I recently was asked by a priest about a problematic baptism:
The pastor of a local parish baptized a child supposedly by immersion. The head of the child was never touched with water.
Is this a valid baptism?
No. The baptism is not valid.
In researching this answer I consulted various authors and I also contacted the baptism man, so to speak, in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The CDF has competence to determine the validity of sacraments.
The answer from the baptism guy at the CDF came back to me this way:
If no water has touched any part of the head, there was no baptism: it is invalid.
At least the back/base of the head needs to be in contact with water.
Keep this in mind. If you read around the internet, you might find that a few modern writers have opined that even if water does not touch the head, but it touches other parts of the body, the baptism is valid. According to the CDF, they are wrong. In baptism conferred in the rites of the Latin Church water must touch some part of the the head, even it it runs only on the hair. Water touching the head for baptism is part of the most ancient of all Christian rites.
Also, the reliable St. Alphonsus Liguori, whose feast it is today in the traditional Roman calendar, says that – in an emergency a person is baptized but water could not reach the head, then if the person survives the baptism must be repeated conditionally.
So here is a message for priests:
If you are too thick to do immersion properly, just don’t do it. Otherwise, next time throw yourself into the immersion pool, preferably wearing a millstone.
Remember: All people have the right to seek their own responses. If someone doesn’t like my answer, fine. You would be wrong, but you may write to your bishops and you may write to the Holy See for clarifications. You will get the answer I just gave.
Some water must touch some part of the head.
Loading ...
What about the hair? What if the water only appears to touch the hair?
We are godparents to a child, now five years old, whose mother insisted he be re-baptized a few months after the first time because she wasn’t sure the water had touched his head. No immersion in this case; the priest certainly appeared to do everything correctly. But the mother was the only one who insistently claimed the water only touched the hair. The priest went ahead and performed the baptism again a few months later.
TNP: Did you read the post, above?
As to why the head, I have two guesses:
1. If being immersed, water touching the head means that you’re pretty well-immersed!
2. The head was the location of anointing (with oil) of priests, prophets, and kings. Our anointing in Christ is with water, also on our head.
Maybe you should boldface the hair part, also.
I have a feeling this post will get a lot of panicky readers over the years — and we all know what panic does to reading comprehension!
@TNP
From the original post:
In baptism conferred in the rites of the Latin Church water must touch some part of the the head, _even it it runs only on the hair_.
(The hair is part of the head, no?)
Father Z, does that mean that your post on this day was not correct? [That may be the case. I am adding caveats to that entry.]
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/06/quaeritur-baptism-practices-again-fr-z-rants/
Here you wrote, “If the Trinitarian form of baptism was said while causing the water to flow across the skin, it was valid. It is best, but not necessary for validity that water flow on the head.”
Thanks,
Elly
I’m sure I read in some respectable source that the movement of water across the head is the matter of the Sacrament.
I don’t see what the obsession is with immersion in the Latin Rite lately. Even the Byzantine parish I attend (Ruthenian Rite) doesn’t do immersion.
On a matter of such grave importance such a response should not be confined to a private reply, especially since there are contrary ideas in circulation.
Since this is the position of the CDF, I hope it will be publicized, beyond Fr. Z’s blog. Perhaps it has been, and I do not know about it.
Dan
As to why the head, I have two guesses:
1. If being immersed, water touching the head means that you’re pretty well-immersed!
2. The head was the location of anointing (with oil) of priests, prophets, and kings. Our anointing in Christ is with water, also on our head.
Comment by Jeffrey Pinyan
The head is important in Baptism for the same reason that it is important in anointing: The head is the principal part of the body.
This being the case, then it appears there have been quite a few invalid adult Baptisms in my diocese. I have been to two parishes where they have “waterfall” tiered baptismal fonts, and candidates for Baptism were made to walk through the water, down the tiers of the waterfall. I always thought this was as colossally stupid as it is unsafe (I saw a woman, eight months pregnant, have to do this at Easter Vigil several years ago); and now I know it was invalid into the bargain. Reason no. 1 to get rid of the waterfalls and jacuzzis, and bring back the old baptismal fonts.
