Question about the validity of a Baptism

[Francis]

CCC V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE?

**[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

 

[LittleFlower]

After some searching, this EWTN response came up:

http://www.ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage.asp?number=305724&Pgnu=3&Pg=&recnu=74&source=

Ordinary water may be used for emergency baptism, though holy water is prefered if available. If its called something else its not water (e.g. IV fluids). Even something so predominantly water as tea or coffee is doubtful matter. One could baptize conditionally with doubtful matter IF that was indeed all there was available and time was of the essence. For certain validity the water should be poured sufficiently so as to run, three times, over the forehead (if accessible), the head, other than on the hair, if not. If the head is not accessible, baptism may be performed on the breast neck or shoulders, though this is only probably valid. The arms, legs and elsewhere are considered probably invalid. The words should be spoken, even if inaudible to others, and not just said mentally. The Church has not ruled on such details, but the common teaching of theologians over the centuries should be followed. It would be presumptuous and dangerous to souls not to do so.

However, it would be recommended to discuss this with your parish priest.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I’ve been telling people my whole life I was baptized twice.

This was an emergency baptism. Considering this, was the baptism (1) valid, (2) sacramental, and (3) licit, despite the water not flowing? (Reminder: the water was not Holy Water.)

Nobody can be baptized twice.

Was the emergency baptism valid? What did your pastor say?

Baptism is a sacrament. There is no non-sacramental baptism.

Was the emergency baptism attempt licit? Of course. Your mother committed no sin. She was trying to do the right thing.

 

[1ke]

This was an emergency baptism. Considering this, was the baptism (1) valid, (2) sacramental, and (3) licit, despite the water not flowing? (Reminder: the water was not Holy Water.)

Again, the answer is maybe.

And since a priest decided to either baptize or conditionally baptize you, it sounds like he has doubts as well.

You were not baptized twice. Either your mother baptized you, or your priest baptized you. Whichever was the first valid baptism was the baptism.

 

[KD8TZC]

I just took a canon law class on this, and from what has been posted here, it does seem the baptism was most likely valid, but possibly not licit. The takeaway from all that is if the sacrament is VALID, but not licit, the Sacrament did in fact happen and you would be baptized. I would suggest talking with a priest about this to have this clarified and to find out how to have it recorded. Below are some excerpts from the Canon:

Can. 867 §1. Parents are obliged to take care that infants are baptized in the first few weeks; as soon as possible after the birth or even before it, they are to go to the pastor to request the sacrament for their child and to be prepared properly for it.

§2. An infant in danger of death is to be baptized without delay.

Can. 868 §1. 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;

2/ 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.

§2. An infant of Catholic parents or even of non-Catholic parents is baptized licitly in danger of death even against the will of the parents.

Can. 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.

§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

§3. If in the cases mentioned in §§1 and 2 the conferral or validity of the baptism remains doubtful, baptism is not to be conferred until after the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptized, if an adult, and the reasons of the doubtful validity of the baptism are explained to the person or, in the case of an infant, to the parents.

Bottom line though, go talk with a priest (I’m not a canon lawyer or an expert) and he can help you.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

but possibly not licit .

Why would it not be licit?

 

[TomH1]

Her status as confirmed is irrelevant. An atheist can baptise.

Unless she can demonstrate this was a genuine emergency and the infant was in danger of dying it is certainly illicit.

The words she used are the valid form.

The matter she used, water, was valid. It does not have to be holy water. There could certainly be some question raised concerning the baptism’s validity by the manner in which she applied the water.

We also do not know her intent which would have implications for validity.

I would argue there are potential grounds for casting doubt on the validity of this baptism.

 

[1ke]

Why would it not be licit?

Sprinkling has not been licit since the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

Although I’m still not convinced it was even sprinkling, based on what was described. The OP was subsequently either baptized or conditionally baptized by a priest. So there is some doubt regarding the first attempt.

 

[Searching1]

Hi there! OP here…

The water was not sprinkled, nor did it flow. I’m fairly certain about this based on my mother’s memory of the event. It was 32 years ago and she was completely distraught at the time, but that’s what she remembers.

It seems the consensus in this thread is it was valid but illicit. A little Googling has shown that this means my Original Sin was remitted, despite the proper method not being adhered to.

