64. The minister of baptism is one thing if ordinary, another if extraordinary; and the extraordinary minister is one thing for solemn baptism, another for private baptism.

1. The extraordinary minister of private baptism is any human being having the use of reason, whether man or woman, whether Catholic or heretic, whether believer or unbeliever, who indeed always baptizes validly, but licitly only in a case of necessity and when the ordinary minister is lacking, as is clear from the doctrine and practice of the Church.

a. Nevertheless it is not licit for the father or mother to baptize their own child, except in danger of death, when no one else is present who may baptize. Cn. 742, 3.

b. A case of necessity is considered to be present if a man not yet baptized is in danger of death; but not if, because of distance, bad weather, or illness, a priest cannot be had except after a long time. Therefore in these circumstances the office of baptizing cannot be committed to a layman, always excepting danger of death.

c. Yet in mission places there is approved the custom by force of which, when a priest is absent, baptism is permitted to be administered immediately by catechists or other approved laymen to recently born infants, even those enjoying good health (although the priest is absent only for a short time), because the life of infants is exposed to continual dangers.¹

d. If in a case of necessity baptism is conferred privately, there are to be used, if it can be done, two witnesses or at least one, by whom the conferral of baptism can be proved. Cn. 742, 1.

2. The extraordinary minister of solemn baptism is the deacon, who nevertheless can licitly baptize solemnly only by delegation of the Ordinary or of the pastor, which is to be granted from a just cause. A sufficient cause on account of which the office of baptizing can be committed to a deacon is judged to be this: if the pastor is absent or sick, or if he is occupied with holding a sermon or hearing confessions, etc. If necessity presses, the permission is legitimately presumed.

a. Whether a deacon baptizes licitly in a case of lighter necessity, but without the commission of the pastor, is disputed. Suarez holds the affirmative opinion, because when necessity exists a reasonably presumed commission suffices.² The reason of St. Alphonsus, who holds the negative opinion (n. 116), is this: because a deacon can solemnly baptize only in place of the priest.

b. It is not licit for a deacon, even if he baptizes solemnly, to bless salt or water.³

c. A cleric lower than a deacon who solemnly baptizes incurs irregularity, because he exercises an order which he does not have. But a deacon who solemnly baptizes without commission indeed sins, because he injures the right of the pastor; yet he does not seem to incur irregularity, because he does not exercise an order which he does not have, since by force of ordination he can solemnly baptize.

3. The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is every and only priest, who nevertheless, except in a case of necessity, cannot licitly use his power unless he possesses the ordinary or delegated faculty for this.

a. Therefore a bishop can licitly baptize only those who have domicile or quasi-domicile in his diocese; and a pastor can licitly baptize only those who have domicile or quasi-domicile within the limits of his parish. But he cannot licitly baptize outsiders who do not have quasi-domicile in his parish without the permission of their own pastor, unless they are travelers or vagrants. Outside his parish he cannot licitly baptize his own parishioners without the permission of the pastor of the place.

b. Travelers ought to be baptized by their own pastor in his parish, if this can be done easily and without delay; otherwise they can be baptized by any pastor in his own territory. Therefore an infant whom a woman bears while staying outside her homeland, or whom a woman happens to bear in a place not her own, must be brought to his own pastor, unless he is far distant, or the infant is exposed to danger of life, or baptism for that reason would have to be deferred too long. Cn. 738, 1. Vagrants can be baptized by any pastor whom they themselves have chosen, if they are adults, or whom their parents have chosen, if they are infants.

c. Priests who without just cause baptize infants offered to them from another parish sin gravely, because they injure the right of the infant's own pastor. But when a just cause exists, an outside infant can licitly be baptized with the reasonably presumed permission of the infant's pastor. In the same way parents sin who outside a case of necessity or without the permission of the pastor bring their child to be baptized by other priests, because they violate the right of their own shepherd.

d. The baptism of adults, from the Roman Ritual and from the Code of Canon Law, is to be referred to the bishop, if this can conveniently be done.⁴ But in most dioceses it is laid down that no adult is to be baptized outside a case of necessity, not even under condition, without the permission of the Ordinary.

¹ S. C. de Prop. Fide, 11 Feb. 1804.

² Suarez, disp. 23, sect. 2, n. 10.

³ S. C. R., 10 Feb. 1888, n. 3684.

⁴ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 3, n. 3. Cn. 744.

65. The order to be observed among diverse ministers in private baptism is thus described in the Roman Ritual: "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 fitting that a woman rather than a man baptize an infant not wholly born, or unless the woman should know better the form and manner of baptizing."¹

"Nevertheless," says Lehmkuhl (n. 67 [93]), "this rule is understood in such a way that a. any believer existing in union with the Church, whether man or woman, provided he sufficiently knows the manner of baptizing, is altogether to be preferred to any heretic, even a priest; b. an outside woman is to be preferred to the father of the infant, since parents ought not to baptize their own infant except when another is lacking."

A layman who, contrary to this order, baptizes in the presence of a priest sins gravely, since to the priest alone does this faculty belong as proper by force of ordination; nor can a priest yield his own right, which belongs to him from divine institution, except by reason of decency, e.g., for baptizing a fetus in the mother's womb. But in other cases, to invert this order is free from grave fault, to such an extent that a layman baptizing in the presence of a deacon, according to a probable opinion, does not sin gravely.²

Question Fourth. On the Subject of Baptism

The subject capable of baptism is every and only wayfaring man not yet baptized. Every: because all need regeneration, as being infected with original sin. Only: because the sacraments were instituted for wayfaring men alone, and to them alone access into the Church lies open. Not yet baptized: for this sacrament can neither licitly nor validly be repeated. - We must treat: a. of infants to be baptized; b. of fetuses to be baptized; c. of adults to be baptized; d. of those to be baptized under condition.

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 2, c. 1, n. 13. Cn. 742, 2.

² Cf. Suarez, disp. 31, sect. 4, n. 7 ff.

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).

The ceremonies prescribed for solemn Baptism are of grave obligation, so that it would be a mortal sin to omit without necessity a notable part of them, as, for example, the anointings or the. use of consecrated water. The child is anointed with the oil of catechumens before the actual baptizing, and afterward with the chrism, The holy oils should be kept carefully separated, and they should be renewed every year when the oils are consecrated Thursday. The baptismal by the Bishop on Maundy font, too, should be blessed on Holy Saturday with the oils consecrated on the previous Thursday. If they have not arrived in time the font should be blessed without them, and they should be added afterward, unless, in the meantime, someone has to be baptized, and then the old oils may be used in blessing the font. threaten to be exhausted, fresh, unblessed If the oils olive oil may be added, always in smaller quantity. The same rule may be followed with regard to the consecrated water in the font. The Ritual admonishes the parish priest to take care that as far as possible names of saints should be given in Baptism, so that, by their example, the baptized person may be moved to live holily, and that he may hope to enjoy their patronage. In solemn Baptism the Latin language should be used, but certain portions may also be rendered in the vernacular, according to the Ritual approved for use in the country.

According to the Code of Canon Law, the proper place for solemn Baptism is the baptistery in a church or public oratory. Every parish church should have a baptismal font. If, on account of distance or for other reasons, a person to be baptized cannot be brought to the parish church, the parish priest may and ought to administer solemn Baptism in the nearest church or public oratory. Solemn Baptism should not be administered in private houses unless those to be baptized are the children or grandchildren of those who hold the chief authority in the country, or have the right to succeed to the throne, and they make the request, or if the local Ordinary for good reason in some extraordinary case thinks that it should be allowed. In these cases Baptism should be given with consecrated water, and in the chapel or in some suitable room of the house (Can. 773-776).