When this kind of stuff goes on with the knowledge and approval of the bishop, where should one go to correct the problem?
Reason no. 1 to get rid of the waterfalls and jacuzzis, and bring back the old baptismal fonts.
Comment by Anita Moore OPL — 2
A new church here has something that looks like a little swimming pool. When I saw it, I asked “Where is the water slide?”
Actually, one need not go so far as to seek the CDF’s published thoughts on the matter.
If you read the rubrics for the Sacrament of Baptism in the EF, you will find it covers all of these matters quite thoroughly. Sadly, it cannot be said for the OF.
Re: not baptising on the head, this very case comes up with regard to baptising a baby who comes out feet first, and who has a strong chance of not surviving the delivery.
http://www.sanctamissa.org/en/resources/books-1962/rituale-romanum/07-the-sacrament-of-baptism-general-rules.html
My favourite rubric is the conditional baptism of “monsters”– “if you are human, I baptize you in the name of the father…” And also the instruction that the priest should inform the parents that if a nurse is used, she should not be a jewess or an infidel.
Reason for the head bit
The Jordan river is a symbol of the Re(e)d Sea in which Pharaoh’s soldiers and charioteers were drown. They were symbolic of the way Egypt enslaved the Chosen People.
Going to John’s baptism confessing one’s sins would effectively be to say: “God, I deserve death (like the Egyptian crowd of yesteryear), for I have enslaved others, the Chosen People in sin with my own sin. I repent. Have mercy on me.”
Jesus’ baptism effectively said: “Father, though I am your innocent Son, treat my like the worst sinner ever, as one who has enslaved all people of all time in sin, so that with such a baptism (which he would later speak about as the cross about which He was constrained until that ‘Exodus’ be accomplished), he, having taken on what we deserve for our sin, original and otherwise, the innocent for the guilty, might have the right in justice to have mercy on us: “Father, forgive them.” What a baptism! What a cleansing! From all sin and the punishment due to sin!
Jesus, of course, wanted us to have this same imagery going on with our baptisms. One isn’t getting drown during the Exodus with one’s head above water.
If you must do immersion, close off the nostrils and dunk the kid clean down in the water! Whoosh!
That is interesting, Roamin; I wonder what they thought was in that non-Catholic milk.
There is a discussion in Tristam Shandy about baptism by means of a squirting device for children who might not survive birth. I cannot remember the result, but I think there was a difference there between Catholic and protestant beliefs on whether it was valid.
RichardT
“Shandy” had footnotes in French of referring to the theological debate regarding squirting and one gets the impression that, at least according to the consensus in Paris theological circles, that this was permissalbe. Of course, this was a set-up of the comedy of the novel, a part of which involved occasional scoffing at Romish beliefs, another one being the Papist doctor who delivered Tristam with a forceps, thereby injuring to protagonist’s nose.
Sterne is much more copious in his criticism of the Catholic faith in “Sentimental Journey”, but what would you expect…he was a product of Anglicanism at its lowest point…at least until our era.
RichadT
Actually, I recall this squirting baptism involved baptising to infant pre-birth. This would have been against all Christian belief up to this point since one had to be born first in order to be born again.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IvVxVBI2tP0C&dq=tristram%20shandy&pg=PA43#v=onepage&q&f=false
Page 43ff, chapter XX and notes.
Based on the answer to this query, I am absolutely certain that I have attended at least one invalid baptism a few years ago, at a parish in the northwestern USA.
Roamincatholic,
Thanks for the link. That goes along with what seems to me to be the common opinion of reliable authors–a baptism in which water touches some part of the body other than the head is doubtfully valid. So, a conditional baptism is required. That’s what St. Alphonsus said. That’s what St. Thomas seemed to think, also:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4068.htm#article11
I am quite surprised by the definitive response (“It’s invalid.”) which Fr. Z got from the CDF. I can understand it but I am still surprised.
Dan
St. Thomas Aquinas explains why water much touch the head during baptism:
The principal part of the body, especially in relation to the exterior members, is the head, wherein all the senses, both interior and exterior, flourish. And therefore, if the whole body cannot be covered with water, because of the scarcity of water, or because of some other reason, it is necessary to pour water over the head, in which the principle of animal life is made manifest.