To offer a little more context – and to address the concern about whether I was in imminent danger of dying – while I was not in a plane that was about to crash violently, I did happen to be only two months old and about to be subject to general anesthesia. Because of my young age, the likelihood of suffering an adverse reaction to the anesthesia was higher simply because so little was known about my allergies. I don’t know exactly how much higher it was, though. The major surgery itself was also life-threatening. It was not an imminent threat of death in the strictest sense, but I would point out that any Catholic of any age is urged to receive last rites if they are about to undergo major surgery. This suggests to me that “major surgery” can be considered “imminent threat of death.”

Also, I was raised Catholic, and was Confirmed at 17 years old, so the intent of the baptism most likely included that I be raised in the Church. But please remember that at that point in time, my distraught parents did not have the luxury of thinking to themselves I would definitely be raised at all.

Also, afterwards, according to my mother, she spoke to a Deacon who said I was successfully baptized but to move into Catechism I needed records, so we did it again officially. (Sorry everyone, I know this one fact sort of precludes the necessity of posting this at all, but I literally just found it out from my sweet, dear mother. The Deacon felt it was enough, but wanted it done again for a record.)

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

There was water. It transferred from her to you. Your priest can answer further questions. You can however stop telling the falsehood that you were baptized twice.

 

[Gorgias]

It seems the consensus in this thread is it was valid but illicit.

The thing is, though, that if it were valid, then why would a priest subsequently attempt to baptize you? His attempt should tell you that he had doubts that it was valid. Chances are, he celebrated a conditional baptism, in which the minister says “if you are not baptized, then I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

However, you wrote something that was interesting. You said that, based on a deacon’s recommendation, you “did it again officially.” Are you sure that means ‘baptism’? With water? Here’s the reason I’m asking: when a person is baptized in an emergency situation, what can follow is something known as “supplying the ceremonies.” In this case, the rest of the entirety of the baptismal rite is conducted in the church. A notation is made in your sacramental records that identifies that this took place. That doesn’t mean that they re-did the baptism, though.

To offer a little more context – and to address the concern about whether I was in imminent danger of dying – while I was not in a plane that was about to crash violently, I did happen to be only two months old and about to be subject to general anesthesia.

The question isn’t whether you’re “in imminent danger of dying.” The phrase used in canon law is in periculo mortis. This is usually translated “in danger of death”, but it doesn’t imply imminent danger of death. A soldier who is about to board a transport and head into battle is “in periculo mortis”, even though he’s not “in imminent danger.” So, the whole “imminent” thing is a red herring – it’s not part of what the Church requires.

The major surgery itself was also life-threatening. It was not an imminent threat of death in the strictest sense, but I would point out that any Catholic of any age is urged to receive last rites if they are about to undergo major surgery. This suggests to me that “major surgery” can be considered “imminent threat of death.”

Nope. ‘Major surgery’ is considered “in periculo mortis”, not “imminent threat of death.” So, don’t let anyone tell you that, since death wasn’t imminent, you couldn’t possibly have been validly baptized.

 

[Searching1]

Is it not impossible that the deacon simply wanted that the baptism be fully official, and that the paperwork state all things necessary under Canon law, and that he didn’t care about what strictly need be done? He wanted there to be paperwork. This is what I have been told.

I understand what everyone is saying insofar that the deacon recommended a baptism after my mother performed the emergency baptism, thus suggesting doubt about the validity of the emergency baptism. But I ask again: is it not impossible that he thought “it may or may not have been valid, but I want it to be done officially anyways.”

Am I baptized?

 

[1ke]

Is it not impossible that the deacon simply wanted that the baptism be fully official, and that the paperwork state all things necessary under Canon law, and that he didn’t care about what strictly need be done? He wanted there to be paperwork. This is what I have been told.

Deacons and priests are trained in this. They know what they are doing. Emergency baptisms get recorded in the sacramental record all the time. That IS the “paperwork”.

So, unless this deacon was particularly ignorant of everything a deacon is educated on regarding the sacraments— NO he would not have performed a baptism for the reason you suggest.

A conditional baptism is done ONLY if there is doubt about the original baptism.

Yes, you are baptized. Either your mother baptized you or the deacon/priest baptized you, but not both.

 

[Gorgias]

Am I baptized?

Yes. Certainly.

 

[BartholomewB]

The same thing that @on_the_hill describes took place in my own close family. The baby’s parents were atheists. They would never have had their child baptized themselves, but of course they raised no objection to the baby’s grandmother doing it, since for them it was a meaningless gesture. She was a well-informed Catholic and no doubt she knew how to perform the baptism correctly.

 

[Searching1]

OP here, I asked my priest, he said I was baptized. Thanks everyone!