Adults should be baptized according to the longer form in the Ritual unless the local Ordinary for a grave reason allow the form for the Baptism of infants to be used (Can. 755, sec. 2).

Those who have attained the use of reason are their own masters in the things of God, and are considered adults with reference to Baptism (Can. 745, sec. 2, 11).

Adults who have been converted from heresy and require conditional Baptism are to be baptized privately with holy water and without the ceremonies, according to the First Synod of Westminster (Can. 759, sec. 2).

In questions concerning Baptism, infants are those who have not attained the use of reason, had the use of reason sec, 2). and those who are reckoned never have as infants (Can. 745, Baptism; if they were used in the first E ‘they may be used or omitted in the second at the option of minister. This does not apply to conditional Baptism ministered to adult converts,

We must speak first about the person ministering, then about the manner of ministering.

I. Every priest is the ordinary minister of solemn Baptism in this sense, that by the force of his ordination he is deputed principally, not secondarily as a deacon is, for baptizing, and can always be delegated by the proper pastor of the person to be baptized to baptize, and that solemnly (cf. canon 738, § 1).

II. A deacon is the extraordinary minister of Baptism in this sense, that by the force of his ordination he is deputed secondarily for baptizing, and can be delegated by the Ordinary or by the proper pastor of the person to be baptized, for a just cause, to baptize, and that solemnly. Hence he is not to use his power without the delegation or permission of the local Ordinary or of the pastor, to be granted for a just cause, which, where necessity urges, is legitimately presumed (cf. canon 741; St. Alphonsus, VI, 116, doubt 1). It was said:

1. A deacon is deputed secondarily, because he is ordained rather to assist a minister of a higher order, and secondarily to supply his place.

2. For a just cause to be granted: for example, if the pastor is absent or ill or subject to excommunication or occupied in hearing confessions; perhaps also if the parents desire it, for example because of consanguinity, etc.

3. Where necessity urges, granted permission is not required, but presumed permission suffices. Now necessity urges if the person to be baptized is in the article or danger of death; likewise if it is foreseen that the priest will be absent for a long time, and no other can be approached.¹

¹ Cf. Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 21 January 1788; 16 January 1804; 11 September 1841 (Collectanea, nn. 593, 674, 939).

III. With respect to the right of baptizing solemnly, hold the following:

1. The Ordinary of the place and the pastor enjoy the right of baptizing solemnly their own subjects, or rather the inhabitants of their territory; this does not belong to another priest except by permission of the same pastor or of the local Ordinary, which in a case of necessity is legitimately presumed (canon 730, § 1). He who performs this without due permission sins gravely (St. Alphonsus, VI, 115); likewise parents violate the right of the pastor when, without necessity or permission, they bring their child to another priest to be baptized.

2. Even a traveler is to be baptized solemnly by his own pastor in his own parish, if this can be done easily and without delay; otherwise any pastor can solemnly baptize a traveler in his own territory (canon 730, § 2).

3. Where parishes or quasi-parishes have not yet been established, account must be taken of special statutes and received customs, so that it may be established to which priest, besides the Ordinary, the right of baptizing belongs in the whole territory or in part of it (canon 740).

Note. The Baptism of adults, where it can conveniently be done, is to be referred to the local Ordinary, so that, if he wishes, it may be conferred more solemnly by him or by his delegate (canon 744).

IV. With respect to the territory in which solemn Baptism may be conferred, canon 739 establishes: In another's territory no one may, without due permission, confer solemn Baptism, not even on inhabitants of his own place.

Corollary I. If a woman gives birth outside her own parish, she ought to see that the child is baptized in her own parish, if this can be done easily and without delay; otherwise she can choose either her own parish or that in which she gave birth to the child, or even another (canon 738, § 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 115).

Corollary II. Those without fixed domicile can choose whichever church they prefer (cf. canon 94, § 2).

V. Every human being is the minister of Baptism in this sense, that he can baptize validly; in a case of necessity also licitly, though not solemnly (canon 742, § 1). If, when a case occurs, several are present, the prescribed order, to be assigned under 2 below, is to be observed. I said:

1. In a case of necessity; wherefore note:

a) Extreme necessity is not required, but a well-founded danger suffices, lest an infant soon to die should die. The Holy Office, to the question "whether a midwife, when she foresees that Baptism will have to be deferred for a long time, can immediately wash a newborn, although he is found in good health, even without the knowledge of one or both spouses, the pastor nevertheless having been warned of this," responded on 11 January 1899: "It must be urged that Baptism be administered as soon as possible; but then it will be permissible for the midwife to confer it when danger is positively feared that the child will die during the time of the delay."

b) To danger of death is equivalent a necessity which can arise especially in mission places from the lack of any priest whatever or from difficulty in approaching him; namely, the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide several times approved the practice prevailing in several places by which catechists or other approved laypersons baptize the infants of Christians quickly, for example not beyond eight days from birth, even when they are in good health.¹

2. The order to be observed among several ministers of necessity is set forth in these words by canon 742, §§ 2 and 3: If nevertheless a priest is present, he is to be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layperson, 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 manner of baptizing. A father or mother is not permitted to baptize his or her own child, except in danger of death, when no other is present who can baptize. Thus also the Roman Ritual.² Now the prescribed order must be understood so that: 1. any of the faithful, even a woman, existing in union with the Church, must be preferred to any unbeliever, heretic, schismatic, or excommunicate to be avoided, even if he is a priest; 2. a woman is to be preferred to the father, but not to the mother.

3. An inversion of the order is per se illicit because of the precept of the Code and the Roman Ritual; but it is a grave sin only then: 1. when a non-priest is preferred to a priest existing in union with the Church; 2. when a non-Catholic or a person to be avoided is preferred to a Catholic. There is indeed doubt when a layperson is preferred to a deacon, since from the text of the law he is a minister by office (canon 741); but because he is only a secondary minister, it does not seem sufficiently established that there is grave sin. Besides, a just cause always seems to excuse from every sin; hence canon 742, § 2: "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 manner of baptizing" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 117).

Corollary. Let the pastor see to it that the faithful, especially midwives, physicians, and surgeons, thoroughly learn the correct manner of baptizing for a case of necessity (canon 743).³ If Baptism was administered neither by the proper pastor nor in his presence, the minister should as soon as possible inform the proper pastor of the baptized person by reason of domicile concerning the Baptism conferred (canon 778). In private Baptism, so far as it can be done, two witnesses, or at least one, are to be used, by whom the conferral of Baptism can be proved (canon 742, § 1).

¹ 21 January 1788 (Collectanea, n. 533); 16 January 1804 (Collectanea, n. 674); 11 September 1841 (Collectanea, n. 939).

² Roman Ritual, title 2, chapter 1, n. 16.

³ Roman Ritual, title 2, chapter 1, n. 13.

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.

