III. On the Minister of Baptism

Who is the minister of baptism? - The minister of baptism is one kind ordinary and another extraordinary. The extraordinary minister is twofold: namely a minister of solemnity and of necessity. - Every priest and only a priest, by force of his ordination, is the ordinary minister of baptism. This is clear from Florence, Decree of Union, and also from the universal practice of the Church. - A deacon, unless he is a pastor, is an extraordinary minister and a minister of solemnity, that is, able to baptize solemnly, but only from the delegation of the pastor, at least interpretative, and from a grave cause. This is clear from the Roman Pontifical, the instruction of the bishop to deacons in ordination, etc.; C. Diaconos 13, Dist. 93. Cf. C. n. 527. Solemnly to baptize, i.e., by observing the rites and ceremonies prescribed by the Church. - Any human being using reason, whether man or woman, whether Catholic or heretic, whether faithful or unbeliever, is an extraordinary minister of baptism, so that he can always validly, and in necessity also licitly, baptize. Florence, Decree for the Armenians.

Although every priest by force of ordination has the power of baptizing, nevertheless he cannot licitly use it, even privately, outside the case of necessity, unless deputed by the Ordinary or by the proper pastor for baptizing. For the legitimate minister is only the Ordinary or one's own pastor. From the Roman Ritual, de Bapt. adult.: "the baptism of adults, where it can conveniently be done, should be referred to the bishop, so that, if it pleases him, it may be conferred more solemnly by him; otherwise let the pastor himself baptize, with the fixed ceremony." Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Roman Ritual, de Min. bapt. - At present the minister regularly is the pastor, Roman Ritual ibid., and it is grave. Clement I, de Priv. - L. 116, 236; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 67; E. M.

You will resolve: Neither a pastor nor a bishop, without commission, outside his own parish and diocese, or within it, licitly baptizes subjects of another. And therefore parents also sin who without permission of their own prelate bring their offspring to another to be baptized, since they violate the right of the pastor. L. 114. - A stranger can be baptized with the permission, whether expressed or reasonably presumed, of his own priest. L. 115. Religious can baptize in a case of necessity, or with the same permission of the pastor and of their own superior, since this is prohibited by no law. L. ib. "A priest baptizing without permission outside necessity, even without solemnity, sins gravely." L. 115.

If parents have domicile in one place, quasi-domicile in another, and in this latter place the woman has given birth, must the infant be baptized in this place? - The infant can be baptized in the place of quasi-domicile or of domicile. The reason is that each is the proper pastor in order to receiving baptism and the other sacraments. C. Significavit fin., de Paroch. L. 115. - "Children of families, generally speaking, must be baptized and educated in the rite of the father," if the parents belong to different rites, such as the Roman, Ruthenian, Armenian, etc. S. C. de P. F., Apr. 11, 1894. Cf. here 431.

In which parish must an infant be baptized if the parents have neither domicile nor quasi-domicile, or are distant from it? - "Pilgrims, or those who do not have domicile (vagrants), can be baptized in the church which they choose, from cap. Nec numerus q. 3... But if a woman by chance gives birth in a village not her own, the offspring is to be baptized by the pastor of that village; nevertheless, if that village is little distant from her own village, e.g., by two or three hours, the offspring can also be baptized in her own church," L. 114; indeed must be, if there is no grave inconvenience.

Does a cleric who is not a deacon, and a deacon without commission solemnly baptizing, incur irregularity? - Resp. To the first: In the affirmative. This is clear from C. Si quis 1, de Cler. non Ord. min. - To the second: some deny it from the cited Si quis. But more probably others affirm it from the same C. Si quis, according to the opinion which St. Alphonsus 116 says is most common. But cf. de Irregul. n. 1323.

Does a layman solemnly baptizing contract irregularity? - Resp. In the negative. For in law nothing is said; indeed the contrary is suggested. L. 116, 754.

What order is to be observed among the ministers of baptism in a case of necessity? - In the Roman Ritual it is had thus: "If a priest is present, let him be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, and a man to a woman, unless for the sake of modesty it would be fitting that a woman rather than a man baptize an infant not wholly brought forth, or unless the woman knew better the form and manner of baptizing." In the presence of the bishop, a priest can baptize, because this is the office of a priest. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 67, a. 4.

