The minister of solemn and of private Baptism

THE ordinary minister of solemn Baptism is a priest, but as it is a parochial sacrament, its lawful administration belongs exclusively to the parish priest or to the priest who has the cure of souls in the district in which the parents of the child have their domicile or quasi-domicile. Such priest may, of course, delegate authority to any other priest to baptize in his name; if there is reasonable cause, as in case of illness or constant occupation in hearing confessions, he may commission a deacon to give solemn Baptism. The children of strangers may be baptized by the parish priest of the place, unless they can easily and without delay be baptized by their own parish priest (Can. 738, sec. 2).

In case of necessity, when there is danger of someone dying without Baptism, anyone who has the use of reason may baptize without the ceremonies. In such cases of necessity the Ritual prescribes that a priest should be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a lay person, a man to a woman, unless the latter be preferred for the sake of decency or because she is better acquainted with the method of valid Baptism. Those who have the cure of souls should take care that the faithful, especially midwives, are instructed in the right method of administering Baptism. The Ritual also prescribes that a father or mother should not baptize their own child except when it is in danger of death and no one else can do so (Can. 742).

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.

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."

243. Principles. - I. Every Priest, and only a Priest, by force of his ordination is the ordinary minister of Baptism. This is clear from various places of Canon Law and from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union, as well as from the universal practice of the Church.

II. A Deacon is the extraordinary Minister and one of solemnity, that is, he is able to baptize solemnly, but only by delegation and for a grave cause. This is clear from Canon Law and from the Roman Pontifical, or from the instruction of the Bishop to Deacons in ordination, etc.

III. Any human being using reason, whether man or woman, whether Catholic or heretic, whether faithful or infidel, is an extraordinary Minister of Baptism, so that he can always validly baptize, and in necessity also licitly. This is drawn from the same sources as was said above in the first principle.

IV. Although every Priest by force of ordination has the power of baptizing, nevertheless he cannot licitly use it, even privately, outside a case of necessity, unless he has ordinary or delegated jurisdiction. This is clear from Canon Law and from the Roman Ritual on Baptism.

245. Questions. - QUESTION 1. What order must be observed among the Ministers of Baptism?

Resp. In the Roman Ritual it is thus had: If a Priest is present, he is to 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 the woman knew better the form and manner of baptizing. See St. Ligorius, n. 117.

QUESTION 2. Whether a layman sins mortally who, in necessity, with a Priest present, baptizes?

Resp. The answer is affirmative, with the common opinion. The reason is that then he truly usurps the right of the Priest, to whom by the power of Order the office of baptizing has been committed. Therefore the Priest himself also sins gravely if he yields the administration to a layman. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

246. • QUESTION 3. Whether a layman sins gravely by baptizing before a Deacon?

Resp. It is controverted. The first probable opinion affirms; because a Deacon by force of ordination is deputed to baptize, although from the actual practice of the Church he cannot baptize solemnly except for a grave cause and with the license of the Parish Priest.

The second equally probable opinion denies, because a Deacon baptizing in a case of necessity without commission does not baptize from office, but in the same way as an inferior Cleric or a layman. - St. Ligorius, ibid., says that both opinions are probable.

120. 2. The extraordinary minister of solemn baptism is a deacon.