1. Symphorosa, the mother of a family, noticing that her newly born offspring is unexpectedly in great danger of life, breaks out into cries and wailings. Sigismund, her husband, runs up; the sons and servants arrive at the same time: "Quickly bring water," Sigismund cries, "that I may baptize the infant." But Marcus, Sigismund's son, says: "This office is mine, for I am a cleric, marked with all the minor orders, and a candidate of sacred theology." But the mother says: "Call the parish priest; since he is nearby, he will be here at once." Meanwhile Melania, the maidservant, pouring water upon the infant's head, pronounces the words of the form of baptism; and a little afterward the infant, now baptized, flies away to the citizens of heaven.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. The parish priest ought to have been called, if he really could have been present at once, and baptism could have been deferred for a little while. But, as appears from the Case, the necessity was altogether urgent, and allowed no delay. In the absence of the parish priest, Marcus the cleric ought to have baptized. But that Melania baptized in the presence of Marcus, an inferior cleric, was not grave. That a layperson, generally speaking, baptizes in the presence of an inferior cleric, "Pal. says is no sin, since concerning this no divine or ecclesiastical precept is found. But others commonly and rightly teach that it is not mortal, because such a perversion of order does not seem so grave, since by force of order no one besides the priest and the deacon by commission is held to be specially deputed to baptize. On the other hand, it does not seem to be excused from venial fault, both because this seems to be some indecency, and because it is contrary to the prescription of the Roman Ritual." Lig. 117. But Melania seems to be excused even from venial fault in the Case, since in that confusion and contention of affairs, with the infant's danger imminent, she did well by at once resolving the question, by baptizing the infant so that his eternal salvation might be placed in safety. I. M. 425. 429., G. 199.

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."

3. Olympius, a missionary, doubting concerning the dispositions of Laurianus, a catechumen, and, on account of peculiar circumstances, since he could in no way defer baptism, baptizes him under a condition, the condition namely having been conceived only in his mind: if Laurianus has faith, sincere sorrow, and purpose concerning his sins.

Quaer. Whether Olympius acted rightly?

R. Negatively. A condition, from the custom of the Church, is then only applied in baptism when there is room for doubting whether something was lacking, or is lacking, which is required for the value of the sacrament. Faith and penitence in the adult who is baptized are not required by necessity of the sacrament itself, but only for its fruit. Moreover, from this manner of acting a most grave inconvenience follows in the Case: namely, the nullity and deprivation of baptism, if the condition is not verified, for the whole time of life. Cf. Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 589. 648. 655., Catech. Roman. de Sacram. Bapt. n. 57.

4. Titius, the parish priest, while he is about to baptize an infant, is warned by the midwife that the same child, scarcely brought forth into the light, had been baptized by her. The child's father, Caius, who is present, denies this, since all who are of the family are altogether ignorant of a fact of this kind. But the woman adds that she baptized the boy, to whom death already seemed to be imminent, in the very bedroom of the mother, who was asleep after childbirth, where she was alone. Then the father says: I shall never believe this, nor, even if you had baptized, shall I ever be able to bring my mind to believe that you conferred baptism duly. Hence the parish priest questions the midwife about the manner of the sacrament conferred, and he observes that no defect had been present. Nevertheless the father urges more insistently that he wants his son to be baptized by the parish priest, because the midwife was commonly regarded as a rude woman and of doubtful reputation. Titius, knowing well that Caius is a powerful man in the little town, lest he have this man hostile to him, baptizes the little boy under condition, by which means the whole dispute was at once settled.

A little afterward Titius, having been called to confer the sacraments upon a certain sick man, is anxious about his manner of acting, fearing lest perhaps he has contracted irregularity.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Although through baptism conferred conditionally "the danger is avoided of rebaptizing him who has already once been legitimately baptized, nevertheless that is not therefore to be employed everywhere and rashly; but it will be permitted to use it only then when a prudent and probable doubt is present whether someone has been duly baptized, and, after diligent investigation has first been made, the truth of the matter could not become known." Benedict. XIV. de Syn. l. 7. c. 6. n. 2. Now, in truth, there does not seem to remain in the Case a prudent doubt about baptism, after the investigation of the matter has been made. For first, the midwife herself spontaneously affirms that baptism has already been conferred by her, and no reason is discovered which would move her thus to a false affirmation in a matter so grave. When the infant's father cries out against it from ignorance of the baptism conferred by her, the midwife duly explains the fact; and the explanation seemed so true to the father himself, resisting in that moment, that he opposed nothing as to the fact of the baptism conferred, but objected another difficulty concerning baptism duly conferred. But this difficulty also vanishes altogether from the investigation that was made. For the midwife explains the manner of the baptism conferred, and it is clear from this that there had in reality been no defect in the conferring of baptism. But the father of the infant, urging the matter, objects again that the midwife is rude and of doubtful reputation. That the midwife is rude, just as this does not prevent her from knowing well how to exercise her art, so also it does not prevent her from knowing how to baptize duly. For it concerns a very easy thing, a thing in which midwives are altogether accustomed to be skilled, a thing in which in fact the midwife, in the Case, although she were rude and very rude, was well instructed, as appears from the examination that was made. Nor, indeed, can any prudent doubt be present from the fact that she is of doubtful reputation. For first, if this alone sufficed for a prudent doubt, one would already have to doubt concerning all the other baptisms conferred by her; and certainly this was not the first baptism which she had ministered, since it concerns a midwife already exercising her art, and in reality well exercised in it, since she well perceived the danger of death in which the infant was found. Moreover, that doubtful reputation does not bear upon the matter; for what advantage for the midwife, or what utility of hers, would there be from a lie? No one is bad unless he is proved to be so. Indeed, rather, her constant affirmation before the very powerful father, to whom at last even the parish priest yields from fear, is an altogether grave and certain argument, morally speaking, concerning the truth of the affirmed conferral of baptism. Wherefore Titius does not act duly by baptizing the infant under condition, lest he have Caius hostile to him. And this very thing shows that Titius did not act rightly. For, since he himself was the judge and witness of the whole dispute between the midwife and Caius, and since he himself certainly knew the midwife well from another source, he was moved to repeat baptism only from fear of Caius; whence also afterward he feared that he had incurred irregularity. Therefore the baptism conferred, and conferred duly, seemed so certain to him!

"Indeed," says Bened. XIV. l. c. n. 4., "if midwives have been legitimately taught concerning the matter, form, and necessary intention in the minister of the sacrament... and they, in the special event in which they privately conferred baptism upon an infant in danger, being questioned by the same parish priest, testify that all things were duly employed by them which are required for validly confecting the sacrament, surely no probable reason is present why baptism ought, or can licitly, be repeated under condition... Although from the attestation of several persons greater certainty of the thing done is certainly drawn, nevertheless the sacred canons hold the conferral of baptism to have been sufficiently proved by a single witness, especially if he testifies concerning his own deed, that is, if he affirms that it was legitimately administered by himself, and nothing occurs to the contrary which detracts from the credibility of his testimony, as is expressly decreed in Caus. 110. and 112. de Consecrat. dist. 4. and Cap. Nuper de Testibus." Cf. also Enchir. Moral. 466.-468. 896.

But as regards the irregularity which Titius fears that he has incurred, Benedict. XIV. l. c. n. 3. judges that those are not exempt from the irregularity inflicted by Alex. III. C. Ex litterarum de Apostat. et reiterantib. bapt. upon those repeating baptism, "who, on account of only an apprehended defect of the former baptism, and with no investigation of the truth having first been made, confer it again under condition upon those whom they certainly know to have already once before had it conferred." St. Alph. l. 7. n. 356 says: "One rebaptizing, or rebaptized, from fear, without intention, or under condition, even if it be done rashly and culpably, probably do not become irregular." Wherefore Titius will probably be able, from St. Alph., to be excused from irregularity. This irregularity more truly prohibits only the reception of orders; it does not prohibit the exercise of orders received. C. Ex litterarum de Apost. D'Annib. p. 1. n. 410. Cf. Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 648. par. Quamobrem initio. Others, however, extend it also to the exercise of orders. Bened. XIV. Notif. 84. n. 14. seqq. Wherefore again Titius was able to minister the sacraments to the sick man. - I. M. 465. 1322.

