112. On the Minister of Baptism

1. Symphorosa, the mother of a family, noticing that her newly born offspring is unexpectedly in great danger of life, breaks out into cries and wailings. Sigismund, her husband, runs up; the sons and servants arrive at the same time: "Quickly bring water," Sigismund cries, "that I may baptize the infant." But Marcus, Sigismund's son, says: "This office is mine, for I am a cleric, marked with all the minor orders, and a candidate of sacred theology." But the mother says: "Call the parish priest; since he is nearby, he will be here at once." Meanwhile Melania, the maidservant, pouring water upon the infant's head, pronounces the words of the form of baptism; and a little afterward the infant, now baptized, flies away to the citizens of heaven.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. The parish priest ought to have been called, if he really could have been present at once, and baptism could have been deferred for a little while. But, as appears from the Case, the necessity was altogether urgent, and allowed no delay. In the absence of the parish priest, Marcus the cleric ought to have baptized. But that Melania baptized in the presence of Marcus, an inferior cleric, was not grave. That a layperson, generally speaking, baptizes in the presence of an inferior cleric, "Pal. says is no sin, since concerning this no divine or ecclesiastical precept is found. But others commonly and rightly teach that it is not mortal, because such a perversion of order does not seem so grave, since by force of order no one besides the priest and the deacon by commission is held to be specially deputed to baptize. On the other hand, it does not seem to be excused from venial fault, both because this seems to be some indecency, and because it is contrary to the prescription of the Roman Ritual." Lig. 117. But Melania seems to be excused even from venial fault in the Case, since in that confusion and contention of affairs, with the infant's danger imminent, she did well by at once resolving the question, by baptizing the infant so that his eternal salvation might be placed in safety. I. M. 425. 429., G. 199.

2. Daniel, a deacon, while the parish priest is absent for several days, from his presumed consent, solemnly baptizes a boy in the parish church. But the parish priest on returning accuses him of grave fault, because, the case of necessity being excluded, a deacon needs explicit delegation in order to baptize solemnly. Therefore he ought either to have awaited the parish priest or to have summoned another priest.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. "Daniel the deacon sinned gravely by baptizing solemnly without delegation, or without necessity, because he usurped an act of parochial jurisdiction. Indeed, a deacon cannot be delegated by the parish priest to baptize solemnly except for some grave cause, because in the present discipline of the Church he is only an extraordinary minister. Daniel, moreover, by baptizing solemnly without delegation, incurred the penalty of irregularity because of the usurpation of an act of order for which he was not ordained. C. 1. de Cler. non ord. min." Thus Fr. Gury 200.

But in this resolution something seems to be less exact: namely, that a deacon is the extraordinary minister of baptism only by the discipline of the Church. Something also seems to be too severe: namely, that, while the parish priest was absent for several days, Daniel could not baptize, and needed the express delegation of the parish priest. For a deacon, by force of the order itself, is the extraordinary minister of baptism, and when grave necessity exists he can baptize even from a presumed commission. Nor, indeed, was grave necessity lacking in the Case, if in fact there was no other priest in the parish.

Indeed, in conferring the sacraments, the minister regularly needs the power of order and of jurisdiction. But by reason of order, there is a threefold grade of ministers. In the first are placed the bishops, who, as it were the princes of the Church, confer all the sacraments, but especially those with which some office is joined, namely confirmation and order. In the second are the presbyters, who, with these two excepted, confect the remaining sacraments. But there can be extraordinary ministers both of confirmation and of orders, which do not approach the Eucharist so closely. In the third are the deacons, "who administer baptism and the Eucharist only; and not always, but, since they are extraordinary ministers and supply the place of presbyters only in grave necessity, and by the command of the presbyters at least interpretative; but in extreme necessity it is lawful for them to minister these even against the will of the presbyters, from the interpretative command of the bishop or of the Church." D'Annib. 252. And St. Alph. 116 says: "The commission cannot be made to a deacon except because of great necessity, or the utility of the Church, for example if priests were not present, or unless there is a multitude of persons to be baptized, or unless the parish priest is gravely ill, or excommunicated, or otherwise occupied in hearing confessions or in preaching, as is gathered from Acts 6. 3."

