|
|
 |
Matt Kosciuk
wrote:
|
|
Hi guys,
I'm a 62-year-old college graduate, living in Orange County, California.
I have a question regarding the correct procedure to baptize a baby.
My grand daughter was baptized last Sunday with about 14 other babies.
The parents had a choice of:
- a traditional Baptism, that is pouring
the water over the head of the child, or
- a submersion of
the baby.
My son and his wife chose the traditional method.
However, for those parent who choose submersion, the babies
were striped and their bottoms were dunked into the Baptismal
font. No water was ever poured over their heads.
- Were those babies illicitly baptized?
Sincerely,
Matt, JMJ-N
|
| {
Is submersion of a baby's bottom
in the baptismal font a legal Baptism in the eyes of the Church? }
|
|
The AskACatholic team replied:
|
Hi Matt,
Our team discussed the best answer for this question for a while.
This case is not the norm, but the short answer:
The Baptism would be valid but illicit or (illegal).
One of my colleagues noted that the Catechism teaches:
CCC 1278 The essential rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate
in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation
of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
.
.
.
.
CCC 1239 The essential rite of the sacrament follows: Baptism properly
speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry
into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal
mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple
immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also
been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's
head. |
Another colleague added:
Canon law says only that washing with
true water is necessary for valid Baptism, which is done by
immersion or pouring, and following the order prescribed
in the approved liturgical books.
Canon law also provides that in cases of urgent
necessity, only what is required for the validity of the
sacrament must be observed. This means that normally, water is poured
on the head, or the person is immersed, as the liturgical books prescribe,
but that in an emergency, if the head cannot be reached, there need only
be the washing of some part of the body with true water, which is what
canon law says is the bare minimum for validity.
As for accidental missing of the
head, the rule in the Church, and in canon law, is that the Church
supplies (Ecclesia Supplet) — this means that whatever is inadvertently
non-intentionally missing in the sacrament is made up for from the grace
of the Church.
As for Matt's case, dunking may not be valid, if it was intentional. It
was not an emergency, and if the priest knew the rules. In case
of any doubt, one should have a conditional Baptism. |
There was a consensus among our team that you should write to the bishop
for an official answer about the propriety of this — mainly to let
the bishop know that this is happening.
We thought in general, it seemed disrespectful to the sacrament to immerse
only the baby's bottom.
Another document you may find interesting comes from (CUFF) Catholics United for the Faith:
Side note: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in their November
2008 meeting approved of a Prayer of Blessing for a child in a mother's
womb in both English and Spanish.
Hope this helps,
The team at AskACatholic.com
|
Fr. Jonathan added:
|
Hi, Mike —
I just wanted to add my two cents on this.
I am not a liturgist, but my sources say that the water must touch a principal part of the body and it is described as head, chest or back otherwise it is doubtfully valid.
From what we know from the man's story I would not side with valid but illicit but say it is doubtfully valid.
If I were the priest I would do a conditional Baptism.
Fr. Jonathan
|
|
|
|