And although original sin is transmitted through the members that serve for procreation, yet those members are not to be sprinkled in preference to the head, because by Baptism the transmission of original sin to the offspring by the act of procreation is not deleted, but the soul is freed from the stain and debt of sin which it has contracted. Consequently that part of the body should be washed in preference, in which the works of the soul are made manifest.
(Summa Theologica III Q.66 art.7, response to objection 3.)
Gee, I was always under the impression the scalp itself had to get wet after watching a baptism at West Point: the cadet-catechumens squat in a tub (in their gym As) and have a piture of water poured over the top of the head…. one Asian student’s hair was so thick and reslient, the baptismal waters bounced off his head onto the floor like a rain-ex commercial – so Father mashed down the young man’s hair with one hand while pouring the water with the other to make sure it drenched his scalp. :-) I trust Father Z’s rulings implicitly, but think in a case like that, I would be glad for this priest’s extra precautions!
@dans:
I think that why the CDF would declare it definitely invalid is in the difference being that, with an infant baptism such as the manor described, it would not be possible to baptize the head. Therefore, if the infant survives, a conditional baptism should be done.
This seems different than consciously choosing not to baptize the head, as in what the CDF seems to address.
New Sister: There is no reason not to take easy steps to ensure that the sacrament is valid and that no one doubts its validity.
uptoncp – thank you.
It’s hard to imagine what would be more important for a minister than to assure the validity of the sacraments. Once saw somebody ask the mother to pour the water while he said the words. Unbelievable.
They did a lot of immersion baptisms at my third assignment. It’s pretty hard to immerse a squiggling infant without getting the back of the head wet.
Roamincatholic,
Thanks for the reply. I’m not sure the circumstances can make any difference. If a particular method of administering a Sacrament is certainly invalid in one circumstance, that same manner has to be certainly invalid all the time, doesn’t it? I’m unable to think of another example where your rationale has been used. Not saying it hasn’t. I just don’t know of any.
For general consumption, here is an example of the way this issue has been addressed by Capello: “2. Aqua super caput effundi debet. Id affirmatur, ut certa omnino sit validitas Baptismi. Probabilissime est validus Baptismus, speculative loquendo, si in alia notabili corporis parte, ex. gr. in pectore vel scapulis, puer ablutus fuerit. Tamen certum omnino est, Baptismum in casu habendum esse practice ut dubium, et consequenter sub condicione postea repetendum” (cf. c. 746.3 CIC/17).
De Sacramentis, vol. 1, p. 105.
Dan
Be aware that there are plenty of people out here who aren’t really all that sure that the rubric matters much, as long as a good time is had by all. Hate to be a wet blanket, but that’s how this is.
Re. ‘Tristram Shandy’, breech-births, and (possible) in utero Baptisms: I feel sure I saw some of the relevant Baptismal instruments once, many years ago, in a museum in Bruges [Flemish 'Brugge'], Belgium, but cannot remember what they were called. Perhaps they were used especially in cases, such as breech-births, to make as good an attempt as possible to administer water to the baby’s otherwise inaccessible head. If such an instrument were employed before delivery began, perhaps its intrusion would stimulate delivery, or in some extended sense technically constitute ‘birth’ for the purposes of Baptism. I expect there is a lot of fascinating casuistry about this: I wonder if any is on-line?
I was actually thinking about this the other day. Someone told me about the baptism of their infant relative, and said the priest decided to do it by “immersion”, and he laid the child in the water (supposedly on the child’s back so the water would have touched the head in this case). But it really made me think. Some priests talk so much about people need to be “immersed”, and yet they’re unwilling to actually do immersion to infants.
Confused. We JUST had a sermon on this topic at our church. The gist was (in the part of the sermon that was basically ‘How to Baptize in Case of Emergency, For Dummies’):
1. Water needs to be made to flow over the skin.
2. Whilst flowing, the same person who is pouring the water says ‘I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost’ or ‘Holy Spirit.’
It was mentioned explicitly that if you ran across an adult who was dying and unconscious and wanted to baptize them conditionally, it is OK to pour water on whatever part of the skin is available, hand, foot or whatever.