But, that it may be explained more fully in what way a deacon, by force of order and by divine law, and not merely by ecclesiastical law, can be the extraordinary minister of solemn baptism, it is useful to report those things which Suarez has, d. 23. s. 2. par. penult. et ult., where he explains two differences in this matter between a deacon and inferior clerics. "One is absolute in relation to the solemn administration of baptism. For this, from a reasonable cause, can be committed to a deacon in a case of necessity; indeed, if necessity urges and a priest is absent, he can himself, by his own right, take up the ministry, as the Gloss teaches in C. Diaconos 13. dist. 93. But to inferiors it cannot be committed on account of any necessity; rather, when that necessity urges, they can baptize only privately... But this difference seems to have been established rather by ecclesiastical law than by divine law... Yet I do not doubt that, from a dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff, this solemn ministry can be committed to someone who is not a deacon... Yet I do not deny that this ecclesiastical ordinance is very consonant with divine law, and has some foundation in it, inasmuch as, from the intention of divine law, the deacon is ordained to this: that he be the special minister of the presbyter, so that the presbyter may both use his ministry in sacred things to be performed, and may also commit to him some sacerdotal ministry for which the sacerdotal character is not absolutely necessary, when a legitimate cause is present. The most suitable example is in the distribution of the Lord's Body, which can be committed to a deacon, but not to a subdeacon... which indeed is consonant with divine law; nevertheless, absolutely, it has been instituted by ecclesiastical law. The second difference is in the private administration of baptism on account of necessity. For, first, it can more easily be committed to a deacon than to an inferior, because he is already in some way deputed to this by reason of his order; whence even in the presence of a priest there can be some cause sufficient for committing this ministry to a deacon, which is not sufficient for it to be committed to an inferior, as, for example, because of some more serious occupation, a priest could sometimes commit it to a deacon, but not to a subdeacon or inferior. Then... in the absence of superiors the deacon is to be preferred, as if by his own right, to all inferiors, so that an inversion of this order is not only indecent by reason of this sacrament, but is also a certain usurpation of another's right; but the order among the other persons inferior to a deacon is made only from a certain decency, not by reason of a right which any one of them has to minister this sacrament."

3. Olympius, a missionary, doubting concerning the dispositions of Laurianus, a catechumen, and, on account of peculiar circumstances, since he could in no way defer baptism, baptizes him under a condition, the condition namely having been conceived only in his mind: if Laurianus has faith, sincere sorrow, and purpose concerning his sins.

Quaer. Whether Olympius acted rightly?

R. Negatively. A condition, from the custom of the Church, is then only applied in baptism when there is room for doubting whether something was lacking, or is lacking, which is required for the value of the sacrament. Faith and penitence in the adult who is baptized are not required by necessity of the sacrament itself, but only for its fruit. Moreover, from this manner of acting a most grave inconvenience follows in the Case: namely, the nullity and deprivation of baptism, if the condition is not verified, for the whole time of life. Cf. Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 589. 648. 655., Catech. Roman. de Sacram. Bapt. n. 57.

4. Titius, the parish priest, while he is about to baptize an infant, is warned by the midwife that the same child, scarcely brought forth into the light, had been baptized by her. The child's father, Caius, who is present, denies this, since all who are of the family are altogether ignorant of a fact of this kind. But the woman adds that she baptized the boy, to whom death already seemed to be imminent, in the very bedroom of the mother, who was asleep after childbirth, where she was alone. Then the father says: I shall never believe this, nor, even if you had baptized, shall I ever be able to bring my mind to believe that you conferred baptism duly. Hence the parish priest questions the midwife about the manner of the sacrament conferred, and he observes that no defect had been present. Nevertheless the father urges more insistently that he wants his son to be baptized by the parish priest, because the midwife was commonly regarded as a rude woman and of doubtful reputation. Titius, knowing well that Caius is a powerful man in the little town, lest he have this man hostile to him, baptizes the little boy under condition, by which means the whole dispute was at once settled.