Is it grave if the father or mother baptize when another is present? - Resp. In the affirmative, by reason of spiritual kinship. Wherefore an external person, even a woman, is to be preferred to them. L. 117, 150; La Croix 277, 358; Viva q. 1, a. 5, n. 4.

Does a layman sin mortally who, in necessity, baptizes in the presence of a priest? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that outside necessity a layman cannot baptize; and then he truly usurps the right of the priest, to whom from the power of order the function of baptizing has been committed. Therefore the priest himself would also sin gravely if he yielded the administration to a layman. L. 117; Eugene IV, Decree to the Jacobites. - Outside necessity; in certain places there is a custom, and it is approved, that a catechist and other more prudent laymen should baptize quickly any infants of Christians whatever, even if these are well, when a priest is absent or there is difficulty in approaching him. Collection of S. C. de P. F. n. 536 ff.

In the presence of an excommunicated priest, is a layman not excommunicated to be preferred? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that, if a layman is present, there is now no necessity why an excommunicated priest should baptize. L. 117.

Does a layman baptizing before a deacon sin gravely? - It is controverted. The first probable opinion affirms; because a deacon by force of ordination is deputed to baptize, although from the present practice of the Church he cannot solemnly baptize except from grave cause and with the permission of the pastor. - The second opinion, equally probable, denies it, because a deacon baptizing in a case of necessity without commission does not baptize by office, but in the same manner as a lower cleric or a layman. L. ib.

Must the ceremonies prescribed by the Church be used under grave obligation? - Resp. In the affirmative, unless necessity excuses. Benedict XIV, Const. Inter omnigenas, Feb. 2, 1744; Collection of S. C. de P. F. n. 602. But if something of them is lacking, it is not therefore licit to substitute private baptism for solemn baptism; rather those ceremonies which can be observed are to be observed. Roman Ritual, de Bapt., c. 1, § 2; S. C. de P. F., Jan. 21, 1789; Jan. 16, 1797; Holy Office, Feb. 28, 1663. - Collection of S. C. de P. F. n. 611; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 66, a. 17; q. 71; E. M.

Must the rite of one's proper Church, Latin or Greek, be observed? - Resp. In the affirmative, and indeed under grave obligation. Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi Pastoralis § 2. Cf. Roman Ritual, de Bapt., l.c. And this holds even if a Greek lives among Latins, or a Latin among Greeks, namely if in that place there exists a Church of his own rite; otherwise he will be able to use the rite which he prefers. L. 202, 203. "Those born in the United States of America from a Latin father and a Ruthenian mother are to be baptized in the Latin rite. For the offspring must altogether follow the rite of the father.

But if the father is Ruthenian and the mother Latin, it will be free to the same father that the offspring be baptized either in the Ruthenian rite or in the Latin rite, if he consents in favor of the Latin wife. Infants pertain to the jurisdiction of that pastor by whose rite they have been legitimately baptized." Pius X, Const. Ea semper, XVIII Kal. Jul. 1907. "Those born in the Canadian region from parents of diverse rite, Latin and Ruthenian, are to be baptized in the rite of the father. For the offspring must altogether follow the rite of the father.

Infants pertain to the jurisdiction of that pastor whose rite is that of their father." S. C. de Prop. Fid., Aug. 18, 1913. "Those born in the region of the United States of North America from parents of diverse rite are to be baptized in the rite of the father: for offspring of each sex must altogether follow the rite of the father. Infants pertain to the jurisdiction of that pastor whose rite is that of their father, except those born from an illegitimate bed, who follow the rite of the mother." S. C. de Prop. Fid., Aug. 17, 1914. Cf. First Supplement to Enchiridion Morale, ed. 3, n. 365, p. 13 ff.