5. "Sabellinus, a heretic, coming to the parish priest, asks to be instructed and admitted to the Catholic Church. But the parish priest, after instructing him, asks him about the baptism he has received, and cannot find a certain defect; hence he remains hesitating and uncertain whether he ought to rebaptize him under condition, which nevertheless he does, though not without great anxiety.

Quaer. What is to be said of the Case?

R. Sabellinus could and ought to be rebaptized, as the general custom of the Church bears; because it is known that heretics err rather often in conferring baptism; therefore heretics converted to the true faith are prudently and commonly accustomed to be rebaptized." Thus Fr. Gury 207.

As is clear from several Decisions and Instructions of the Sacred Congregations, heretics are not all rebaptized indiscriminately, but only those whose baptism, after a previous and diligent examination, is found to have been null or doubtfully valid; or also, if, according to the condition of times or places, after an investigation has been completed, nothing is discovered either for validity or for invalidity. Cf. Enchir. Moral. 468., Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 642. seqq.

6. Robertus, a missionary, occupied with many duties, because of lack of time and excessive fatigue, in the baptism of adults uses the ceremonies assigned in the Roman Ritual for children, whether those to be baptized are many or few. - Does Robertus act rightly?

R. Negatively. For the Holy Office, 12. Febr. 1851., answered the Vicar Apostolic of Korea, who was asking that it might be lawful for him without scruple to give baptism to adults in the aforesaid manner and for the aforesaid reasons: Let the Roman Ritual stand. And S. C. de P. F., 16. Jan. 1797., answered the Vicar Apostolic of Western Tonkin: "The prescription of the Roman Ritual is to be observed altogether, except in a case of necessity." Moreover, "the Most Holy Father, at the urging of the Vicar Apostolic of Western Tonkin, by Apostolic authority and indulgence, declared that the custom which was explained to be in force in Tonkin can be observed, namely, of using in baptizing adults the ceremonies prescribed for the baptism of infants, where reasonable necessity, or narrowness of time for fulfilling the other functions of the sacred ministry, or excessive fatigue of the missionaries, requires it." S. C. de P. F. 30. Jan. 1803. - Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 612. 613. 625.

7. "A priest who, while he blesses the baptismal font on Holy Saturday, cannot mix the holy oils into the blessed water, either because these are lacking to him or because of another legitimate cause: can he nevertheless bless the font on that day, deferring the mixing of the holy oils to another day; or, on the contrary, is he bound to omit the entire blessing of the font on that day?

R. Affirmatively to the first part; negatively to the second, and let the Decree of S. R. C. 12. Apr. 1755. in Lucana be communicated: Parish priests who could not receive the holy oils before the blessing of the font will later be able to put them into the water privately and separately." S. C. de P. F. 5. Mart. 1816.

But there is another Decree of the same S. R. C. in Oriolen., 23. Sept. 1837: 1. The blessing of the baptismal font on Holy Saturday must be done with the chrism and oil of the preceding year; nor is the infusion of the chrism and oil to be omitted until those recently consecrated are received. 2. In the meantime, infants also are to be anointed with the oil and chrism of the preceding year. 3. But when the new oils are received, the baptismal water blessed with the old oils ought not to be poured into the piscina; rather, it ought to be preserved, and the parish priest ought to use it until the blessing on the vigil of Pentecost, as in the Ritual.

Nor, in truth, is there opposition between Decree and Decree. And thus S. R. C., 12. Aug. 1854., established that "because of the diversity of circumstances, in practice either Decree (Lucana and Oriolen.) can be observed. For in Lucana it is supposed that in some fortuitous case the holy oils are delayed for a short time; and in Oriolen. it speaks of an every way impossibility of having the holy oils from one's own Cathedral or from the nearer Dioceses."

8. [printed as 7.] Sempronius, a faithful man, baptized his own son, whom he had from a pagan woman. Sempronius now wishes to enter marriage with the same woman, baptized.

Quaer. Whether the impediment of spiritual kinship stands in the way?

R. Negatively. For that impediment arises in the conferral of baptism between the one baptizing and the parents of the one baptized, when all are baptized. Cf. Sanchez de Matr. l. 7. d. 62. n. 11., d. 60. n. 14. 15. 16., La-Croix l. 6. p. 1. n. 368., Schmalzgr. l. 4. tit. 11. n. 28. seqq., 32. seqq.

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

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.

244. Resolves. - 1. Neither a Parish Priest nor a Bishop, without commission, licitly baptizes outside his own diocese or parish, or strangers within it. And therefore parents also sin who, without the license of their Prelate, bring their offspring to another to be baptized, since they violate the right of the Parish Priest. - St. Ligorius, n. 114.

2. Travelers or vagrants can be baptized in any Church which they have chosen. If by chance a woman gives birth in a village not her own, the offspring is to be baptized by the Parish Priest of that village, unless perhaps her own village is not far distant from there. - St. Ligorius, n. 114.

3. According to the more common and more probable opinion, all can receive Baptism and the other Sacraments from the Parish Priest of the place where they have already contracted quasi-domicile ¹. - St. Ligorius, n. 115.

¹ This doctrine is to be held not merely as more probable, but as certain.

4. But a stranger can be baptized with the license, either express or reasonably presumed, of his proper Priest. - St. Ligorius, n. 115.

5. Religious can baptize in a case of necessity, or with the same license of the Parish Priest and of their own Superior, since this is prohibited by no law. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

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.

“4. Which ceremonies and prayers ought to be observed when they are to be supplied with an adult Catholic validly baptized after birth, the ceremonies which, according to the Ritual, ought to precede or follow Baptism having nevertheless been omitted: namely, those which are assigned in the Ritual for the Baptism of adults, or those for the Baptism of infants? 5. Which of these ceremonies ought to be observed when an adult converted from heresy to the Catholic faith is to be baptized conditionally because of a founded doubt concerning the validity of the Baptism conferred upon him by a heretical minister?—Response. To the fourth: Let the ceremonies and prayers which are assigned in the Ritual for the Baptism of infants be observed. To the fifth: Insofar as the ceremonies are to be supplied and are judged to be supplied, as in the doubt, those which are prescribed for the Baptism of adults are to be supplied.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 August 1836, Rennes, to the fourth and fifth.

“Is it lawful to baptize conditionally, publicly, and with their ceremonies children lacking the use of reason who, having already been doubtfully baptized in Protestantism and without ceremonies, ought to be baptized conditionally?—Response. Baptism is to be administered conditionally and privately to the children of whom there is question, and with the ceremonies prescribed in the Roman Ritual.” Holy Office, 2 April 1879.

"Let them see, however, lest perhaps those causes of fearing be empty or light which are brought forward here and there for omitting in the administration of Baptism the ceremonies prescribed by the Roman Ritual; and, when it happens that these ceremonies are passed over for true and grave causes, they will take care that they be supplied at the first opportunity. For rites of such great weight and such antiquity, and especially necessary for conciliating reverence toward the Sacrament, are not neglected without grave sin." Benedict XIV, Const. Inter omnigenas, 2 Feb. 1744.

