Case XL: Reiteration of Baptism

Case.—Sylvia, an infant who appeared to be at the point of death, was baptized hurriedly by her mother, Camilla. In after-years mother and daughter often spoke together about this Baptism and gradually they became convinced that it had not been administered validly. They mentioned the matter to Sergius, their pastor, and were by him admonished to put the matter from their thoughts, as he felt satisfied that the Baptism was valid. But they continued to importune him to repeat the Baptism, and as he saw the matter was preying seriously on their minds, he finally consented to baptize Sylvia sub conditione.

Question.—1. Can the sacrament of Baptism be repeated without sacrilege?

2. Are there any penalties decreed against Rebaptizers?

3. Did Sergius act rightly in yielding to the request of Sylvia and Camilla?

Solution.—1. In the Tridentine Profession of faith it is stated that Baptism, Confirmation and Orders cannot be reiterated without sacrilege. These sacraments imprint an indelible character on the soul, and consequently when they have been once rightly administered, their further valid reception becomes impossible. The attempt to confer or to partake of them anew would be nothing but a hollow mockery on the part of minister and recipient. The case is different when one of these sacraments has been administered invalidly; for when a sacrament has not been really received, there can be no question of reiteration. Indeed, since Baptism is necessary for salvation, it not only may, but must be, repeated whenever a previous Baptism was either certainly or probably invalid. In the former case the Baptism should be reconferred absolutely, in the latter case, conditionally (S. C. P. F., 17 Apr., 1777).

A Baptism is to be considered as probably invalid when there is real reason for doubting whether some essential requisite of the sacrament was wanting, eg., when doubtful ‘matter or form has been used. If anxiety arises that is not supported by any good reason, as happens with scrupulous persons whose vain fears make them uncertain about their actions and intentions, it should be dismissed from the mind as unworthy of attention. Only doubts that are objective and well founded ought to be considered. To repeat Baptism, Confirmation or Holy Orders, even conditionally, because of doubts that are plainly insufficient, would be a sacrilege for the same reason that an absolute iteration is a profanation of sacred things.

It may happen, though, that a ratio dubitandi, while real, is yet very slight. Such a doubt does not impose itself on the judgment of a prudent man, yet is he not obliged to reject it, especially in a matter of such vital import as the validity of Baptism. Hence some grave authorities hold that a troublesome scruple of which the conscience cannot rid itself, provided it be not altogether unreasonable, is a sufficient reason for repeating sub conditione a necessary sacrament such as Baptism.

2. Formerly one who solemnly and publicly rebaptized, and also the person who knowingly submitted to rebaptism, incurred irregularity, which prevented the reception of higher orders. But this irregularity has been abolished. In the list of irregularities given in the new Codex this one does not appear, and hence according to the general principles of the Codex it must be considered as abolished.

3. Sergius was not justified in baptizing Sylvia, if he did so merely to gratify a whim indulged by her and her mother. If he felt no doubt about the first Baptism, his duty was plain. The desire to please or even to relieve distress would not justify him in carrying out a farcical simulation of the sacrament or in attempting to baptize one who to his knowledge was already baptized.

However, the persistent fears of Camilla and Sylvia about a Baptism administered hurriedly and under circumstances that might easily lead to error leave some room for. doubt. If Sergius, on second thought, decided that their reasons, although slight, were not clearly absurd, he could, with a clear conscience, repeat the Baptism, although, of course, he was not obliged to do so. Whether he was guilty of sacrilege, then, will depend on whether he acted in bona fide or in mala fide.