Is it grave outside the case of necessity to baptize solemnly without consecrated water? - Resp. In the affirmative, because it is the omission of a very grave ceremony. "Generically speaking, omission of blessed water is mortal." L. 102; Benedict XIV, enc. Inter omnigenas. And therefore missionaries are ordered to consecrate water, or always to carry consecrated water with them whenever they can do this without grave inconvenience. S. C. de P. F., Sept. 8, 1869. In a case of necessity, "if baptismal water is not had, and danger threatens, let the priest use simple water." Roman Ritual, Order of Baptism of Children, at the end. But care must be taken that blessed water, or lustral water, be made, because of greater fittingness. S. C. de P. F., Sept. 8, 1869. And a Decision of the Holy Office is had, June 22, 1883: if the priest has the sacred oils, "when baptismal water is not had, blessed water is to be used, when it can be done, according to the formula in the new editions and in the appendix of the Roman Ritual; otherwise natural water is to be used." L. 102; E. M.

Is it grave to baptize without the anointing with oil of catechumens, or without the anointing with chrism? - Resp. In the affirmative, because these, like the other ceremonies, by reason of their special and grave signification, constitute grave matter. Benedict XIV, Const. Omnium sollicitudinum, Sept. 13, 1744; L. 141; E. M.

The sacred oils: There are three: the oil of the sick, the oil of catechumens, and sacred chrism, which are blessed by the bishop on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord. - The oil of catechumens is used in baptism for anointing catechumens, before the conferral of baptism, on the breast and between the shoulders. It is also used in ordination for consecrating the hands of newly ordained priests, in the consecration of a church and altar, and in the blessing of the baptismal font. It also serves for the consecration of kings.

Chrism is the remote matter of confirmation. It is used, however, in baptism after it has already been conferred; in the consecration of a bishop, chalice, paten, church, altar, baptismal font, and in the internal anointing of a bell. It is also used for the blessing of wax forms, which are commonly called Agnus Dei. Cf. First Supplement to Enchiridion Morale, ed. 3, p. 71.

The oil of the sick is used in Extreme Unction, and for the external anointing of a bell in its solemn blessing.

How is the prohibition of using old chrism, or chrism of another year, to be understood? - It is to be taken rigorously when new chrism is had. Therefore a priest would sin gravely who, setting aside recent chrism, used old chrism. - But in solemn baptism infants are to be anointed with oil and chrism of the preceding year while recently consecrated oils are not had; nor is this ceremony to be omitted and afterward supplied when new oil and new chrism are received; nor for that reason must baptism be deferred to another time, however brief. Likewise the blessing of the baptismal font on Holy Saturday must be done with chrism of the preceding year, in the complete impossibility of having holy oils from one's own Cathedral, or from neighboring dioceses. But if by some accidental case the holy oils are delayed for a brief time, pastors who before the blessing of the font could not receive the holy oils will later be able privately and separately to put them into the water; unless they must baptize someone, for then in the solemn blessing itself they should pour in the old oils. In a church where a baptismal font is present, its blessing must altogether be performed not only on Holy Saturday, but also on the vigil of Pentecost. And if there is need, water can be consecrated even outside Easter and Pentecost. Roman Ritual, Bened. font. bapt.;

S. R. C., Apr. 12, 1755, n. 2436; Sept. 23, 1837, n. 2773; Jan. 31, 1896, n. 3879; A. S. S. v. 40, p. 347 ff.; E. M.

Baptismal water is to be blessed on Holy Saturday and the Vigil of Pentecost not only in parish churches, but also in filial churches which legitimately have a sacred font. S. R. C. C., Jan. 13, 1899, ad 1, 2, n. 4005.

What if consecrated water and blessed oils seem likely to fail, and other blessed ones cannot be had? - Other oil and other non-blessed water can be poured in, in a lesser quantity, and this as often as will be necessary, although finally the greater part is added to what preexisted. Roman Ritual, de Mater. bapt., de Sacris oleis; E. M.

Is it grave, without urgent necessity, to baptize outside the church? - Resp. In the affirmative. Clement, un. de Bapt.; Roman Ritual, de Temp. et loco admin. bapt.; L. 142.

