Conditional Baptism and Canon Law

Nearly 11 years ago a certain blogger asked to be received into the Catholic Church.  The priest requested sight of a certificate of baptism.  This document was produced after a quick search of the family scrapbook.  It was dated in 1967, when the candidate was still a baby, and signed by a vicar now long dead.  The priest studied it briefly, made a note and handed it back.  That was all.  The certificate of a dead Anglican minister, unsupported by any other evidence, was accepted as proof that the candidate had received a valid Catholic baptism.

The fundamental importance of baptism to the Catholic Church can hardly be overstated.  The Code of Canon Law 1983 asserts that baptism is the ‘gateway’ (ianua), not only to the other sacraments, but to Heaven itself.  ‘Baptism … is necessary for salvation, either by actual reception or at least by desire’ (canon 849).  If salvation itself is at stake, how can the certificate of a non-Catholic minister be sufficient proof that a baptism is valid? 

Baptism, like the other sacraments, was ‘instituted by Christ the Lord and entrusted to the [Catholic] Church’ (canon 840).  As the Divinely appointed trustee of the sacraments, ‘only the supreme authority in the Church [i.e the Pope, with or without the College of Bishops] can approve or define what is needed for their validity’ (canon 841).

As baptism is necessary for salvation it may have to be administered in extremis, when the candidate is in imminent danger of death – or indeed, where the minister is in danger of death, e.g in a war zone.  Canon 871 provides that ‘if aborted foetuses are alive, they are to be baptised, if this is possible’.  This in turn demands that, in a case of necessity, any person may administer the sacrament, not just an ordained or licensed minister (canon 861(2)).  Even an unbaptised person, let alone a non-Catholic minister, can validly baptise.

Baptism cannot be repeated (canon 845(1) and canon 849).  However, canon 845(2) provides that ‘If after diligent enquiry a prudent doubt remains as to whether [baptisms] have been conferred at all, or conferred validly, they are to be conferred conditionally’.

This wording makes clear that, notwithstanding the fundamental importance of baptism, clergy may not conditionally baptise pro maiori cautela i.e from an abundance of caution or ‘just in case’.  There must be an investigation and a reasonable doubt.

Canon 845(2) does not mention the obvious possibility that investigation may reveal, not a reasonable doubt, but rather a certainty that what happened was not a valid baptism.  In such a case, of course, the candidate must be baptised absolutely, not conditionally.

The either / or wording of canon 845(2), ‘conferred at all, or conferred validly’, is potentially confusing.  A commentary suggests that ‘2 types of doubt may arise, about

[1] the fact of baptism and

[2] [its] validity’

(A New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, eds Beal, Coriden and Green (2000), p.1057).

Does this mean that a purely theological doubt [2] may remain even if all relevant facts [1] are known with certainty?  If yes, then canon 845(2) is hard to reconcile with canon 841 (quoted above), which asserts the Church’s God-given jurisdiction to ‘approve or define what is needed for … validity’.  The Church cannot turn a doubtful fact into a certainty.  (Infallibility is not omniscience!)  However, if all the facts are known, it is argued that there is no room for doubt, and therefore no scope for conditional baptism.  There is either a valid baptism or there is not.  The Church is not merely entitled but bound to decide the question.  Otherwise, it is arguably failing in its God-given function. (A judge cannot refuse to decide a case that is within his jurisdiction.)

The canon law of conditional baptism was settled long before audio-visual records were possible.  Even in 1983 audio-visual records of baptism would have been very unusual.  Audio-visual records are capable of supplying a higher degree of factual certainty than written records and imperfect memories.  Therefore they reduce the scope for conditional baptism.

The 1983 Code contains safeguards of the validity of baptism.  Canon 846(1) provides that ‘the liturgical books … are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the sacraments … no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those books’.  Baptism must normally be administered in church, not elsewhere (canon 857(1) and canons 859 and 860).  Emergencies must be properly prepared for: ‘pastors … are to be diligent in ensuring that [lay] faithful are taught the correct way to baptise’ (canon 861(2)).

