Validity Of Infant "but-t Baptism"

[TheoGrad07]

I recently came across a debate in another context and wanted to get your insights.

 

An argument was made that baptism by partial immersion, in which only the infant's bare bottom comes in contact with the water, is NOT a valid baptism because the water does not touch the infant's head. I think there are two points at issue here: 1) whether water must touch the head for baptism to be valid; 2) whether partial immersion is valid.

 

My understanding is that for a baptism to be valid two conditions must be met: "natural" or "flowing" water (matter) and the Trinitarian formula (form). A third condition could possibly be set in that the one administering the sacrament must intend to do what the Church intends.

 

Certainly the norm prescribed in the rite of baptism is immersion (question: is full immersion presumed?) or pouring, but I do not believe anywhere it is prescribed that the water must touch the head for validity. In fact, my understanding is that so long as water "flows" across any part of the body the baptism is valid. Hence the custom in extremely difficult births to baptism the first part of the baby that emerges (which, in a difficult birth especially before modern technology, may not be the head).

[Cherie]

Did you happen to see Fr. Z's post on this? It's no longer available on his blog (wonder why?), but I found the text quoted elsewhere:

 

 

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.

 

I thought that was pertinent to this thread! I don't consider Fr. Z the "last authority" on anything, but I thought it was interesting and seemed to make sense, though I admit I had been under the same impression as you. 

 

[franciscanheart]

It's an interesting question and one I have not considered. I don't see why it wouldn't be valid.

[Basilisa Marie]

I'd say it's assumed to be valid, but illicit. :)  I'd say it works if it's an emergency situation, since you're using water and the Trinitarian formula. 

 

Canon law says...

 

 

Can.  853 Apart from a case of necessity, the water to be used in conferring baptism must be blessed according to the prescripts of the liturgical books.

Can.  854 Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed.

Can.  869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.

§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.

§3. If in the cases mentioned in §§1 and 2 the conferral or validity of the baptism remains doubtful, baptism is not to be conferred until after the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptized, if an adult, and the reasons of the doubtful validity of the baptism are explained to the person or, in the case of an infant, to the parents.

 

There's nothing about the "head" in Canon law, though there might be in the "liturgical books."  Like you said, emergency baptisms of whatever part presented itself first during difficult births was certainly something that happened.  Depending on the details of the scenario you described, there's certainly room for a future conditional baptism. 

[TheoGrad07]

Cherie, you nailed it -- illicit but valid was my instinct and I think this Zenit article offers a good explanation (way down at the bottom).

 

I ran across arguments citing the 1917 Code, which does specifically mention the head as necessary for validity -- I'm no canon lawyer but the priests I've talked to don't seem to think that is absolutely the case any more. ... So I guess the even bigger question is, when the later Code does not mention specifically something that was specifically mentioned in the earlier code, how do we interpret that?!? No longer binding because of omission?

 

[Basilisa Marie]

Cherie, you nailed it -- illicit but valid was my instinct and I think this Zenit article offers a good explanation (way down at the bottom).

 

I ran across arguments citing the 1917 Code, which does specifically mention the head as necessary for validity -- I'm no canon lawyer but the priests I've talked to don't seem to think that is absolutely the case any more. ... So I guess the even bigger question is, when the later Code does not mention specifically something that was specifically mentioned in the earlier code, how do we interpret that?!? No longer binding because of omission?

 

Well, the 1917 code is no longer binding (that's like in the first ten canons in the new code, stating that it's no longer binding).

 

It does say:

 

 

Can. 2 For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code.

 

So yeah, unless there's something in the "liturgical books" necessitating the head, but even then, I think that's slightly shaky grounds for non-validity. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Rituale:

10. Although baptism can be administered validly by pouring the water or by immersion or by sprinkling, nevertheless, one should adhere to the first method or the second, or to the mixed form of these two, whichever is the more common practice and in harmony with the custom of the particular rite. The water is to be poured on the head with a triple ablution (or the head is to be immersed three times), each time in the form of a cross, saying the words simultaneously. The same person must both pour the water and pronounce the words.




It does not *sound* like the head is required, but I am certainly not a canon lawyer, so I may be reading it incorrectly.

[Cherie]

When do these kind of "bottoms-only" baptisms occur? Is this a considerable problem among immersion baptisms?

[Lil Red]

i've seen it done at a local parish here.

 

of course, they're not exactly known for their adherence to Church teaching, so....

[Winchester]

The purpose of the form is to convey meaning. There is nothing about the butt that would keep the little monster from becoming Catholic.

[Nihil Obstat]

The purpose of the form is to convey meaning. There is nothing about the butt that would keep the little monster from becoming Catholic.

Depends on how you use the word form. In theory proper form is necessary for validity. The trick is in determining what constitutes the essential form of the sacrament.

[Winchester]

Depends on how you use the word form. In theory proper form is necessary for validity. The trick is in determining what constitutes the essential form of the sacrament.

Yeah, form's not the best word, in this case.

[Slappo]

I think Winchester is saying that the kid is probably a butthead anyways, so what difference does it make?

 

amiright?

[Slappo]

Oops I didn't realize this morning that this was in the raising humans forum. Sorry for the open mic/lame board worthy post.

 

 

I had always understood water flowing over the head to be required for baptism and would probably side with Fr. Z on this one.

[Winchester]

dUs+ was just posting about how many hits pm gets. This topic shouldn't be behind a wall. It's a good fit for transmundane lane or even open mic. It's a little funny, but it's also informative. It shows that Catholics can talk about tuchuses without everyone freaking out.

 

Let's not hide our butts under bushel baskets.