Can baptism sometimes be conferred outside the Church? - "It must be noted that infants are prohibited from being baptized at home, except those of Kings or Princes, as is had from Clement, un., de Bapt. And since here it concerns a grave matter, the transgression will indeed be mortal... Nevertheless, these things notwithstanding, where a custom has been introduced of baptizing the children of magnates at home, it is not easily to be disapproved." L. 118; S. C. C., Jan. 20, 1894. Baptismal water blessed according to custom must then be used. - This also will be licit if the infant cannot be brought into church without danger of infamy of the parents, or danger to the infant himself because of the distance of places, as in mission places. S. R. C., Feb. 4, 1871, n. 8934; L. 142. When baptism is to be repeated, "it can be given in any place whatever, if the solemnities have already been performed in church," L. 136, and by anyone whatever, yet a priest must always be preferred. La Croix 324, 325.

Solemn baptism from Canon Law can never be conferred outside the church, and indeed the parish church, except in a case of necessity, privilege, or special faculty to be obtained from the Ordinary. Wherefore it is not licit to baptize in other churches or chapels or oratories, whether private or public, except by permission of the bishop alone; and this, notwithstanding any custom whatever. Nor without a reasonable cause to be approved by the bishop is it licit solemnly to confer baptism in the sacristy. S. C. R., March 14, 1861, n. 3104. - If a priest in necessity baptizes outside the church, he must omit all the ceremonies which precede baptism, even if the infant seems likely to live that long; but once baptism has been conferred as above, he must anoint the infant on the crown with chrism, if he has it, impose the white garment, and present the lighted candle. But when the infant has recovered, he is to be presented in church, and there, and never outside the church, the omitted ceremonies which precede baptism are to be supplied.

S. R. C., Sept. 23, 1820, n. 2607; Jan. 23, 1914. These things St. Alphonsus 136, 143: "After someone has been baptized privately, the customary ceremonies and rites must be supplied in church... And these ceremonies are to be supplied under mortal obligation." And if it is foreseen that he can never be brought into church, they are to be supplied even at home. Holy Office, Apr. 10, 1861; Collection of S. C. de P. F. n. 629. - Roman Ritual; La Croix 333 ff.; E. M.

437 bis. Can Ordinaries permit baptism to be conferred at home, and what then must be observed? - "Ordinaries can permit that, besides when danger of death is imminent or sickness presses, the sacrament of baptism be administered to little children at home, from a just and reasonable cause." S. C. de Sacram., Dec. 23, 1912, A. A. S. v. 4, p. 725. "Baptism conferred at home by permission of the bishop or Ordinary, outside danger of death and urgent necessity, must be administered with all the ceremonies of the Roman Ritual." S. R. C., Jan. 17, 1914, Bellunen., A. A. S. v. 6, p. 32. "I. Whether, in the administration of Baptism, when danger of death is imminent, after the pouring of water, the prescription of the Roman Ritual presses under grave obligation as regards the anointing with Chrism, the handing over of the linen cloth and candle? "II. Since in the diocese of Versailles and, as is reported, in some surrounding places, the use of adding these rites in the stated case has become obsolete, must care not be taken that those rites be strictly fulfilled, and that the priest in the case ought to carry and use holy Chrism, a linen cloth, and a candle? "III. Whether, outside the case of necessity, when the Ordinary, for reasons explained to him, has granted permission of administering Baptism at home, the prescription of the Ritual presses of completing the rite of anointing with Chrism and handing over the linen cloth and candle? "Resp. To I and II. The Roman Ritual is to be adhered to. - To III. Let the Bellunen. Decree of Jan. 17, 1914 be given." S. R. C., Jan. 23, 1914, Versalien.

What about names to be imposed on the one to be baptized? - As regards names of some Saint to be imposed on the one to be baptized, which the Roman Ritual provides for, this is either counsel or a light precept. L. 145. And if he who brings the child to be baptized altogether does not wish him to be baptized unless the name of some impious person is imposed, it is not therefore lawful to defer baptism for the infant, but he is to be baptized, with the name of some Saint added in a low voice. Holy Office, June 1883; E. M.

Can the interrogations which, from the Rubric of the Roman Ritual, are to be made to the sponsors be made in the vernacular language? - Resp. In the negative, but all things must be done as they stand in the Roman Ritual. For the rest, nothing prevents those things which pertain to the sacrament of baptism itself from being explained in the vernacular language. The interrogations can also first be made in the Latin language, and then repeated in the vernacular language. But the godfathers and godmothers can respond in their own language. Holy Office, Aug. 23, 1886; E. M.

