Baptism without consent

[Fr Michael Monos]

Have any of the other Presbyters been asked to baptize an infant without the consent of its parents? In this case, a grandfather who is a member of ROCOR baptized his grandaughter in extremis (air baptism) soon after her birth with the argument that the child's parents would not consent. Of course this is a misuse of air baptism, so his ROCOR priest told him that the baptism was not valid without completion but also refused to complete the baptism without the parent's consent. The grandfather has likened the situation to secret baptisms in communist times, and has cited other instances from the Synaxarion of baptisms without parental consent.

The man has now come to me (GOA) and asked if I would complete the baptism, again without the parent's consent. In principle, I am in agreement with my brother priest, though I did consult with my Spiritual Father who also instructed me not to baptize the infant without parental consent. Of course, I have offered to speak with the parents and ask them directly whether or not permission might be given, but the grandfather does not want me to ask his daughter because he says he knows she will refuse to consent.

I wondered if any others had had this experience and how they handled the situation.

Fr. Michael

[Alice]

What a terrible dillema, dear Father Michael,

Imagine that poor man, knowing the importance of baptism and the grace it bestows, and knowing that his grandchild may not receive it! I don't know what I would do in that circumstance...What sorrow he must be feeling. He feels a spiritual responsiblity to Christ.

I remember (dating myself here) the show 'All inthe Family' dealt with a similar situation. I don't remember what Archie Bunker did...I think he had the baby baptized anyway.

Imagine if that child, God forbid dies, how will the grandfather feel if it is not baptized and if the air baptism is not valid...

Isn't there anything he can do if the parents do not agree? I pray that the parents can be convinced by you...even if they don't believe.

If they asked me what to do, I think that I would humbly ask them, 'what harm can it do, and wouldn't it be an act of selfless love for you to concede if for nothing else, atleast for your father who gave you life and sacrificed his life to raise you?'

Kyrie Eleison!

In Christ,
Alice

[Fr Michael Monos]

Alice,

I remember that episode well. In that episode of All in The Family, Archie baptized the infant himself. It seems as if we have already gone down that road in this case!

Fr. Michael

[Herman Blaydoe]

Alice,

I remember that episode well. In that episode of All in The Family, Archie baptized the infant himself. It seems as if we have already gone down that road in this case!

Fr. Michael

This is clearly a pastoral issue, and I assume the other priests will participate, privately if not publicly. But with some trepidation, may I add that the basis of infant baptism is that the parents (and Godparents) have, indeed agreed that the child will be raised "in the Church". Unless the grandfather intends to secretly take the child to church as well, I am not sure what a "secret" baptism achieves. The grandfather, since he obviously still has access to the child, has the option to teach and influence the child to some extent, and that child will always have the option to make his or her own decision to be baptized at some point, just like many of us here, who were baptized at our own initiative.

We can play "what if" all we want, and we can try to bend things to our own wills, but in the end we just have to pray and leave things to God's providence. If I were a priest (and thank God there is no danger of that happening) I would counsel the grandfather (being a grandfather with unbaptized grandchildren myself) to pray for the child and especially for the parents, that God might soften their hearts and turn them towards Him that they might also live Godly lives and raise the child in a Godly manner. But I am not a priest, I don't know this man or the situation, so merely consider this a little thought from a bear of little brain, the caveats posted in my profile apply doubly here.

Herman the Pooh

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Father,

This isn't the place for specific direction. But at times from among the different views offered here we are able to gain a more confident understanding of how to approach a situation. In any case the following thoughts are a possible way that I might proceed through such a situation.

To say that such an emergency baptism is invalid without referring to the context is not I believe correct. For in the situation of imminent death of the infant it most certainly is correct. But if the infant survives then the Book of Needs clearly requires that the baptism be completed with chrismation.

The next step in my thinking then is that the completion of the baptism is necessary due to the assumption that from this point on the infant will participate in the life of the Church and especially in its sacramental life. The completion of the baptism then after an emergency baptism is necessary because of this assumption of further participation in the life of the Church.

However in the situation described here this likely will not occur. Without the parent's permission it is difficult to see how the child will be brought to church. Attendance at church could only occur when the child has reached that time in the future when he can act independently.

Therefore at this point then one could perhaps advise the grandfather that the child in its present situation is truly baptised. Perhaps though in future years the grandfather could explain to the child that it was given an emergency baptism. The grandfather could also explain that if when the child became independent from his parents and desired to attend church that a completion of the baptism would be needed and should be asked for from the priest.