Although a deacon receives in his ordination the faculty of solemnly baptizing, nevertheless, according to the present discipline of the Church, he is only an extraordinary minister, and therefore he cannot licitly baptize unless these two things are present together: 1. the commission of the pastor, or local Ordinary; and 2. a just cause.¹²⁶ In a case of necessity a deacon can indeed solemnly baptize even with the presumed permission of the pastor,¹²⁷ but in other cases the commission, express or at least tacit, of the pastor is necessary. Indeed, according to the opinion which St. Alphonsus¹²⁸ called the more probable and most common, a deacon solemnly baptizing without such a commission would incur an irregularity. Nevertheless, the opinion denying the irregularity is safe today; for the text cited for the opposite opinion rather proves the contrary. These are the words: "If anyone not ordained should baptize or exercise any divine office, on account of his temerity let him be cast out of the Church and never be ordained."¹²⁹ But a deacon in his ordination expressly receives the faculty of baptizing.¹³⁰ Therefore, he cannot be called "not ordained." But if a subdeacon, another cleric, or a layman rashly confers solemn baptism, he is irregular. The reason why a deacon ordinarily cannot solemnly baptize without the commission of the pastor is that deacons, as their very name indicates, are only assisting ministers, and it does not pertain to them to furnish any sacrament principally and as if from their own office. Thus the Angelic Doctor¹³¹ gives this general rule: "He who cannot consecrate the Eucharist cannot solemnly open the approach to this sacrament. But baptism is the approach to the Eucharist and to all the other sacraments. Therefore, a deacon who cannot consecrate the Eucharist cannot solemnly baptize on his own authority."

Note. 1. A deacon solemnly baptizing probably cannot bless the salt or water, but must use these things blessed by a priest.¹³² 2. Those who knowingly presume to offer their children to non-Catholic ministers to be solemnly baptized incur an excommunication reserved to the Ordinary.¹³³

¹²⁶ Ibid., c. 741. The local Ordinary or pastor can delegate a deacon to baptize solemnly for a just cause, for example, because he himself is sick, absent, or occupied in hearing confessions, and so forth.

¹²⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 741.

¹²⁸ Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 116.

¹²⁹ c. 1, X 5, 28.

¹³⁰ Thus Noldin, De sacr., n. 63, and Gasparri, De s. ordinat., n. 339.

¹³¹ S. theol. 3, q. 67, a. 1.

¹³² Sacred Congregation of Rites, February 10, 1888 (Decr. auth., n. 3684). Whether this decree was abolished by the Code of Canon Law, c. 1153, is not certainly established.

¹³³ Code of Canon Law, c. 2319, § 1, n. 3.

123. Scholion. On baptism of necessity conferred by laymen. Concerning the baptism of infants who have been baptized in danger of death by midwives and other laymen, the following things are to be observed: The pastor is bound diligently to instruct laymen, and especially midwives and physicians, in the correct manner of baptizing.¹⁴⁵ He should teach them that, insofar as it can be done, they must employ two witnesses, or at least one, by whom the conferral of baptism can be proved.¹⁴⁶ Moreover, it is advantageous prudently to examine midwives from time to time as to whether they truly know correctly the manner of baptizing. Whenever a midwife or another layman has baptized in a case of necessity, the pastor must investigate whether all the essentials for validity were present. A good manner of conducting this investigation is for the pastor not to put determinate questions, but to say to the midwife and to the witness, if one was present: "Tell me how it was done." Then he will easily perceive whether anything essential was omitted. If the pastor remains doubtful whether the baptism conferred was valid, he must baptize again under condition; otherwise, he is to supply only the baptismal ceremonies.

¹⁴⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 743.

¹⁴⁶ Cf. ibid., c. 742, § 1.

St. Thomas, III, q. 67.

136. Notions. - A minister is one kind ordinary, who by force of the order received is deputed primarily to confer Baptism; another extraordinary, who by force of order is deputed to this only secondarily, but primarily to assist the minister of a higher order; - another legitimate, who besides has due license for baptizing; another illegitimate, who does not have this license; - another is the minister of solemn Baptism, which is ministered with all the rites and ceremonies prescribed in the ritual being observed; another the minister of non-solemn or private Baptism, which is conferred without all the ceremonies (can. 737, § 2).