Around the end, 19:56, this sermon mentions the same thing:
http://www.audiosancto.org/sermon/20051211-Baptism-the-Merciful-Effects-Matter-and-Form-and-Instructions.html
???
Obviously not, as I read it in a rush and focused on the bold. Good to know and I’m glad you brought it up as it was always a question in our minds since that baptism.
What Agnes of Prague heard, is what I had heard as well.
This problem wouldn’t have happened if the priest had stuck to the traditional Latin Church way of baptizing: not by immersion, but by pouring water three times over the head of the person receiving the Sacrament.
Is this the death of the Latin Church? Once again, Roman Rite clergy always and always importing rites of Eastern usage that they don’t know how to perform…
Yes, yes, Christ was baptized by immersion. But, if you don’t have the River Jordan in front of you, and if there is risk that, in performing immersion, you will for some reason not manage to immerse the head, then you MUST opt for the traditional Roman way, the legal, the valid, the safe way, of pouring water three times over the head of the recipient of the Sacrament.
Gosh, is that so hard???? When it comes to Baptism, a Sacrament on which the prospect of the beatific vision depends upon, a Sacrament direclty necessary for Salvation, NO ERROR WHATSOEVER is to be tolerated regarding the – by the way very simple – essential rite of the Sacrament. Even a child with proper teaching can get Baptism right. It is not rocket science.
As if there weren’t enough things to agonize about. Now the parents and God-parents and all assembled for the Baptism must be scrupulous to confirm that the water actually touches the child’s head. Jeepers.
How many times might this have happened in the past and how many people who think they are validily baptised are on a slow train to Limbo?
Baptism of Desire perhaps? Dunno.
Being formerly of the churches of Christ, we were always concerned with validity if any part of the body DIDN’T go under water. But then we were only baptizing adults. I will say that it is very nice to be sure of what’s valid and what is not. The magisterium is a great gift.
lofstrr said: Being formerly of the churches of Christ, we were always concerned with validity if any part of the body DIDN’T go under water. But then we were only baptizing adults.
The sect in which I was raise had the same approach — adults-only complete submersion (which we called full immersion, not to be confused with the full immersion of the ancient church, in which the adult convert stood completely naked in a pool and had water poured over his head three times). When I was baptised in that sect, my skinny legs wouldn’t stay under the water, so an assisting deacon held my legs down while the pastor did the baptism. Had to make sure not even a toenail stayed above the water line. That’s what happens when you don’t know the difference between immersion and submersion.
My Catholic Baptism was done properly: water poured three times on my head. Didn’t have to strip down to swimming trunks that time, and, far more importantly, no erroneous or even dubious theology to render it invalid or of dubious validity. It’s inexpressibly outrageous that any Catholic priest or deacon would mutilate the Sacrament of Baptism and bestow non-baptisms on those requesting Baptism.
Perhaps this is off topic, but woulc a Baptism be valid in the following senarios:
1) An atheist is approached by a Catholic person who holds a cup of water. The Catholic person is mentally unstable. He throws the water in the face of the atheist and declares the words of Baptism.
2) A man whose grandparents were Catholics attends a relative’s wedding in a Catholic Church. He was not Baptised as a child and is a non-believer. Upon entering, a relative (who is mentally ill) reaches into the holy water font and splashes holy water on his forehead, and using the correct formula for Baptism tells him he is a baptised Catholic now, as she wanted him to be for years. This man is an atheist who now believes he has formally become a member of the Catholic Church, though he does not believe in the faith or in baptism.
I apologize if this is not the appropriate context for my questions. Both examples were actual occurances and I was asked about them and wonder still if in fact Baptism occured. Thank you.
JMJT, the way it’s been explained to me, in order for an adult baptism to be valid, one must have the consent of the person being baptised — with infants or those who do not have reason, consent is not needed, but with adults the persons to be baptised must request it. If done against their will, it’s not valid. (Otherwise all of us could just run around our towns with Super-Soakers full of holy water shooting everyone we meet in the face while saying, “I baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” We’d have the entire world baptised in a matter of weeks.)