A little afterward Titius, having been called to confer the sacraments upon a certain sick man, is anxious about his manner of acting, fearing lest perhaps he has contracted irregularity.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Although through baptism conferred conditionally "the danger is avoided of rebaptizing him who has already once been legitimately baptized, nevertheless that is not therefore to be employed everywhere and rashly; but it will be permitted to use it only then when a prudent and probable doubt is present whether someone has been duly baptized, and, after diligent investigation has first been made, the truth of the matter could not become known." Benedict. XIV. de Syn. l. 7. c. 6. n. 2. Now, in truth, there does not seem to remain in the Case a prudent doubt about baptism, after the investigation of the matter has been made. For first, the midwife herself spontaneously affirms that baptism has already been conferred by her, and no reason is discovered which would move her thus to a false affirmation in a matter so grave. When the infant's father cries out against it from ignorance of the baptism conferred by her, the midwife duly explains the fact; and the explanation seemed so true to the father himself, resisting in that moment, that he opposed nothing as to the fact of the baptism conferred, but objected another difficulty concerning baptism duly conferred. But this difficulty also vanishes altogether from the investigation that was made. For the midwife explains the manner of the baptism conferred, and it is clear from this that there had in reality been no defect in the conferring of baptism. But the father of the infant, urging the matter, objects again that the midwife is rude and of doubtful reputation. That the midwife is rude, just as this does not prevent her from knowing well how to exercise her art, so also it does not prevent her from knowing how to baptize duly. For it concerns a very easy thing, a thing in which midwives are altogether accustomed to be skilled, a thing in which in fact the midwife, in the Case, although she were rude and very rude, was well instructed, as appears from the examination that was made. Nor, indeed, can any prudent doubt be present from the fact that she is of doubtful reputation. For first, if this alone sufficed for a prudent doubt, one would already have to doubt concerning all the other baptisms conferred by her; and certainly this was not the first baptism which she had ministered, since it concerns a midwife already exercising her art, and in reality well exercised in it, since she well perceived the danger of death in which the infant was found. Moreover, that doubtful reputation does not bear upon the matter; for what advantage for the midwife, or what utility of hers, would there be from a lie? No one is bad unless he is proved to be so. Indeed, rather, her constant affirmation before the very powerful father, to whom at last even the parish priest yields from fear, is an altogether grave and certain argument, morally speaking, concerning the truth of the affirmed conferral of baptism. Wherefore Titius does not act duly by baptizing the infant under condition, lest he have Caius hostile to him. And this very thing shows that Titius did not act rightly. For, since he himself was the judge and witness of the whole dispute between the midwife and Caius, and since he himself certainly knew the midwife well from another source, he was moved to repeat baptism only from fear of Caius; whence also afterward he feared that he had incurred irregularity. Therefore the baptism conferred, and conferred duly, seemed so certain to him!

"Indeed," says Bened. XIV. l. c. n. 4., "if midwives have been legitimately taught concerning the matter, form, and necessary intention in the minister of the sacrament... and they, in the special event in which they privately conferred baptism upon an infant in danger, being questioned by the same parish priest, testify that all things were duly employed by them which are required for validly confecting the sacrament, surely no probable reason is present why baptism ought, or can licitly, be repeated under condition... Although from the attestation of several persons greater certainty of the thing done is certainly drawn, nevertheless the sacred canons hold the conferral of baptism to have been sufficiently proved by a single witness, especially if he testifies concerning his own deed, that is, if he affirms that it was legitimately administered by himself, and nothing occurs to the contrary which detracts from the credibility of his testimony, as is expressly decreed in Caus. 110. and 112. de Consecrat. dist. 4. and Cap. Nuper de Testibus." Cf. also Enchir. Moral. 466.-468. 896.

But as regards the irregularity which Titius fears that he has incurred, Benedict. XIV. l. c. n. 3. judges that those are not exempt from the irregularity inflicted by Alex. III. C. Ex litterarum de Apostat. et reiterantib. bapt. upon those repeating baptism, "who, on account of only an apprehended defect of the former baptism, and with no investigation of the truth having first been made, confer it again under condition upon those whom they certainly know to have already once before had it conferred." St. Alph. l. 7. n. 356 says: "One rebaptizing, or rebaptized, from fear, without intention, or under condition, even if it be done rashly and culpably, probably do not become irregular." Wherefore Titius will probably be able, from St. Alph., to be excused from irregularity. This irregularity more truly prohibits only the reception of orders; it does not prohibit the exercise of orders received. C. Ex litterarum de Apost. D'Annib. p. 1. n. 410. Cf. Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 648. par. Quamobrem initio. Others, however, extend it also to the exercise of orders. Bened. XIV. Notif. 84. n. 14. seqq. Wherefore again Titius was able to minister the sacraments to the sick man. - I. M. 465. 1322.