"Whether outside the case of urgent necessity, or outside imminent danger, a Priest can lawfully simply wash infants or adults, all the ceremonies of Baptism having been omitted? Resp. That he cannot. Nevertheless, not only imminent danger of death can be a legitimate cause of omitting the solemnities of Baptism, but also any reasonable and grave cause which impedes the administration of the same solemnities, as, for example, if time is altogether lacking, if danger from Pagans is pressing, if the Priest does not have and cannot conveniently have the oil of Catechumens, holy Chrism, blessed salt, and other things necessary for performing the same solemnities. But in these cases the Missionary must be warned that if he cannot employ all, but only some, ceremonies of Baptism, he should employ those, and then, when time and opportune occasion have been present, he is bound to supply the same ceremonies, either all or those which he omitted, in a church or oratory." S. C. de P. F. 21 Jan. 1789.

"That the Parish Priest conducted himself badly, by baptizing with violet stole, and anointing a child in danger outside the church with the oil even of Catechumens. For in the case of necessity, according to the prescription of the Ritual, all things are to be omitted which precede Baptism and which are afterwards to be supplied in the Church, to which the child is to be presented when he recovers." S. R. C. 23 Sept. 1820. Cf. Gardell. n. 4572.

"1. In Baptism to be conferred at home because of imminent danger of death, the ceremonies which precede Baptism having been omitted according to the rubric of the Roman Ritual, those which follow Baptism can be employed." 2. In the case of sickness and impossibility of employing all ceremonies, that he can and is bound to use those ceremonies which they can use." S. O. 10 Apr. 1861.

If the one bringing the child to be baptized is utterly unwilling that he be baptized unless the name of some impious person is imposed, it is not on that account lawful to defer baptism, but the child is to be baptized, with the name of some Saint added in a low voice. C. S. O. June 1883.

"1. What ceremonies and prayers must be observed, which are to be supplied for an adult Catholic, validly baptized after birth, but with the ceremonies omitted which, according to the Ritual, ought to precede or follow Baptism; whether those which are assigned in the Ritual for the Baptism of adults, or for the Baptism of infants? 2. Which of these ceremonies must be observed when an adult, converted from heresy to the Catholic faith, is to be baptized under condition because of a founded doubt concerning the validity of Baptism conferred by a heretical Minister? Resp. To the 1st. Let the ceremonies and prayers be observed which are assigned in the Ritual for the Baptism of infants. To the 2nd. Insofar as the ceremonies are to be supplied and are believed to be supplied, as in the doubt, those are to be supplied which are prescribed for the Baptism of adults." S. R. C. 27 Aug. 1836. Cf. Gardell. n. 4780.

"Whether it is lawful to baptize under condition publicly and with their ceremonies little ones lacking reason, who, doubtfully and without ceremonies already baptized in Protestantism, ought to be baptized under condition? Resp. That Baptism under condition is to be administered secretly to the little ones of whom in the case, and with the ceremonies prescribed in the Roman Ritual." S. C. S. O. 2 Apr. 1879.

— Any man using reason, of whatever faith or infidelity, state or sex, validly ministers baptism. For licit administration, solemn baptism, or that which the rites and ceremonies of the Church accompany, is to be distinguished from non-solemn baptism.

— 1. The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is a priest; yet the conferral of baptism is a parochial function which, apart from the local Ordinary or one's own pastor, in his own territory, another priest does not administer licitly except by license of the pastor or local Ordinary. Yet this license, in a case of necessity, is legitimately presumed (c. 738, §1).

But one's own pastor, from c. 94, is the pastor of domicile or quasi-domicile, who nevertheless, outside his own territory, is prohibited from baptizing solemnly without due license of the Ordinary or pastor of the place (c. 739).

A traveler is to be baptized by his own pastor in his own parish if this can be done easily and without delay; otherwise he can be solemnly baptized by any pastor in his own territory.

Statutes sometimes define the distance which is judged excessive for a child to have to be brought to his own pastor; yet it will always be lawful to do this. Indeed a custom at least centenary can be tolerated by the bishop, which always gives faculty to the pastor of the place of baptizing children born in his parish.

The supplying of ceremonies after baptism conferred in necessity without ceremonies is also reserved to one's own pastor. It is less certain whether baptism which is to be repeated privately under condition is reserved to the pastor (Lehmkuhl, II, 91).

Of vagrants, or of those who have only a diocesan domicile or quasi-domicile, the proper pastor is the pastor of the place where they actually are (c. 94), so that they are licitly baptized by any pastor in his own territory.

Where there are still lacking parishes or quasi-parishes into which the diocese or quasi-diocese is divided, the proper minister of baptism, besides the local Ordinary, is defined by peculiar statutes and received customs.

An outside pastor who without notable cause or the presumed consent of the proper pastor or Ordinary baptizes an infant brought to him is judged gravely to usurp another's jurisdiction. Fear lest baptism be neglected sanely excuses him entirely.

— 2. The extraordinary minister of solemn baptism is a deacon. But licit use of his power requires: a) license of the local Ordinary or pastor; b) a just cause for conceding that license. When necessity urges, a deacon can legitimately presume the license.

A just cause does not mean a grave cause. A multitude of persons to be baptized, or a multitude of penitents whose confessions must be heard, or another serious inconvenience permits a pastor to commit baptism to a deacon.

But the cause for presuming this license must be much graver. It is necessary that necessity of conferring baptism urge.

But a layman or cleric below a deacon can never baptize solemnly. And that solemn ministration makes the same irregular from delict (c. 985, 7°). By the general words which this canon uses, it seems to resolve the controversy whether only clerics or also laymen would become irregular by this usurpation. This irregularity is also incurred by a priest who by canonical penalty is prohibited from this ministration (c. 985, 7°). But, unless there is question of censured persons to be avoided, the excommunicated, interdicted, and suspended, when asked by the faithful, can licitly confer the sacraments (cc. 2261, §2; 2275, 2°; and 2284).

But a deacon who baptizes solemnly without commission, since from c. 741 itself he has the power, although he uses it badly, escapes this irregularity.

— 3. In necessity, non-solemn baptism is legitimately ministered by anyone, "the due matter, form, and intention being observed; but insofar as it can be done, two witnesses or at least one are to be used, by whom the conferral of baptism can be proved" (c. 742, §1).

This necessity, in our regions, will almost always be danger of death; but in regions of missions, the very absence of a priest or difficulty of approaching him. For the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, January 27, 1788; January 16, 1804 (Collect., 593, 674), praised the custom of enjoining catechists or more prudent laymen that they quickly baptize the infants of Christians, even those who are well.

Yet the order is to be observed, so that a priest be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, a man to a woman, unless the reason of modesty or even the greater skill of the woman advises that she be preferred (c. 742, §2).

Change of this order is judged light. Yet they except if before a faithful person a heretic is used, or before a priest a layman. This latter, however, we judge to have been said too severely. For there is question of private baptism, concerning which the Code establishes the principle that the same can be ministered by anyone, and in one and the same sentence exhibits the order by which a priest is said to be preferred to a layman, a man to a woman. It seems little likely that neglected preference is in one case mortal, in another merely venial.

— Nevertheless by a special prohibition both parents are prohibited from baptizing their offspring, unless in danger of death when no other is present who may baptize (c. 742, §3).

The present-day cause of this prohibition can no longer be sought from the spiritual relationship which, as baptizer, a husband would contract with his wife, because from c. 768 the baptizer is no longer bound by any relationship with the parents of the baptized. This other cause subsists: that it is not fitting for a twofold paternity, natural from generation, spiritual from the administered sacrament of regeneration, to be conjoined in the same person. This reason does not seem to induce a grave obligation.