If baptism solemnly conferred is found invalid, are the ceremonies also to be repeated? - This is controverted. There is a twofold probable opinion. Whence the ceremonies are not necessarily to be repeated; yet it is to be advised that they be repeated, if it can be done without scandal or infamy. - But the ceremonies are to be used when baptism is conferred conditionally on one who has been doubtfully baptized without ceremonies. Holy Office, Apr. 2, 1879; Collection of S. C. de P. F. n. 634. When heretics have been validly baptized, "only the omitted things are to be supplied, unless for a reasonable cause it seems otherwise to the bishop." Roman Ritual, de Bapt. adult., par. Haeretici vero. - "For an adult Catholic validly baptized after birth, but without ceremonies, the ceremonies and prayers are to be observed which are assigned in the Ritual for the baptism of infants." For an adult heretic to be baptized conditionally, "insofar as they are to be supplied or are believed to be supplied, the ceremonies prescribed for the baptism of adults are to be supplied." S. R. C., Aug. 27, 1836, n. 2743; L. 144; E. M.

Are sponsors to be used in baptism? - Sponsors, as spiritual fathers, are those who lift the baptized from the sacred font and receive him into their care. In solemn baptism, and also in confirmation, they must be used under grave obligation. At least one must be used under grave obligation in solemn baptism. Trent sess. 24, c. 2 de R. M.; Benedict XIV, Const. Inter omnigenas, § 19; L. 159, 185. In private baptism they need not be used necessarily, but they can laudably be used. L. 147.

Who cannot be sponsors? - They cannot validly be those who are not masters of themselves, such as infants, L. 146; the unbaptized, C. 102, de Consecr., d. 4; and in confirmation, the unconfirmed, C. cited 102 and S. C. C., June 13, 1624, and it is grave. L. 186; Sanchez de Matr. l. 7, d. 60, n. 20. But licitly they cannot be those who could not perform the office received, such as the mute, regulars, nuns, unless a monk or nun is to be confirmed, C. 103, de Consecr., D. 4; L. 156; La Croix 355, 497; likewise those who are unworthy, such as heretics, criminals, infamous persons, etc. Roman Ritual, de Patr., if they can be removed without grave harm, since the laws of the Church do not oblige with grave inconvenience.

S. Penitentiary, Dec. 10, 1860; L. 156 IV. But a heretic is in no way to be admitted, and if he cannot be removed without grave inconvenience, he can be admitted as merely assisting and as a witness, without touching the infant when he is baptized. La Croix 373. Cf. Kenrick v. 2, tr. 15, n. 47; Gury, Cases 231; Collectanea of S. C. de P. F. n. 604, 606; A. S. S. v. 26, p. 448. Finally, spouses cannot be sponsors with respect to spouses, nor parents with respect to children, C. 2, de Cognat. spir.; L. 156; nor the same person in both sacraments, but this is light. L. 187. - Roman Ritual, de Bapt., de Confirm.; S. R. C., Feb. 15, 1887, Beng. Centr.; E. M.

It is not licit, either personally or through others, to perform the office of sponsor in baptisms which are ministered by heretics to the children of heretics. Holy Office, May 10, 1770.

Note: "In private baptism given because of necessity, the father ought not receive or hold the infant as sponsor, since in this case there is no necessity for a sponsor, and therefore if he does this rashly either then or even in public baptism, he sins gravely." L. 158. - E. M.

Can two spouses licitly receive the offspring of another? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that this has already been introduced by custom. L. 157.

Can a father be sponsor in the baptism of his illegitimate child? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that the prohibition made for married persons was lest someone have as wife his spiritual kin. But such a reason has no force in this case. Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 5, n. 4.

Can a father be sponsor in the baptism of the child of his wife by another husband? - Resp. In the negative. The reason is that the prohibition was made for married persons lest they contract spiritual kinship with their own spouse. But this reason would altogether be verified in such a case. Lugo ib.

