Baptism, like all sacraments, is an action of the Holy Spirit through the symbol of water. So, you must use water. And you must say words that invoke the Trinity, ie, "
[Name], I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." I really thought you had to be baptized yourself to baptize someone else, because the authority comes from the common priesthood of all believers.
The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
But the Catechism disagrees with me, so I must be mistaken
.
Sacraments need people to administer them. They aren't direct acts of God without any human mediation. In the case of matrimony, it is the people getting married to administer the sacrament to each other, which is why the priest is just a witness. But in the case of baptism, the person doing the baptizing is important, and really does administer the sacrament. You can't baptize yourself. So,
Prim, your kind person does have to at least intend to baptize, and not be doing it (for instance) as some sort of game.
If no Christian is available and it is an emergency, then baptism of desire kicks in - if you want to be baptized, and would if circumstances permit...then that counts. This applies to people who are in the process of getting baptized, but die before they complete the catechumenate. For instance, when my brother-in-law had to delay his baptism because he kept missing the classes, and then got shipped out to Iraq...that would have still worked. So, if a non-baptized person attempted to baptize someone because the person really wanted it and time was of the essence....then baptism of desire would apply. I think. Otherwise, I'm having trouble seeing how it's licit or valid or whatever. But baptisms are supposed to happen in churches, not hospitals or accident scenes.
(Less common than baptism of desire is baptism of blood - if you die a martyr's death, even if you are not yet baptized, you are automatically baptized.)
Not that I can read canon law, but here is what it says about it:
THE MINISTER OF BAPTISM
Can. 861 §1. The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 530, n. 1.
§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.
Can. 862 Except in a case of necessity, no one is permitted to confer baptism in the territory of another without the required permission, not even upon his own subjects.
Can. 863 The baptism of adults, at least of those who have completed their fourteenth year, is to be deferred to the diocesan bishop so that he himself administers it if he has judged it Expedient.
No one is ever re-baptized, and the Catholic church always recognizes baptism in other Christian churches as being valid, so long as water and a Trinitarian formula were part of it. So, I think we discount Jehovah's Witness baptisms (because they do not believe in the Trinity), but everyone else is good. If there is some question whether or not a person has been baptized, you can do a conditional baptism.
Crucifer, I understand that that situation is very upsetting. New leaders always change things, but it is not good for a pastor to come in and impose his will on a community without regard for their wishes or sensitivity to how things work there. When I was younger, we got a new bishop from the neighboring diocese. In his diocese, all altar servers were boys. In ours, they were girls and boys. I don't know how long the 'girls can be altar servers' rule was in effect before he moved, but he made no attempt to change it back. I think he understood that, regardless of his preferences, it would not be helpful to change that rule. [Many priests start out serving as altar boys, so there is some incentive to want boys, not girls, in that role. For the bishop's masses, generally the seminarians act as altar servers.] Pastoral decisions are made for the good of the flock. That's the whole point.
I just have never known any Catholic women who wanted to be priests...and I've known a
lot of Catholic women! That is why I do not see this situation as the Church ignoring the will of God and imposing an unfair rule on the members of the Church. I know
plenty of Catholic women who want to serve - and do - as chaplains, campus ministers, directors of non-profit charities, etc. There are very few ministries that would require ordination, and so you can generally find a place. Spiritual directors and marriage counselors most certainly can be women, for instance. Generally, you need an ordained priest for saying mass, for the homily, and for hearing confessions. Also annointing of the sick. But that's it. Hospital chaplains, retreat directors, Sunday school teachers, music ministry...all open to women. If you want a vowed life, there are religious communities for women. Can you see why I don't find this stifling? Priests certainly serve an essential role in the Church, but not the
only role nor the only way to be a spiritual leader.
If the implication were that women would make bad priests, I'd be very upset about that, but it isn't. I've been to Methodist services with female pastors, and (with one exception) they were all fine, good people. If other religions want to ordain women, I'm fine with that, but I'm also very content with my own religion's all-male priesthood. My suggestions for improvements do not involve opening up the priesthood to married men or women.
If you ask the average person who the holiest Catholic of the past century was, they are most likely to name Mother Teresa.
