (I can understand not wanting to undress the baby and dunk it - sorry if I make it sound like the baby is a donut - so this may be a good thought gone astray.)

 

[PapaMattK]

I agree that the “Pastor” needs to be approached. However, there isn’t any. The Baptisms took place in Norhtern California in an area that has a very odd set up, at least to me. Instead to having two separate Parishes, there are two Church communities sharing one set of Priests. While there are four Priest listed on the combined bulletin, they only reside at one of the Churches and the other Church has all lay people running it and “The Deacon”.

The bulliten list the name and phone number for a “Ombudsman” that one is to address all: suggestiion; concerns; and complaints. I was thinking of starting with him and then going to the Priest Prochial Administrator and finally the Bishop.

I first wanted to post on Catholic Answers to get some additional perspectives and advice. I would hate to bring up and issue and accuse a Deacon, only to be told that I was wrong.

Regarding the comments about re-Baptizing those children that were dunked! I ask for your prayers for this. Because, in my humble opinion, many of the Parents and Godparents present were not educated enough in their faith to know that the Baptisms were questionable. I base this on my observation of the social atmosphere that was present during the Baptisms. It seemed to me like people were more concerned with catching the “moment” on camera than with the Sacrament that was taking place.

By the way any extra prayers said for me would be appriciated. I have had a bad last two weeks regarding Orthodox Catholic proceeding at Church. Beside this Baptism issue, I also had a post on a lay person preaching at Mass the other day. I know they call it a “Reflection” but a skunk by any other name still stinks!

Matt K (not so junior as my monikor states!)

 

[Cristiano]

I just found this from the catechism of Pius X,

8 Q: How is Baptism given?

A: Baptism is given by pouring water on the head of the person to be baptized – **and if it cannot be poured on the head, then on some other principal part of the body **-- saying at the same time: “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”