Can a father licitly be sponsor in the baptism of his child if at that time his wife is already dead? - In the affirmative. For, 1. only married persons are prohibited from holding their own child or the child of the spouse in baptism. But in the present case he is neither married, nor does he hold the child of a spouse, since he now does not have a spouse, for the bond of marriage has been dissolved by the death of the spouse.

2. For the reason of that prohibition was lest someone contract spiritual kinship with his wife. But with one deceased no spiritual kinship can be contracted. Lugo ib. n. 5.

How many sponsors are to be designated? - It is not licit under grave obligation to designate in baptism more than one man and one woman; and in confirmation only one and of the same sex. Trent sess. 24, c. 2 de R. M. But to designate in baptism two males or two females is probably only venial. Thus La Croix 350 with Sanchez and others. "But Bonacina and others say that it is mortal, and this seems truer to me if the sponsors were of a different sex from the infant, because thus kinships would be multiplied, which Trent wished to prohibit; otherwise if they were of the same sex." L. 155. But if in baptism a single sponsor is used, that person can be male or female, since in Trent it is said "whether man or woman." L. 155.

What are the obligations of sponsors? - Sponsors have the obligation of teaching the baptized person those things which pertain to faith and morals, if the parents do not provide this. Wherefore they are exempted from this obligation if they prudently presume that the baptized person is diligently instructed by the parents. Roman Ritual, de Patrinis; L. 147; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 67, a. 8. - Sponsors besides contract spiritual kinship with their little children and their parents, which constitutes a diriment impediment of marriage. Hence the priest, once baptism has been conferred, must warn the sponsors concerning the obligations received and the spiritual kinship contracted. Roman Ritual, de Bapt. parvulor.; St. Thomas Quodl. 12, a. 18.

What conditions are required so that someone truly be a sponsor? - It is required that someone, otherwise capable, cf. 442, have the true mind of performing the office of sponsor; that he has been designated by the parents, and in their defect, by the pastor or bishop; that in mind and in fact he receive the one to be baptized or confirmed while he is baptized or confirmed. The pastor does not validly change the sponsors duly designated by the parents. For this right, from Trent sess. 24, c. 2 de R. M., does not properly regard the pastor, but the parents. But a pastor changing the sponsor sins gravely, because he usurps the right of the parents. Cf. 452; L. 146; E. M.

What act is required in sponsors so that they contract kinship? - It is required that the sponsor have the mind of performing this office of sponsor, and either hold or touch the infant while he is being baptized, or immediately lift or receive him from the sacred font, or from the hands of the baptizer or midwife. S. C. de P. F., Jan. 21, 1856; S. C. C., Feb. 27, 1601; Dec. 20, 1653; Dec. 18, 1688; Ferraris v. Baptismus, art. 7, n. 23; Giraldi, Espos. Iur. Pont., p. 2, s. 112, n. 6, 7. But it is commonly asserted that this touch must be physical, and not moral, or mere assistance. L. 148; Pyrrhus Corradus, Prax. Dispens. Apost. l. 8, c. 7, n. 8; E. M.

Must sponsors be designated in order to contract kinship? - Many and grave theologians affirm. The reason is that Trent sess. 24, c. 2 de R. M. expressly requires designation, and therefore, if it is lacking, kinship is not contracted. But many and grave other doctors deny it. "For Trent did not establish designation as a form, by the lack of which the act would be rendered void, and Passerinus reports that it was so declared by S. C. C. in Cremona." De Angelis l. 4, t. 11, n. 3.

Wherefore although Trent prescribes that the pastor should ask the parents whom they have designated, and that he be punished if he has done otherwise, nevertheless it does not say that the reception is null, nor does it invalidate the ancient Law, C. fin. de Cognat. spir. in 6, from which all who touch contract kinship. - But since Trent says: "If others besides those designated have touched the baptized person, they in no way contract spiritual kinship, notwithstanding Constitutions to the contrary"; if designated sponsors are present, but another besides them alone touches, then this person alone contracts kinship, "because the Council says that those who touch beyond those designated do not contract, but not those who touch besides... Conversely, it must be said altogether otherwise if one designated person touches and another not designated, because this latter in no way contracts, as is clear from the words of Trent."