As is evident of itself, if a parent is more skilled, he will safely be able, in order to provide better for the salvation of the offspring, to baptize the infant himself rather than one less fit.

The pastor must take care that the faithful, especially midwives, physicians, and surgeons, thoroughly learn the right mode of baptizing for a case of necessity (c. 743).

The opportuneness of this precept is demonstrated by lamentable errors.

— "The baptism of adults, where it can conveniently be done, is to be deferred to the local Ordinary, so that, if he wishes, it may be conferred more solemnly by him or by his delegate" (c. 744).

These words are placed so temperately that they seem to contain, rather than a precept, a wish which the Ordinary himself can fulfill by a statute by which he reserves the baptism of adults to himself. This is customary enough in our parts. Elsewhere, the very circumstances of places will stand in the way of that reservation.

Besides, there is question here of baptism to be conferred absolutely, not of conditioned repetition, which often demands secrecy and is customarily done without ceremonies.

— Every man using reason baptizes validly. The priest is the ordinary minister of solemn baptism; yet he does not baptize licitly except by license, at least presumed, of the Ordinary or of the proper pastor, in his own territory. A traveler is to be baptized by his own pastor in his own parish if this can easily be done without delay; otherwise he is permitted to be baptized by any pastor in his own territory. The extraordinary minister of solemn baptism is a deacon by license of the Ordinary or pastor, conceded because of a just cause of inconvenience, or presumed in necessity.

In necessity, which in regions of missions is constituted by the very absence of a priest, any man legitimately ministers non-solemn baptism. A priest is to be preferred to a deacon, a deacon to a subdeacon, a cleric to a layman, a man to a woman, unless modesty or greater skill of the woman advises otherwise. Change of order is judged light, unless a heretic is preferred to a faithful person. Excepted is necessity of danger of death: parents are forbidden to baptize their own offspring. Absolute baptism of adults is often reserved to the Ordinary; and it is the wish of the Code that it be deferred to him of itself.

118. The doctrine and present practice concerning the minister of baptism are stated thus by the new Roman Ritual,¹²¹ according to the norm of the Code of Canon Law: "The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is a priest; but its conferral is reserved to the pastor, or to another priest with the permission of the same pastor or of the local Ordinary, which in a case of necessity is legitimately presumed. Even a traveler is to be solemnly baptized by his own pastor in his own parish if this can be done easily and without delay; otherwise, any pastor can solemnly baptize a traveler in his territory. In another territory no one may confer solemn baptism without due permission, not even upon inhabitants of his own place."

A twofold minister of baptism is distinguished: one of solemn baptism, which is administered with all the prescribed ceremonies; the other of non-solemn baptism, which is given with these ceremonies omitted, especially in danger of death. Danger of death, since it is not the same as the moment of death, is judged to be present when it is feared that the one to be baptized may die before he receives solemn baptism. Hence, when a priest is absent in mission territories, catechists or other laymen are accustomed to baptize recently born infants who, although they are now well, can nevertheless easily die before the arrival of the priest. The minister of solemn baptism is again twofold: one ordinary and by office; the other delegated. With these things premised, the following three propositions are set down:

¹²¹ Tit. 2, c. 1, on the sacrament of baptism, n. 12 sq.

119. 1. The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is a priest; but its conferral is reserved to the pastor, or to another priest with the permission of the same pastor or of the local Ordinary, which in a case of necessity is legitimately presumed. Thus the Code of Canon Law, c. 738, § 1, establishes.

Hence the right of solemnly baptizing is an exclusive parochial right. Therefore, whoever solemnly baptizes without the permission, express or at least duly presumed, of the pastor or Ordinary gravely injures the right of another and commits a grave sin.¹²² Likewise, those who offer infants to be baptized by another pastor sin. The parochial right in this matter is territorial and not personal,¹²³ since ordinarily solemn baptism cannot be administered except in the parish church. Hence a pastor cannot on his own authority baptize his subjects who may be living outside the territory of the parish; but he can baptize not only vagrants but also travelers staying in his territory, if they cannot easily and without delay be carried to their own pastor.¹²⁴ According to the present discipline, whenever a woman has given birth outside the place of her domicile or quasi-domicile, the infant must, for the proper keeping of baptismal registers, be baptized in her own parish. But if this cannot be done conveniently and without delay, baptism can be conferred in the parish in which the birth occurred, as was said, or even in another parish. Since this case frequently occurs in our days in hospitals intended for women in childbirth, particular statutes or legitimate customs are to be observed.

What has been said concerning the right of conferring baptism applies also to the supplying of the ceremonies when baptism in a case of necessity has already been conferred by another.

If conditional baptism is in question, such as is customarily employed in the conversion of heretics, particular statutes are to be observed. Since conditional baptism today in some regions is customarily performed without ceremonies, the parochial right is not established; and therefore it can be performed in any church or sacristy, unless the bishop has established otherwise. Nevertheless, a record of the baptism conferred is to be preserved in the archive of that church. It is better still if the same baptism is noted also in the register of the parish church, since everyone who afterward contracts marriage must be entered in the baptismal book of the parish. This cannot be done if all the names of the baptized are not contained in the register of the parish church. According to modern discipline, conditional baptism also must be performed by a priest and in a sacred place, at least in the sacristy or in some chapel; hence outside a case of necessity it is not becoming to act otherwise.

The solemn baptism of adults, where this can conveniently be done, is to be referred to the local Ordinary, for example, the bishop or vicar general, so that, if he wishes, it may be conferred more solemnly by him or by his delegate.¹²⁵

¹²² Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 115, second point to be noted.

¹²³ Code of Canon Law, c. 739. Whether and in what manner personal pastors, for example, military chaplains, can baptize their subjects is to be ascertained from particular statutes or from legitimate custom.

¹²⁴ Code of Canon Law, c. 738, § 2.

¹²⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 744.

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.

121. 3. The minister of non-solemn baptism in a case of necessity is any man possessing the use of reason and willing and able duly to apply the form to the matter.¹³⁴

Therefore, for example, a completely mute man can never baptize validly, not even in extreme necessity. This doctrine concerning the minister of non-solemn baptism has now been defined in several Councils, for example, by the Fourth Lateran Council: "The sacrament of baptism ... duly conferred by anyone profits unto salvation."¹³⁵ The Council of Florence, however, defines: "In a case of necessity, not only a priest or deacon, but also a layman or woman, indeed even a pagan and a heretic, can baptize, provided that he observes the form of the Church and intends to do what the Church does."¹³⁶ St. Thomas¹³⁷ assigns the reason of fittingness: "Lest man be able to suffer a lack concerning so necessary a remedy, it was instituted that both the matter of baptism should be common, namely, water, which can easily be had by anyone, and that the minister of baptism should also be anyone not ordained, lest on account of a lack of baptism man should suffer the loss of his salvation."

Among the ancient Fathers St. Cyprian did not recognize as valid baptism conferred by a layman.¹³⁸ St. Augustine, however, certainly admitted the validity of baptism conferred by a layman, saying: "Even if [baptism] is usurped without any necessity and is given by anyone to anyone, that which has been given cannot be said not to have been given, although it can rightly be said to have been given illicitly";¹³⁹ nevertheless, he seems to doubt somewhat whether not only a layman, but also a pagan, can baptize.¹⁴⁰ Tertullian, after his manner, inveighs most vehemently against women conferring baptism, but it does not so clearly appear whether he considers such baptisms entirely invalid.¹⁴¹ The Angelic Doctor¹⁴² treats the validity of baptism conferred by a layman, a woman, or a pagan, and resolves the principal difficulties arising from history.