Baptism in non-Catholic Churches presents 3 difficulties

(1) the aforementioned canonical safeguards cannot apply to such baptisms.  As canon 11 points out ‘merely ecclesiastical laws bind [only] those who were baptised in the Catholic Church or received into it’.

(2) non-Catholic Churches do not accept the Pope’s authority to define valid baptism and

(3) the Reformed Churches do not hold the Catholic belief in the necessity of baptism (even though they may permit individual clergy and lay members to do so).

Martin Luther preached justification sole fide, i.e by faith alone.  If carried to its logical extreme, this doctrine would render baptism superfluous, or at least deny the validity of infant baptism, requiring that baptism should only be administered when the candidate is old enough to make a personal act of faith.

The English law of baptism is a compromise between the Lutheran and Catholic teachings.  Article 11 makes a respectful bow to the Father of the Reformation: ‘that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort …’.  Thus clergy are at liberty to believe, and publicly preach, the Lutheran doctrine.

However, in practice, Anglican clergy are required to apply Catholic teaching on baptism, whatever their individual beliefs.  Article 27 accepts that ‘the baptism of young children is … to be retained … as most agreeable with the institution of Christ’.  (From 1549 to 1662 there was no adult baptism rite in England.)  Canon B22 imposes a duty to baptise babies, as did canons 68 and 69 of 1603.  The Book of Common Prayer and the modern canons both provide for emergency baptism (‘when need shall compel’), and for conditional baptism in doubtful cases.

Baptism outside the Catholic Church has been subject of various papal pronouncements over the centuries, but the original Code of Canon Law, promulgated in 1917, made no specific reference to it.  The subject was revisited by the Second Vatican Council in its decree Unitatis Redintegratio (‘the restoration of unity’) (1964).  This resulted in a new canon of the 1983 Code, canon 869(2), which provides that

‘Those baptised in a non-Catholic ecclesial community are not to be baptised conditionally unless there is a serious reason for doubting the validity of their baptism, on the ground of

[1] matter [i.e the application of water]

[2] the form of the words used .. or of

[3] the intention of the adult being baptised [not babies, obviously], or that of the baptising minister’.

‘Ecclesial community’, i.e Churchlike community, is a reference to the western Reformed Churches. They are so described because, despite the resemblance, they are regarded as ‘not Churches in the proper sense’ (Dominus Iesus, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (2000), para 17).  The Eastern Orthodox Churches, by contrast, are accepted as proper Churches. Thus there is no equivalent of canon 869(2) in the 1990 Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

It could be argued that canon 869(2) is unnecessary, since it adds nothing of substance to canon 845(2) on conditional baptism.  It certainly does not introduce a presumption of validity in favour of non-Catholic baptism.  It merely repudiates a presumption of doubt.  Before Unitatis Redintegratio there was apparently a widespread practice of conditionally baptising Protestant converts without investigation, pro maiori cautela (cf New Commentary, p.1058). Canon 869(2) in effect reinforces canon 845(2).

However, Unitatis Redintegratio is careful to state that ‘[those] who believe in Christ and have been truly baptised [as distinct from falsely baptised] are in communion with the Catholic Church, even though this communion is imperfect’ (para 3).  Also that ‘whenever the sacrament of baptism is duly administered as Our Lord instituted it … a man becomes truly incorporated into … Christ’ (para 22). Protestant baptisms must still satisfy the Catholic conditions for validity.

The practical approach to non-Catholic baptism is now governed by the Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism 1993 (‘the Ecumenical Directory’), issued by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. 

Local Churches should engage in dialogue with ‘ecumenical partners’ concerning ‘both the [doctrinal] significance and valid [liturgical] celebration of baptism’, and attempt to reach agreement concerning these matters (paras 93 and 94).  Ecumenical agreement will eliminate, or at least reduce, uncertainty about baptism. Local Churches should also develop procedures for deciding doubtful cases.

Investigation of non-Catholic baptism will obviously begin with the official baptism rite of the particular ecclesial community (para 95).  If the rite is sufficient to confer Catholic baptism, 2 presumptions will arise in favour of baptism in that community,

(1) that the baptising minister correctly followed the official rite and

(2) had the requisite intention to baptise: ‘insufficient faith concerning baptism never of itself makes baptism invalid’.  Even an unbaptised atheist can still intend to baptise. Intention depends on what the minister says and does, not on what he believes.