5. "Sabellinus, a heretic, coming to the parish priest, asks to be instructed and admitted to the Catholic Church. But the parish priest, after instructing him, asks him about the baptism he has received, and cannot find a certain defect; hence he remains hesitating and uncertain whether he ought to rebaptize him under condition, which nevertheless he does, though not without great anxiety.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Sabellinus could and ought to be rebaptized, as the general custom of the Church bears; because it is known that heretics err rather often in conferring baptism; therefore heretics converted to the true faith are prudently and commonly accustomed to be rebaptized." Thus Fr. Gury 207.

As is clear from several Decisions and Instructions of the Sacred Congregations, heretics are not all rebaptized indiscriminately, but only those whose baptism, after a previous and diligent examination, is found to have been null or doubtfully valid; or also, if, according to the condition of times or places, after an investigation has been completed, nothing is discovered either for validity or for invalidity. Cf. Enchir. Moral. 468., Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 642. seqq.

6. Robertus, a missionary, occupied with many duties, because of lack of time and excessive fatigue, in the baptism of adults uses the ceremonies assigned in the Roman Ritual for children, whether those to be baptized are many or few. - Does Robertus act rightly?

R. Negatively. For the Holy Office, 12. Febr. 1851., answered the Vicar Apostolic of Korea, who was asking that it might be lawful for him without scruple to give baptism to adults in the aforesaid manner and for the aforesaid reasons: Let the Roman Ritual stand. And S. C. de P. F., 16. Jan. 1797., answered the Vicar Apostolic of Western Tonkin: "The prescription of the Roman Ritual is to be observed altogether, except in a case of necessity." Moreover, "the Most Holy Father, at the urging of the Vicar Apostolic of Western Tonkin, by Apostolic authority and indulgence, declared that the custom which was explained to be in force in Tonkin can be observed, namely, of using in baptizing adults the ceremonies prescribed for the baptism of infants, where reasonable necessity, or narrowness of time for fulfilling the other functions of the sacred ministry, or excessive fatigue of the missionaries, requires it." S. C. de P. F. 30. Jan. 1803. - Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 612. 613. 625.

7. "A priest who, while he blesses the baptismal font on Holy Saturday, cannot mix the holy oils into the blessed water, either because these are lacking to him or because of another legitimate cause: can he nevertheless bless the font on that day, deferring the mixing of the holy oils to another day; or, on the contrary, is he bound to omit the entire blessing of the font on that day?

R. Affirmatively to the first part; negatively to the second, and let the Decree of S. R. C. 12. Apr. 1755. in Lucana be communicated: Parish priests who could not receive the holy oils before the blessing of the font will later be able to put them into the water privately and separately." S. C. de P. F. 5. Mart. 1816.

But there is another Decree of the same S. R. C. in Oriolen., 23. Sept. 1837: 1. The blessing of the baptismal font on Holy Saturday must be done with the chrism and oil of the preceding year; nor is the infusion of the chrism and oil to be omitted until those recently consecrated are received. 2. In the meantime, infants also are to be anointed with the oil and chrism of the preceding year. 3. But when the new oils are received, the baptismal water blessed with the old oils ought not to be poured into the piscina; rather, it ought to be preserved, and the parish priest ought to use it until the blessing on the vigil of Pentecost, as in the Ritual.

Nor, in truth, is there opposition between Decree and Decree. And thus S. R. C., 12. Aug. 1854., established that "because of the diversity of circumstances, in practice either Decree (Lucana and Oriolen.) can be observed. For in Lucana it is supposed that in some fortuitous case the holy oils are delayed for a short time; and in Oriolen. it speaks of an every way impossibility of having the holy oils from one's own Cathedral or from the nearer Dioceses."

8. [printed as 7.] Sempronius, a faithful man, baptized his own son, whom he had from a pagan woman. Sempronius now wishes to enter marriage with the same woman, baptized.

Quaer. Whether the impediment of spiritual kinship stands in the way?

R. Negatively. For that impediment arises in the conferral of baptism between the one baptizing and the parents of the one baptized, when all are baptized. Cf. Sanchez de Matr. l. 7. d. 62. n. 11., d. 60. n. 14. 15. 16., La-Croix l. 6. p. 1. n. 368., Schmalzgr. l. 4. tit. 11. n. 28. seqq., 32. seqq.