In the hypothetical case of a crazy person baptising an infant against its parents’ will, I would think in that cases that the mental illness of the person who did the apparent baptism might call in question whether or not he was capable of intending to do what the Church does when She baptises people — and without proper intent, there is no sacrament, so there would probably have to be at least a conditional baptism in that case.
Sorting out what constitutes an invalid baptism is of paramount importance because all other subsequent sacraments would be, presumably, invalid.
This has eaten at me as a convert. Baptised in UCC, the community will not release my baptismal certificate, which is needed for marriage. When I was confirmed, I was told I didn’t need to produce a certificate.
In my view, this is one of the worst post-V2 reforms: ending conditional Baptism just to avoid hurting Protestant feelings.
Trying to inject changes into Baptismal rites is the height of recklessness.
You said “In baptism conferred in the rites of the Roman church”.
Does this apply to the Eastern Catholic churches? This summer I attended a baptism in an Ukrainian Catholic Church. The baby was completely undressed for the baptism. But then the priest just put her bottom and part of her back into the water. I wasn’t thinking then that it was a validity issue, but it seemed odd to me, if one were only to choose one part to baptized, to choose the buttocks. I think immersion is a great symbol, if one really immerses.
Otherwise this was an impressive ceremony. But seriously, could a procedure fail to baptize when done in the Roman church, but accomplish a baptism when done in an Eastern rite?
Susan Peterson
If Baptism of Desire is true then why all the fuss? It doesn’t matter if a person is Baptized if that is their desire. The invalidity doesn’t seem to be intentional, on the recipient’s part, because they definitely desire the Baptism. But, if validity doesn’t matter, as long as there is the is a desire to receive, then why would the Church insist it must be validly done whether intentional or not.
http://catholicvox.blogspot.com/2009/03/watering-down-water.html
Bill Strom
I remember our Dogma professor at Holy Apostles telling us of the story of a newly ordained priest introducing his grand-aunt to the Bishop at his first Mass reception. During the impromptu conversation, the lady remarked that she and her sister (the grandmother of the priest) were especially grateful since her grand-nephew had been born prematurely at home. Almost losing him at birth, his mother went into early labor at home and being a breach birth, he almost died. Quick thinking Aunt Eleanor got some holy water and did an emergency baptism in the kitchen She poured water on the foot and leg as they came out of the womb first. No conditional baptism was done afterwards, merely the ritual anointings were done in church as it had been presumed the child’s emergency baptism was valid.
The Bishop turned snow white in the face and rushed the newly ordained priest into a private room where he interrogated him about his baptism. The new priest said this was the first he heard of it as he always thought the service at church was the actual baptism. Evidently no notation was ever made in the baptismal register.
Our professor said the bishop then baptized the young man and removed the Roman Pontifical he had in his briefcase and imposed hands and said the prayer of ordination and forbad the priest to EVER mention this happened. The only reason it was discovered happened ten years later when the priest died in a horrible car accident and the bishop had the funeral and told only the priests present in the rectory about what had happened years before. The Bishop remarked how happy he was he learned of this early into the priest’s assignment since any and all masses and sacraments celebrated before the ‘second’ ordination would have been invalid. Imagine not finding out for several years and having all those Masses, confessions, anointings, marriages, invalidated. An invalid baptism would invalidate ordination and all the sacraments celebrated by that alleged priest until he would be baptized and ordained.
Father Z,black biretta,
Wouldn’t the above priest’s Confirmation been invalid?
Sorry I don’t believe the story. A lot of modernist created stories of this kind to undermined the wisdom of the Church. Since there is no documentation of this event is is merely a rumor. There are other similar stories I have heard. The implication is that all the masses were invalid and the people didn’t make a valid confessions before it was corrected. I think the Bishop of this great caliber,since he was so diligent in correcting the situation, in conscience would have made it public so such an event would not happen again.
Fr. Z,
Is there a document from the CDF that you could scan and post for us? It is very likely, according to a friend of mine after we discussed this issue, that there is a parish in my Diocese which has the standard practice of immersion without the water touching any part of the head. If there is something from the CDF that I could relay to the pastor/bishop (should this actually be the case in this parish), that would be great…