CHAPTER III: ON THE MINISTER OF BAPTISM

The Minister of Baptism is one thing when ordinary, another when extraordinary. Again the extraordinary Minister is twofold: namely the Minister of solemnity and of necessity.

1257. Principles. - I. Every priest, and only a priest, by force of his ordination, is the ordinary minister of Baptism. It is clear from various places of Canon Law and from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union, and also from the universal practice of the Church.

II. A deacon is the extraordinary Minister and Minister of solemnity, i.e. able to baptize solemnly, but only from delegation and for a grave cause. It is clear from Canon Law and the Roman Pontifical, or from the instruction of the Bishop to Deacons in ordination, etc.

III. Any man whatsoever using reason, whether male or female, whether Catholic or heretic, whether believer or unbeliever, is an extraordinary Minister of Baptism, so that he can always baptize validly, and in necessity also licitly. It is drawn from the same sources and from what was said above in the first principle. - Hence "let priests take care that all the faithful, especially physicians, nurses, and midwives, rightly know the manner of conferring private Baptism."¹

IV. 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 he has ordinary or delegated jurisdiction. It is clear from Canon Law and from the Roman Ritual on Baptism. (1) p. 416.

1258. Resolves. - 1° Neither a Pastor nor a Bishop, without commission, licitly baptizes outside his own diocese or parish, or, within it, persons belonging to others. 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.¹

2° Travelers, i.e. vagi, can be baptized in whatever Church they have chosen. 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, unless perhaps the proper village is a little distant from there.²

3° According to the more common and more probable sentence,³ all can receive Baptism and the other Sacraments from the Pastor of the place where they have already contracted quasi-domicile.⁴

4° But a stranger can be baptized with the permission, either express or reasonably presumed, of his own priest.⁵

5° Religious can baptize in a case of necessity, or with the permission of the same Pastor and of their own Superior, since this is prohibited by no law.⁶

6° Father and mother ought not to baptize their own offspring except in danger of death, when another who may baptize is not found. Rit. Rom. Cf. St. Alphonsus.⁷

Note. - The dispositions of law under 1°, among us, prescinding from diocesan statutes, are to be understood with the limitation which the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore⁸ indicates in these words: "Worthy of gravest reproof are priests who rashly baptize infants offered to them from another parish or diocese, when they could easily have been baptized by their own pastor."

1259. Questions. - Query 1° What order is to be observed among Ministers of Baptism?

Resp. In the Roman Ritual it is thus held: "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 is fitting that a woman rather than a man baptize an infant not yet entirely born, or unless the woman should know better the form and mode of baptizing." See St. Alphonsus.¹

Query 2° Does a layman sin mortally who, in necessity, with a priest present, baptizes?

Resp. Affirmatively, with the common sentence. The reason is, because then he truly usurps the right of the priest, to whom from the power of Order the office of baptizing has been committed. Therefore also the priest himself sins gravely if he yields the administration to a layman. Yet a layman is to be preferred to an excommunicated priest.²

Query 3° Does a layman sin gravely by baptizing before a deacon?

Resp. It is controverted. The first probable sentence affirms; because a deacon, by force of ordination, is deputed to baptizing, although from the actual practice of the Church he cannot solemnly baptize except for a grave cause and with the permission of the Pastor.

The second sentence, likewise probable, denies; because a deacon baptizing in a case of necessity without commission does not baptize from office, but in the same manner as an inferior cleric or layman. - St. Alphonsus³ says that each sentence is probable.

Query 4° Is it lawful for a layman, with the permission of a priest or Bishop, to baptize infants, on account of the common dangers of life, where there is no availability of a priest?

Resp. Kenrick: "We judge that it must be denied; for both the testimonies of the Fathers speak of one in danger and about to perish, and the decrees of the Church plainly treat of the same necessity. Thus Eugene IV says: with danger of death imminent, let them be baptized even by a layman.... If therefore a priest is not going to return except after some months, not on that account will it be lawful to baptize infants who meanwhile are born without any danger, but only those who are placed in danger. We judge the same must be said, even if afterward no hope of sacred ministry should shine forth; for we have learned from no document of the Church that a layman can be deputed to baptize outside danger of death. But the less hope there is that a priest will come, we think the less danger suffices for a layman to baptize; nor is the hour of death to be awaited; but if the illness brings danger of death, Baptism is to be ministered."⁴ - But when necessity urges, "if the weather is severe, and the journey long, or if the priest is infirm in health, or burdened with very many occupations of his sacred ministry" (I would add: which cannot be deferred), "he does not seem to sin by rejecting the burden of baptizing onto a layman who knows how to furnish it."⁵ (2) p. 416.

Query 5° At what age of infants is this Sacrament to be conferred?

Resp. As soon as it can be done, although danger of death does not urge. Cf. Rit. Rom. - the Bull Cantate of Eugene IV, etc. - More specially the C. S. O. on 30 July 1771 established: "Pastors are obliged to baptize infants without any delay, if danger of death is imminent; but if danger is not present, the administration of Baptism is not to be deferred beyond the third day after birth."⁶ Moreover all agree that it is grave sin to wait for a long time. Yet St. Alphonsus⁷ more probably denies that a delay which does not exceed 10 or 11 days is grave. - Kenrick observes:⁸ "In most of the United States great neglect in this matter is found; for there are those who allow several months to pass before they fulfill this office. Theologians recognize grave sin in delay whenever there is availability of a priest and the infant can be brought without danger. Moreover the excessive cold of winter, length of the journey, contrary will of a non-Catholic father, and other excuses often occur; but the solicitude of priests is to be employed in this, that they be brought as soon as possible." Therefore the Fathers of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore say:⁹ "We will that pastors of souls most sharply and more often rebuke the detestable sloth of Catholic parents, who do not take care that the age of little children, exposed to so many dangers, be fortified at once by the Sacrament of Baptism."