Chapter II: On the Minister of Baptism

1460. Every man using reason validly baptizes, provided matter and form and the intention of the Church are observed.²⁴ It is of faith from the Decree of Eugene IV to the Armenians, and from the Fourth Lateran Council, cap. Firmiter.

With respect to LICEITY, several things must be distinguished; for, because Baptism can be conferred either solemnly, that is, with the rites prescribed by the Church, or privately, namely on account of a case of necessity, hence the minister is either the minister of solemnity or the minister of necessity. Then, in order to Baptism itself, the minister of solemnity is either ordinary or extraordinary, according as by force of his ordination he confers it; but in order to the one to be baptized, he is either the proper minister or a delegated minister, according as, from the disposition of ecclesiastical law, he confers it by proper right or by delegated right.

These things having been premised, we establish the following:

1461. Principles. I. The ORDINARY minister of solemn Baptism by divine law is the priest; by ecclesiastical law it is the Bishop in his diocese, and the pastor in his parish. The first is established from the Decree of Eugene IV, in which it is handed down: "The minister of this Sacrament of Baptism is the priest, to whom it belongs from office to baptize." The second is established from canon law and from the Roman Ritual; and the reason is that through Baptism each one is aggregated not only to the universal Church, but also to a particular one. But to aggregate to a particular Church belongs to him who presides over this Church. Yet the pastor cannot attribute this right to himself if in his church there does not exist a baptismal font, but the Provost of the church in which the baptistery is found; for he alone, from the prescription of the Roman Ritual, ought to confer Baptism.²⁵

It suffices, however, that the permission be tacit, or even presumed from a just and reasonable cause.¹

3. "Pilgrims or those who do not have domicile can be baptized in the church which they have chosen. 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, for example by two or three hours, the offspring can also be baptized in her own church."²

4. Strangers, according to the more common and more probable opinion, can receive Baptism and the other Sacraments from the pastor of the place where they have already contracted quasi-domicile.³

Note. The Sacred Congregation DE PROPAGANDA FIDE, on January 21, 1789, decreed: "A suspended and interdicted priest can at no time administer Baptism with solemnities; but when because of urgent necessity he must baptize, let him baptize privately."⁴

1462. II. The EXTRAORDINARY minister of SOLEMN Baptism is a Deacon. This is established from canon law and from the Pontifical. But although a Deacon, by force of his ordination, can baptize solemnly, nevertheless he cannot do this licitly unless from the commission of the ordinary minister. Nor indeed can such commission be given at the will of the pastor or of the Bishop himself, but only on account of necessity, or on account of great utility of the Church: for example, if other priests are lacking and a multitude of those to be baptized is present; or if the pastor is gravely ill, or excommunicated, or otherwise occupied with hearing confessions or preaching. But if a deacon, without legitimate delegation, even in a case of necessity, baptizes solemnly, according to the very common opinion, he incurs irregularity; and clerics of a lower Order certainly incur this penalty;⁵ for these, that they may be able to baptize solemnly, are not sufficiently supplied in any case by the commission of the pastor or Bishop; but delegation of the Supreme Pontiff himself is required.⁶

1463. III. The legitimate minister of PRIVATE Baptism, in a case of NECESSITY, is any man using reason. For the Roman Ritual has thus: "Whenever an infant or adult is in danger of life, he can without solemnity be baptized by anyone in any language, whether cleric, or layman even excommunicated, whether faithful, or unbeliever, whether Catholic, or heretic, whether man, or woman, provided however that the form and intention of the Church are observed."

But the order to be observed among ministers is that which the RITUAL thus designates: "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 becoming that a woman rather than a man baptize an infant not wholly brought forth; or unless a woman knew better the form and manner of baptizing." Likewise, from the Ritual and from Canon Law, outside utmost necessity, neither the father nor the mother is permitted to baptize their own offspring. A stranger, if any is present, should baptize this offspring brought into danger of life. But a layman not excommunicated is to be placed before a priest who is excommunicated, since an excommunicated person is no longer numbered among the members of the Church.⁷ The Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, August 20, 1671, responded: "Let the Bishop not permit schismatics to administer the Sacrament of Baptism, except in a case of necessity, and when any other person whatsoever is lacking."⁸

From these things you resolve: 1. Anyone who omits to confer Baptism in a case of necessity sins gravely; because, as Tertullian says, "he is guilty of a lost man."⁹ But the principal SIGNS of danger for an infant are these: "if he is born without crying and tears; if he breathes moderately; if he appears livid, especially in face or head; if he is born after much labor of the midwife, or before the seventh month; if he has the cranium soft, or sutures too open, or other parts disjoined."¹⁰

2. Likewise a layman who, the order having been spurned, baptizes in the presence of a priest sins gravely, as also does the priest himself who, without a legitimate reason, yields his office of baptizing to a layman. In the other cases, inversion of the order of ministers is only a venial sin; which probably must also be said if a layman baptizes in the presence of a deacon not deputed by the pastor.¹¹

1464. Questions. Q. 1. Whether several can baptize ONE at the same time, or ONE several?

Resp. 1. If each of those baptizing intends to act independently of the other, as a particular and individual cause, Baptism is valid; because all requisites are present, as is clear from the similar case in Ordination, by which newly ordained priests consecrate together with the Bishop; and in such a case, he who first completes the form, he alone baptizes. But if one intends to act dependently on the other, as a common and simultaneous cause, Baptism is INVALID, whether he says: "I baptize thee," or says: "we baptize thee." For, as St. Thomas says,¹² "a man does not baptize except as minister of Christ and bearing His place. Whence, just as Christ is one, so there must be one minister who represents Christ." In each case one acts ILLICITLY, unless haste excuses.¹³

Resp. 2. Illicitly, outside a case of necessity, several are baptized at the same time by one; for the Ritual reprobates that form "I baptize you," directed to several at once, unless there is danger of death and time does not allow that individuals be baptized separately. "Yet they are validly baptized; because, by acting thus, the necessary form is not diversified, since the plural is the singular doubled."¹⁴

Q. 2. Whether someone can baptize HIMSELF?

Resp. He cannot, either licitly or validly; both because the person baptizing must be altogether diverse from the person baptized,¹⁵ and because Baptism is spiritual generation: now, no one can generate himself. But see what was said, n. 1452, q. 1.