¹³⁴ The Code of Canon Law, c. 742, § 1, moreover admonishes that in such a baptism, insofar as it can be done, two witnesses, or at least one, are to be employed, by whom the conferral of baptism can be proved.

¹³⁵ In Denz., n. 430.

¹³⁶ Denz., n. 696.

¹³⁷ S. theol. 3, q. 67, a. 3.

¹³⁸ Ep. 73, 7, 8 (Migne, Patr. lat. 3, 1159).

¹³⁹ Contra ep. Parm., l. 2, c. 13, n. 29 (Migne, l.c. 43, 71).

¹⁴⁰ De bapt., l. 7, c. 53, n. 102 (Migne, l.c. 43, 234).

¹⁴¹ De bapt., c. 17 (Migne, l.c. 1, 1219).

¹⁴² S. theol. 3, q. 67, aa. 3-5.

122. 4. The order to be observed among ministers in a case of necessity is established in this manner by the Roman Ritual and by the Code of Canon Law, c. 742, § 2: "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 entirely delivered, or unless the woman knows better the form and manner of baptizing." Hence it is a mortal sin: 1. if a non-priest is preferred to a worthy priest; 2. if an infidel, heretic, schismatic, or excommunicated person to be avoided is preferred without necessity to a Catholic; 3. if someone who is not the pastor is preferred to the proper pastor who is present and willing to baptize. Lehmkuhl¹⁴³ rightly notes: "That inversion of order is a grave sin both on the part of the minister and on the part of him who requests it to be done thus or permits it by approving." In other cases the inversion of the established order does not seem to be a mortal sin. Hence, for example, a layman baptizing in the presence of a deacon or cleric does not sin mortally.¹⁴⁴

A father and mother cannot licitly baptize their own offspring even in danger of death when another capable and willing person is present, because it is not becoming that a twofold paternity be joined in the same person: natural paternity from generation, and spiritual paternity from the administration of baptism. Thus it is from the precept of the Ritual and the Code, which nevertheless does not seem to oblige when a serious doubt exists whether another person present truly has the intention of doing what the Church does, or baptizes validly. Such a doubt is not rash if, for example, the physician present is a man of no religion. Then it is better and safer if the parent baptizes his own offspring in danger of death.

¹⁴³ Theol. mor. II, n. 93.

¹⁴⁴ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 117.

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.

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.

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."

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 say 1st. § 1. The ordinary minister of solemn baptism is a priest; but its conferral is reserved to the parish priest or to another priest with the permission of the same parish priest or of the Ordinary of the place, which in a case of necessity is legitimately presumed (Can. 738).

This is clear from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union, from the Roman Ritual, de Baptismo, and from the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, where at n. 227 it is read thus: "The ordinary Minister of Baptism is the Bishop in his Diocese, the Parish Priest in his Parish. Hence worthy of very grave rebuke 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. This abuse, already noted by the Sixth Provincial Council of Baltimore, we again condemn and prohibit."

In another's territory it is licit for no one, without due permission, to confer solemn baptism, not even upon inhabitants of his own place (Can. 739).

I say 2nd. Any human being using reason, whether man or woman, whether Catholic or heretic, whether believer or unbeliever, is the extraordinary Minister of Baptism, so that he can always baptize validly and, in necessity, also licitly. The extraordinary minister of solemn baptism is the deacon; yet he is not to use his power without the permission of the local Ordinary or of the parish priest, to be granted for a just cause, which, where necessity urges, is legitimately presumed (Can. 741). The first is drawn from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union and from the universal practice of the Church. But the other is clear from the Roman Pontifical, or from the Instruction of the Bishop to Deacons while he ordains them. Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 228.

Where parishes or quasi-parishes have not yet been constituted, account must be taken of particular statutes and received customs, so that it may be clear to which priest, besides the Ordinary, the right of baptizing belongs in the whole territory or in part of it (Can. 740).

You Will Resolve. 1st. Parents sin who, outside the case of necessity, bring their offspring to be baptized by other priests; for by acting thus they violate the right of their own Pastor. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 114.

2nd. With permission either express or tacit, or even reasonably presumed, outsiders can be baptized, but then the alms, if any is had, must be remitted to the proper Pastor. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 115.

3rd. § 2. Even a traveler is to be solemnly baptized by his proper parish priest in his own parish, if this can easily and without delay be done; otherwise any parish priest in his own territory can solemnly baptize the traveler (Can. 738).

4th. § 1. Non-solemn Baptism, of which in can. 759, § 1, can be ministered by anyone, with due matter, form, and intention being preserved; but insofar as it can be done, two witnesses, or at least one, are to be employed, by whom the conferral of baptism can be proved (Can. 742).

5th. The order to be observed among the different Ministers of Baptism is thus described in the Roman Ritual: "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 manner of baptizing." Tit. II, c. 1, n. 16. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 117. - Lehmkuhl, n. 67.

§ 3. It is not licit for a father or mother to baptize his or her own offspring except in danger of death, when another who may baptize is not at hand (Can. 742).

Let the parish priest take care that the faithful, especially midwives, physicians, and surgeons, thoroughly learn the right manner of baptizing for a case of necessity (Can. 743).

The baptism of adults, where it can conveniently be done, is to be referred to the local Ordinary, so that, if he wills, it may be conferred more solemnly by him or by his delegate (Can. 744).

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.

II. QUESTION II. Can one minister by a single aspersion baptize several? ANSWER. They commonly affirm it, because the sense of the form is not changed by using you for thee; and they confirm it by the example of St. Peter, who in one day baptized a great multitude. He nevertheless who without necessity should so baptize would sin, and indeed gravely. It is besides to be observed that such an aspersion must be of a kind that can truly be called a washing, so that the water flow upon the baptized: for one drop or another does not suffice. If two, of whom one lacked a tongue and the other hands, should baptize, the baptism would be null, as St. Thomas teaches, III, q. 46, art. 4, reply 4. If to a boy in danger there were present an excommunicated priest and a midwife, she would be preferred to the excommunicated priest, cut off from the body of the Church. Nor is it an objection that an excommunicated priest can absolve in extreme necessity, because in no case can a layman absolve. No one can baptize himself. Therefore, says St. Thomas, III, q. 66, art. 5, reply 4, Christ willed to be baptized by John. The same man cannot be baptized by several: wherefore the Baptism would not be valid if several should say, We baptize thee, as St. Thomas teaches, III, q. 47, art. 6: because we is not the same as I, but I and thou: and thus the form would be changed.

III. A parish priest sins who, that he may consult the infant's salvation, privately administers Baptism at home, awaiting a godparent, that afterwards he may perform the solemn rite in the church. Since in the Council of Vienne under Clement V it was laid down, in the Clementines, Book 3, title 15, sole chapter, that baptism be conferred not in halls or in chambers, but in churches in which are the sacred fonts deputed to this.

IV. Parents who in extreme necessity baptize their own children do not lose the right of demanding the marriage debt. But outside extreme necessity, if they should baptize their own children, they would lose that right. Baptism conferred by a pagan or a Jew is valid. And this is today the universal doctrine of the Church.