137. Principle I. The ordinary minister of Baptism is every priest, and only a priest, as the Council of Florence says, decree for the Armenians. Since the conferral of Baptism is an act of a pastor, and by it the baptized person is aggregated also to a particular Church, but to make aggregation pertains to him who has jurisdiction in that Church; hence the faculty of baptizing solemnly is reserved to the pastor and the Ordinary of the place, and another priest cannot legitimately use his power unless he has obtained license from the pastor or the Ordinary of the place; nevertheless this license in a case of necessity is legitimately presumed, even for solemn Baptism (can. 738, § 1).

Hence 1. the Ordinary of the place and the pastor have the reserved right of baptizing, by themselves or by a delegate, all who have domicile or quasi-domicile in their territory, and also vagi, while they are actually staying in the territory.

2. They cannot of themselves baptize pilgrims, because these are not subjects, and therefore they are to be brought to their own parish; unless this cannot easily and without delay be done: for then any pastor in whose parish they are can baptize them solemnly (can. 738, § 2); as can often happen if a mother gives birth in a sanatorium.

3. Outside their own territory they cannot baptize, not even their own subjects, without due license of the pastor or Ordinary of the place (can. 739).

4. The Baptism of adults, where it can conveniently be done, is to be referred to the Ordinary of the place, so that, if he wishes, it may be conferred more solemnly (can. 744).

5. Parents sin who, outside a case of necessity or without license of the pastor, bring their offspring to other priests, because they violate the right of their own pastor; likewise priests who, outside a case of necessity, baptize such offspring without ordinary or delegated faculty, and indeed of itself gravely, although more often in various circumstances grave fault can be absent.

138. Principle II. The extraordinary minister of solemn Baptism is a deacon; who nevertheless cannot use his power without license of the pastor or Ordinary of the place, which is not to be conceded except for a just cause. The cause is judged sufficient if the pastor is absent or sick, or if he is occupied with having to preach a sermon or with hearing confessions. Where necessity urges, license is legitimately presumed (can. 741).

A deacon baptizing solemnly: 1. can and ought to use all the rites and ceremonies; 2. but he cannot bless salt and water; whence, if blessed salt is lacking, let him omit the ceremony with the prayer joined to it (S.R.C., February 10, 1888); 3. if he baptizes without license of the pastor or Ordinary of the place, he sins, and indeed of itself gravely; but he does not contract an irregularity, because he does not usurp an order.

139. Principle III. The extraordinary minister of private Baptism is any man using reason, whether male or female, whether Catholic or heretic or schismatic, whether faithful or unbeliever, who always baptizes validly, but licitly in danger of death and when an ordinary minister is lacking (can. 742); as is certainly established from the doctrine and practice of the Church; indeed, it is of faith from Lateran Council IV, cap. Firmiter; the Council of Florence; and from Trent, sess. 7, can. 4, defining that Baptism conferred in due manner by heretics is true Baptism.

Concerning this let it be noted:

1. A case of necessity exists only in danger of death; not, however, if a priest cannot be had except after a long time on account of distance, bad weather, or illness. Probable danger of death suffices, indeed a founded fear, which in missions can more easily be admitted on account of various circumstances (S.R.C., February 10, 1888).

2. In private Baptism an order among ministers is to be observed: "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, or unless the woman knows better the form and mode of baptizing," says the Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 16, and this is confirmed by can. 742, § 2. This rule is to be understood concerning Catholic ministers, so that:

a) any faithful person not excommunicated is to be preferred to any heretic, even a priest;

b) a faithful person is also to be preferred to a cleric under censure after declaratory or condemnatory sentence (Holy Office, August 20, 1671);

c) a woman outside the family is preferred to the father of the infant, for, says the ritual, "it is not licit for the father or mother to baptize their own offspring, except in danger of death, when no one else is at hand who may baptize" (can. 742, § 3): thus lest a double paternity be accumulated in the same person.

3. He sins gravely who baptizes against the aforesaid order when a priest not prohibited is present; nor can the priest yield his right except by reason of decency, for example, for baptizing a fetus in the mother's womb. Likewise it will be grave if an unbeliever, heretic, schismatic, or excommunicated person to be avoided is preferred without necessity to a Catholic, even a layman. In other cases, to invert this order is probably only venial.