L. 154. - If more than two are designated and they touch successively, only the first two contract kinship; but if all touch at the same time, more probably all contract, because Trent, although it forbids more than two to be used, nevertheless does not invalidate the ancient Law except when more than two touch beyond those designated, but not if more designated persons beyond two touch. L. 154. - And if either two males or two females were used, each contracts kinship, since Trent innovated nothing concerning this matter. - Designation pertains to the parents, or to guardians, and if these are lacking, to the pastor.

The consent of the pastor must accede to the designation of the parents. - Sponsors designated by the parents and unjustly rejected by the pastor contract true spiritual kinship if they in reality hold the infant. L. 154. - In confirmation, nothing seems to have been changed from the old law, by which there was no need of designation of a sponsor. Trent sess. 22, de R. M., c. 2, at the end. But whether those things which the Council established concerning baptism are to be drawn to confirmation, even Sanchez himself doubts, de Matr. l. 7, d. 57, n. 9. - Barbosa, Apost. Decis. Collect. 177, n. 10; Ferraris v. Baptismus, a. 7, n. 13; La Croix 360; Corradus l. 8, c. 8, n. 8.

Does a father who is sponsor in the baptism of his illegitimate child contract spiritual kinship with his concubine? - Resp. In the affirmative, because the ecclesiastical laws inducing this spiritual kinship between the sponsor and the parents of the baptized person speak generally of all children, whether legitimate or illegitimate. Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1, d. 5, n. 2; Schmalzgrueber l. 4, t. 11, n. 45.

Is spiritual kinship contracted between the sponsor and the legal parents of an adopted child? - Resp. In the negative, because they are not true parents, that is, carnal generators. Lugo ib.

Who contracts kinship if someone receives an infant in the name of another? - It must undoubtedly be held that the one mandating contracts kinship, not the mandatary, unless however the former has revoked the intention in the meantime. La Croix l. 6, p. 1, n. 365; S. C. C., March 15, 1631; June 11, 1881. Hence it does not matter of what sex the mandatary is, S. C. C., March 29, 1582; Ferraris a. 7, n. 19, nor whether he himself has been baptized or confirmed. Benedict XIV, Quaest. can. 227; L. 153; E. M.

Does one receiving an infant in baptism conferred conditionally contract kinship? - Resp. In the affirmative if the doubt is negative, that is, if there is no solid reason for the prior baptism. In the negative, if the doubt is positive, that is, if there is a probable reason for the prior baptism; for then there will be kinship and a doubtful impediment, and therefore none. L. 151.

Does one contract kinship who by error receives one infant for another? - Resp. In the negative. The reason is that there is no will of one erring. But it is controverted among the doctors, and therefore, since it is a doubtful impediment, the impediment will be null. L. 146, 152.

Do those contract spiritual kinship who exercise the office of godfather and godmother in supplying the solemnities of baptism? - Resp. In the negative, because baptism is not then had. S. C. C., July 13, 1642; S. C. de P. F., Sept. 11, 1779. - Wherefore, in a case of this kind, sponsors also are to be used, unless, because a grave cause impedes, they cannot be appointed. Holy Office, Dec. 11, 1850; Collection of S. C. de P. F. n. 624.

Is spiritual kinship contracted in private baptism? - There is no doubt that the one baptizing contracts it. As to sponsors, it is disputed. The more common and more probable opinion, from St. Alphonsus 149, denies it; for since the Council of Trent speaks of those receiving from the sacred font, it speaks only of solemn baptism.

Indeed in private baptism a sponsor is not used according to ecclesiastical discipline. D'Annibale p. 1, n. 66, ed. 3; p. 3, n. 303; Gury-Ballerini 805, 806. But De Angelis l. 4, t. 11, n. 5; Gennari, Monit. Ecclesiast. v. 9, p. 1, p. 92, and others affirm from a declaration of S. C. C. Yet Ferraris a. 7, n. 20 asserts a contrary declaration of S. C. C. - Ballerini-Palmieri, Op. Theol., ed. 3, v. 6, n. 652; Kenrick tr. 15, n. 51; E. M.