Edward McNamara, LC
(ZENIT News / Vatican City, 12.20.2024).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy and sacramental theology and director of the Sacerdos Institute at the Pontifical Regina Apostolorum university.
***
Q: Could you please clarify whether water must touch the skin of the head or face for a baptism to be valid? At the Easter Vigil and more lately, I have witnessed baptisms conferred by my diocesan bishops and priests on candidates whose head are bowed, and their hair is flipped directly forward so that the baptismal water clearly flows only down the back of the hair and does not touch the scalp or face. In researching this issue, I came across a website which cites moral theologians, among others, who state that it is necessary for the water to flow over the skin. Could you please explain what is the difference between a doubtful and valid sacrament? How can a sacrament be doubtful but valid? Wouldn’t the doubt call into question the validity? Also, concerning the sacrament of baptism, my sibling and her husband, who are baptized Catholics but who do not practice the faith or uphold the faith’s teachings on important issues like marriage, abortion, in vitro, etc., intend to have their children baptized in the Church. They have chosen godparents who, likewise, are baptized Catholic but not practicing. I am doubtful about attending the baptism because it would entail witnessing the parents and the godparents lie before God about their intention to raise the child in the faith. Also, I am unsure if I should inform the pastor of the parish where the baptism will take place about the truth about the parents’ and godparents’ lack of intention to practice the faith, since this is being withheld from him and the individual who is vetting the candidates to ensure that the baptism can proceed. Would you have any advice regarding how to proceed? — E.R., San Clemente, California
A: Here we have two very different, and difficult, questions.
With respect to the second question regarding the non-practicing parents and godparents, it is very hard to make a judgment. The very fact that the parents are seeking baptism for their child is at least a sign that some seed of faith remains, and there is hope that it will germinate once more.
Likewise, while the parents may not be practicing nor firm in their faith, unless they have expressly declared that they do not intend to raise the child in the faith, one cannot deduce their inner intention from these external factors. They may well intend to raise the child in the faith as they see it. It may not be an ideal situation but would probably be sufficient to not deprive the child of the gift of baptism.
The pastor, in vetting the situation, should have some assurance that there will be somebody who can take an interest in the child’s Christian upbringing; this could be a relative if the parents and godparents are unable to. Therefore, our reader could confide in the pastor, while stiving to be as objective as possible and leave the final decision to him.
Attending the baptism is a personal decision weighing all the possible consequences, including the danger of creating a family rift that might limit one’s possibility to influence the child’s upbringing, at least, by good example.
Let’s turn now to the first, more technical, part of the question on the validity of a baptism if only the hair is touched without skin contact.
The opinions of the venerable authors cited on the website should be interpreted in the light of the laws of the time. The 1917 Code of Canon Law organized disparate codes and legal opinions from earlier times. The one closest to our topic, and that was expressly cited by some of the sources on the website, was Canon 746, especially §2. To wit:
“Canon 746
“§ 1. No one should be baptized in the mother’s womb so long as there is a hope that he can be baptized correctly outside of it.
Ҥ 2. If the head of an infant is exposed and there is imminent danger of death, let him be baptized on the head; later, if he is delivered alive, he should be baptized again under condition.
Ҥ 3. If another part of the body is exposed, and if danger [of death] is imminent, let him be baptized under condition thereupon, and then, if he survives birth, he should be once again baptized under condition.
Ҥ 4. If a pregnant mother dies, and if the fetus is delivered by those who do such things, and if he is certainly alive, he should be baptized absolutely; if there is doubt, [he should be baptized] under condition.
“§ 5. A fetus baptized in the womb should be baptized again under condition after [being born].”
It should be noted that the above canons are not dogma but prudential practices that respond to concrete pastoral situations of imminent danger of death. Likewise, it should also be noted that they do not directly say that water should touch the skin.
Some of the theological manuals cited on the website were: A Manual of Moral Theology for English-speaking Countries, Volume II, 1925; Moral Theology, The Newman Press 1962; The Administration of the Sacraments, Alba House, 1964; and Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described, Burns and Oates Ltd London, 1919.
These manuals were mostly concerned to form and inform priests as to the correct procedure for celebrating the sacraments and insure the validity of baptisms.
This legitimate concern may have led some authors to be overly strict in interpreting the rites, and they may have extended too much to ordinary circumstances the application of rites reserved for emergency measures.
Current canon law is far briefer and completely omits 1917 Canon 746 along with several other similar canons that give specific instructions on emergency situations. Thus, Canon 854 in the 1983 Code says:
“Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed.”
This canon makes no mention of the possibility of sprinkling as a means of baptism and would seem to give preference to some form of immersion.
Since current law prefers some form of immersion or pouring, it would presuppose that the water would touch the skin as well as the hair. Nevertheless, there would not seem to be anything in the text of current law that would expressly require the water to touch the skin for a valid baptism if water is poured on the head. Nor was there in the former law even though this was the opinion of several respected theologians.
A well-known priest-canonist mentioned in a blog that he had made a private consultation with an official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who responded that “water must flow on or touch the head, at least the hair of the head.”
While not an official response, I think that it reflects current thinking and that there is no doubt that a baptism in which water flows on the hair and not on the head is a valid baptism.
That said, the practical recommendations offered by these authors remain sound pastoral guidance for celebrating the sacrament.
Finally, a doubtful baptism is one in which there is some defect about the circumstances of the baptism that makes it unsure if a valid baptism took place.
Some of the situations given above in Canon 746 in the 1917 Code would be examples. This is why the canons mandate that if the child lives, he or she should be baptized conditionally using a formula such as “If you are not baptized, I baptize you ….”
Such conditional baptism is also occasionally applied to converts from some Christian denominations when there is doubt as to whether the rites used were sufficient to obtain a valid baptism in the Catholic sense.
* * *
Readers may send questions to zenit.liturgy@gmail.com. Please put the word «Liturgy» in the subject field. The text should include your initials, your city and your state, province or country. Father McNamara can only answer a small selection of the questions that arrive.
Thank you for reading our content. If you would like to receive ZENIT’s daily e-mail news, you can subscribe for free through this link.