140. Principle IV. Several ministers, each of whom places the whole sacramental sign independently of the action and intention of the others, baptize validly, although not licitly. For then each one is the cause of the whole sacrament, and consequently they act as ministers of Christ, who gave to each the power of confecting the whole sacrament independently of others; - on the contrary, if they acted as partial and inadequate causes which must contribute their powers to one another and are dependent on one another, because thus they would not act as a minister of Christ but as a common and simultaneous cause.

Hence, given that two baptize:

1. If each intends to baptize not by himself alone but conjointly with the other, or dependently on the action and intention of the other, then neither baptizes, because several ministers cannot concur in the sacrament as partial causes.

2. A fortiori if one washed and the other uttered the form.

3. But if each intends to baptize separately, or independently of the intention of the other, then the one who first completes the matter and form baptizes validly, the other invalidly; - if each completes them at the same time, each baptizes, but "they would not hand on one sacrament and another sacrament, but Christ, who is the one baptizing interiorly, would confer one sacrament" (a. 6).

4. If together at the same time they say: we baptize you, understanding themselves as partial causes coming together to confer one Baptism, as is the more natural sense of the words, they baptize invalidly, because they essentially change the sense of the form (a. 6); - on the contrary, validly, if each should say this as total and independent causes.

141. Observations. - 1. In Baptism of necessity, as far as can be done, two witnesses or at least one should be used, by whom the conferral of Baptism can be proved (can. 742, § 1).

2. Let the pastor take care that the faithful, especially midwives, physicians, and surgeons, thoroughly learn the correct mode of baptizing for a case of necessity (Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 13; can. 743). This obligation is grave.

3. When it falls to the pastor to judge concerning the value of private Baptism, it is better first to question the person baptizing, then the witnesses, separately. One must examine:

a) who baptized and in what circumstances: for if Baptism was conferred by a person who is accustomed to be anxious, disturbed, and perplexed, or if Baptism was conferred by a prudent person, but in more difficult circumstances, in which, because of the danger of a sudden event, everything had to be done hastily and in disturbance, there is more easily room for doubt;

b) what form he pronounced, whether integrally, whether vocally and not only mentally;

c) what and how much water he poured, and where;

d) whether at the same time he uttered the form and washed;

e) what intention he had: for sometimes certain midwives confer the sacrament under a condition concerning the future: if you will die, if you will not be able to be brought to the church, if you will not be able to be born, etc., which renders the sacrament invalid. Yet inquiry will chiefly be concerning matter and form, because a right intention is presumed unless there is a special reason for doubting.

Generally it is expedient that the pastor, before he poses determinate questions, induce the person who baptized to narrate how he acted.

I. QUESTION I. Of how many kinds is the minister of Baptism? ANSWER. Threefold. First, ordinary by office. Second, extraordinary by delegation. Third, of necessity. The ordinary minister of the solemnity is the bishop, then parish priests, thereafter presbyters. When formerly the bishops solemnly baptized, it was not lawful for presbyters or parish priests to do the same. And even now, if the parish priest be at hand, a priest ought not to baptize without consulting him. A deacon can administer Baptism not by office but by commission. Laymen are ministers of necessity, who baptize without the solemn rite. A layman would sin mortally if, a priest being present, he should baptize, because in a grave matter he would usurp to himself a right proper to the priest. Gravely also would a layman sin if, a deacon being present, he should baptize; because, a priest being absent, this devolves upon the deacon, as the more probable opinion teaches. A layman baptizing without necessity, with the solemn rite, incurs irregularity.

1. Who is the minister and who the subject of Baptism?

The ordinary minister of solemn Baptism is the parish priest, who may delegate his office to another priest, and for just cause even to a deacon. In case of necessity any one may baptize.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 52.