V. QUESTION III. When was Baptism instituted? ANSWER. That Baptism was instituted by Christ the Lord all confess, both Catholics and heretics. Concerning the time of the institution there is dispute. Many contend that Christ instituted Baptism after the resurrection, when he said, Matthew 28: Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them, and so forth. The more probable opinion to me is that Christ instituted this sacrament when he himself was baptized in the Jordan, as St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Thomas, and the Roman Catechism itself teach. The law of Baptism began to oblige as soon as it was promulgated after the resurrection: Going therefore, teach ye … baptizing, and so forth. But when it was sufficiently promulgated, so as to oblige all, some assert after Pentecost, others protract it somewhat longer. See Vol. VI, dissertation 5, On Laws, where all these things are explained.

VI. QUESTION IV. What is the necessity of receiving Baptism? ANSWER. A twofold necessity: of means and of precept. Without that which is necessary in the first way, salvation cannot be obtained unless it be had either in fact or in desire. And of this kind are Baptism for all, and Penance for sinners who are adults. That is said to be necessary in the second way which is imposed by a precept, and which cannot knowingly be omitted without sin. Salvation nevertheless can be had without it, either through ignorance or through some other obstacle which hinders the observance. But no ignorance and no impossibility avails in respect of those things which are necessary with the necessity of means. Again a twofold necessity of means is distinguished. One exterior, as is the baptismal washing; and this can be supplied by faith and charity with the desire. The other intrinsic, as is sanctifying grace; and this can be supplied in no way. Unless it be really had, eternal salvation is impossible. The desire likewise is twofold. One implicit, as is the general desire or wish of observing all the precepts of Christ, which cannot be separated from perfect charity. The other is an express desire or wish, which arises from knowledge of the thing, and is required when the thing is necessary with the necessity of means.

VII. Wherefore without baptism either in fact or in desire no one can enter into Paradise. To infants themselves begotten of faithful parents Baptism is necessary in fact, whatever Calvin may prate to the contrary. But to all adults it is necessary either in fact or in desire. And this desire or wish of receiving Baptism in adults must be express, as the more probable opinion teaches.

VIII. QUESTION V. At what time ought Baptism to be received? ANSWER. Many examples of the ancients occur concerning the deferring of Baptism. St. Ambrose before his ordination, St. Paulinus of Nola in his eighteenth year, St. Augustine in his thirty-third, were baptized. Holy men for the sake of humility persevered a long time as catechumens. Others, that they might lead a voluptuous life, deferred Baptism. The reasons why Baptism ought not to be deferred are obvious. What prudent man would wish to procrastinate the loosing of the bonds of his own servitude, or the antidote of his own infirmity?

IX. QUESTION VI. Does the precept of receiving Baptism oblige adults to receive Baptism as soon as they conveniently can? ANSWER. Those things which are necessary with the necessity of means are by a stronger right necessary with the necessity of precept. It is disputed whether according to the present discipline of the Church the precept obliges under grave sin, so that adults are bound to receive Baptism as soon as they conveniently can. Some deny it; but the common and certain opinion affirms it. Wherefore parents gravely offend when without reasonable cause they defer the Baptism of infants, because they expose them to the danger of eternal damnation.

X. The ancient heretics the Anabaptists or Rebaptizers, the Waldenses, and the Cathari asserted that little ones before the use of reason are not to be baptized, whose error Trent condemned, session 7, canons 12 and 13. Those conceived from a brute and human seed are not to be baptized. A monster procreated from a man and a woman, if a person appear, especially in the head, is to be baptized. If there be doubt, let the bishop be consulted. If the doubt persist, he can be baptized with a condition added.

XI. QUESTION VII. Can the infants of unbelievers be baptized, the parents resisting? ANSWER. The discourse is of infants destitute of reason. St. Thomas denies it, to whom theologians commonly subscribe, and this custom of the Church obtains: namely, that the infants of unbelievers, although living under the civil power of Christian princes, are not to be baptized while the parents resist. Benedict XIV in a letter given in the year 1747 to the Archbishop of Tarsus set forth this controversy in full light. The chief reason of our opinion is the custom of the Church and the danger of apostasy to which baptized infants are exposed, the parents resisting. There is added the paternal power, to which infants are subject.

XII. In these days here at Rome it was disputed who come under the name of parents. All affirmed that the father and the grandfather are to be preferred to the mother, because the male line prevails over the female. In the disputation it was asked whether a grandmother ought to be preferred to a mother. A Jewish grandmother, become a Christian, consented that her grandson be baptized. The Jewish mother resisted the baptism of her son. Some contended that the grandmother's consent was to be preferred. Others maintained that one must stand by the mother's dissent. The matter was brought to the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV, who in a letter given to the most illustrious William, Assessor of the Holy Office, decreed that the grandmother's consent was to be attended to, and the boy to be baptized, the Jewish mother resisting.

XIII. In proximate danger of death the sons of unbelievers are to be baptized, because then there is no danger of apostasy. In confirmation of this opinion Benedict XIV reports a decree of the Holy Office of the year 1678, and another given in 1701. Similarly to be baptized are the sons of unbelievers who are called exposed, or cast forth — namely, abandoned by their parents — because then injury is done to no one. Likewise the children of unbelievers taken captive by Christian pirates, because they have been drawn out of the parents' power. If one of the unbelieving parents consent, although the other resist, the boy is to be baptized, because consent in favour of religion is to be preferred. Valid also is baptism conferred upon boys whom unbelievers offer to be baptized, not that they may be regenerated to eternal life, but that they may be cured of infirmity, as St. Augustine teaches, Epistle 98 to Boniface. The demented from birth are to be baptized in the faith of the Church, says St. Thomas, III, q. 68, art. 12. Of adults who from a sound mind fall into dementia, the will is to be regarded which they had while they were sound. The sleeping are not to be baptized unless proximate danger of death threaten.

Caius, a priest most zealous for the salvation of souls, is accustomed not only to visit Catholics but also to seek lost sheep outside the fold. If he finds in Protestant families weak or sick infants who probably will never attain the use of reason, after asking permission to bless them he secretly baptizes them by applying to their heads a handkerchief previously moistened. Julius, however, another priest who serves the same Mission, condemns Caius for an injury against the sacrament and against the infants’ parents. Hence it is asked:

1. Who are the minister and the subject of Baptism?

2. Is it lawful to baptize infants against their parents’ will?

3. What is to be said of the case?

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.

The subject of Baptism is any living person who has not been baptized.

2. Is it lawful to baptize children against the wish of their parents?

If the parents are baptized Christians the Church has a right to baptize their children even against their will, inasmuch as they themselves are subjects of the Church, and bound to obey her laws. In practice, such a right can only be used rarely and with great caution and proper safeguards. If the parents are not baptized and therefore not subject to the Church’s laws, their children may not be baptized before they have reached years of discretion without the consent of the parents except when they are in danger of death. After they have attained years of discretion they are not subject to their parents in the matter of religion.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 63.

3. The case. Caius should exercise discretion in his zeal. If the children that he baptizes have never previously been baptized and are in danger of death his zeal may be praised. No injury is done to the parents and the children on dying are assured of a place in heaven. If the children have previously been baptized or if they are not in danger of death when he baptizes them, Caius does wrong. In the former case he is guilty of reiterating Baptism, in the latter he baptizes a child who will not be brought up as a Catholic. The mere probability of their dying before they attain the use of reason is not sufficient to justify his action. Mere application of the wet handkerchief to the children’s heads would not be valid Baptism; the water must run, or at least the wet handkerchief must Be moved so as to express the sacramental sign of washing.