This is why the certificate referred to earlier was accepted as proof of baptism.  The baptism rite in the Book of Common Prayer satisfies the conditions for validity, and it can be safely presumed that vicars in the 1960s would have followed it scrupulously.

All presumptions are rebuttable, however.  Non-Catholic ministers who conscientiously observe the discipline of their own Church can validly baptise without accepting Catholic doctrine on baptism. But, the risk cannot be excluded that they will fail to observe discipline, either from sloppiness or from ideological motives.

The principal ideological threat to common baptism in the West now seems to come from so-called ‘inclusiveness’.  In 2008, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (‘the CDF’) held that a baptism in which the Trinity were invoked by the names ‘Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer’ (to avoid male references) was invalid. 

In 2014, the Ecclesiastical Law Journal reported a practice of ‘open communion’ in the American Episcopal Church: ‘priests in ever-increasing numbers are inviting all to the table’ (i.e the altar), in defiance of the rule that only baptised persons may be admitted to holy communion (James D Prendergast, pp32-46).  Baptism is no longer the gateway to the other sacraments, let alone to Heaven, but merely to a Church school or a Church job.

Clergy who admit unbaptised persons to holy communion demonstrate that they place a low value on baptism.  And if they break the rules of their own Church concerning holy communion, they cannot be trusted to keep its rules concerning baptism. 

The Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia now instructs its clergy that ‘baptised non-Catholics who are to be received into the full communion of the Catholic Church, even those who provide you with a certificate of baptism, are to be conditionally baptised …’ (website accessed today).  The indiscipline of the Reformed Churches forces the Catholic Church to return to its pre-Vatican II practice of presuming that non-Catholic baptism is doubtful.

However, what the CDF calls ‘the ancient temptation to substitute for the [baptism] formula handed down by Tradition other texts judged more suitable’ is regrettably not confined to the Reformed Churches.  In 2020, the CDF considered a case where a Catholic minister, again motivated by a desire to be ‘inclusive’, baptised an infant with the words ‘We baptise you …’.  The ‘We’ referred to the assembled family, godparents and friends.  (The error was only discovered because an audio-visual record was made of the ceremony.)

The CDF held, with papal approval, that the alteration of this single word rendered the baptism invalid, even though the erring minister had expressed an intention to baptise, and had invoked the Trinity by their correct Names.

Canon 849 provides that baptism ‘is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words’.  The minister had not used the proper form of words.  He was clearly in breach of his duty under canon 846(1). The CDF concluded that, by the using the word ‘We’, he intended to baptise qua representative of the Church community, not qua minister of Christ.  This intention was defective, and therefore fatal to validity.

Judith Hahn, a Catholic theologian, related that the CDF’s decision met with a ‘critical reception’ from her colleagues (‘Invalid Baptismal Formulas’, Ecclesiastical Law Journal (2021)).  She suggested that the formula ‘I baptise you’ may not be as ‘Traditional’ as the CDF thought, having only been introduced in the middle ages.  She also pointed out that the Eastern Orthodox Church uses a different formula from the Latin Church, ‘Be baptised’, and yet this has always been accepted as valid.

Moreover, the Eastern equivalent of canon 849 is differently worded. It does not require ‘the proper form of words’, but rather ‘the invocation of the Name of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit …’ (canon 675(1) of the 1990 Code), which the minister in this case had done. (Does this mean that the impugned baptism would have been valid if performed in an Eastern Church rather than in the Latin Church?)

If baptism is a matter of necessity and the basis of all Christian communion, and requires the agency of uninstructed lay ministers and of non-Catholic ministers, the conditions for its valid administration should arguably be kept to an absolute minimum (which is not to excuse indiscipline).

This narrative indicates that common baptism is fragile.  It cannot be taken for granted.  Like freedom, the price of common baptism is eternal vigilance.  The function of canon law is to safeguard the validity of baptism, both inside the Catholic Church and, as far as possible, outside it as well.