I had a situation somewhat similar to this a few years ago. We had an older parishioner who had been born in the worst of Soviet times as far as the Church went. She explained to me that she had been baptised by her grandmother with sprinkling of water in the name of the Trinity. What we did then was to chrismate the woman. Of course the circumstances here are somewhat different. But in effect we are both talking of a non-believing environment which does not allow for completion of the baptism. Then at whatever point in the future that the person now of mature age can determine such things through its own desire, that person approaches the priest and then the baptism can be completed. Note that in both of these situations- at least potentially- the point where the person comes forward as it were is when they wish to receive the Eucharist. If I look back at the life of this woman before the completion of the baptism I am not sure it would be correct to say that she had been living outside of baptismal grace. Rather I would be more inclined to think that baptismal grace had covered her to the degree that this matched her life in the Church.

I hope these thoughts help somewhat.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Michael Monos]

Dear Fr. Raphael,

Thank you for your comments. Let me clarify my OP.



To say that such an emergency baptism is invalid without referring to the context is not I believe correct. For in the situation of imminent death of the infant it most certainly is correct. But if the infant survives then the Book of Needs clearly requires that the baptism be completed with chrismation.


There was no emergency -- the child's life was not in danger. The grandfather used emergency baptism so as not to involve the parents or his own priest who would not perform the mystery without the parent's consent.


The next step in my thinking then is that the completion of the baptism is necessary due to the assumption that from this point on the infant will participate in the life of the Church and especially in its sacramental life. The completion of the baptism then after an emergency baptism is necessary because of this assumption of further participation in the life of the Church.

However in the situation described here this likely will not occur. Without the parent's permission it is difficult to see how the child will be brought to church. Attendance at church could only occur when the child has reached that time in the future when he can act independently.


Agreed. In this case the child lives 2 hours from the grandparents, but spends at least 1 weekend / month at their home. Thus, the child would be able to attend Church once / month, though sometimes more often.


Therefore at this point then one could perhaps advise the grandfather that the child in its present situation is truly baptised.

I am not sure I agree with that statement. The air baptism was done outside its proper context, with deceptive means, without parental consent, without prayers, not completed with Holy Chrismation.


Perhaps though in future years the grandfather could explain to the child that it was given an emergency baptism. The grandfather could also explain that if when the child became independent from his parents and desired to attend church that a completion of the baptism would be needed and should be asked for from the priest.

Certainly this should happen if the situation remains as it is today.

Fr. Michael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Thanks for your comments Father.

A cautionary note- Please don't read what I write as my trying to be definitive- more this is my personal method of going step by step through a problem until I feel a proper step forward can be made.

point 1) if the grandfather's action was willful then of course everything that follows is doubtful or at least problematic. However as with our older parishioner who was given an 'emergency baptism' by their grandmother because believing parents & environment was not available, then such a baptism would be possible. In this case the context was not concern over imminent death but rather to cover a situation where realistically the infant might never be baptized. As a side comment we might add that this shows how the Church can act even though no clear canonical guidance is yet provided: ie the situation itself provides the precedent.

point 2) an 'air baptism'? Such a baptism must (at least to my knowledge) be with water and in the name of the Trinity.
If it was done in this way then I would say the infant is baptised until such time as he/she approaches the church in a more regular way. At this time the baptism would need to be completed by chrismation. Pastorally I probably would also counsel the grandfather towards sober behaviour towards their grandchild in future years. :)

In Christ- Fr Raphael
PS: in my experience- at least with new Russians- there often is a desire on the part of the not too believing parents to have the child baptised as they are growing up, often past infant years. This is seen as a form of 'protection' just in case, etc. Not a very good approach to the sacraments but it can at times become a means for drawing the child and parents towards the Church. In such situations I have instead of referring to godparents tried to stand in for the newly baptised myself. You might see the parents in the future come around to this.

[Michael Astley]

A few years ago, I was told that my godfather's mother had been baptised at an Old Calendarist monastery in Greece. It was some time later that it was explained to me that this was a baptism "in the air". When I asked what this entailed, I was told that it was when someone is baptised by being held up in the air. The explanation was given in a completely matter-of-fact way, almost as though it was strange that I didn't know, as though this were an everyday occurrence. When I asked what the reasoning behind it was, the response came, 'I don't know'. I just thought it was an oddity of the monastery and thought nothing more of it, until I read this thread.

To be honest, it seems to me to be stretching oikonomia to breaking point. The only pastoral reason that I can think of for being reticent about the use of water is if a person is allergic to water, (the condition does exist). Even then, I would have thought that economy would mean that perhaps, in such unusual circumstances, water could be poured over the head three times, preceded by the necessary medical treatment of antihistamine. Then the person could be chrismated as usual.

I do not understnd the concept of "air baptism". Where does it come from? How is it in keeping with the Tradition of the Church?

In Christ,
Michael

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Yes the question of 'baptism in the sir' is also one that I have.

Further points from the above discussion to consider:

i) is consent of the parents necessary for baptism of the infant? Of course since in most circumstances it is the parents who approach the church with their newly born, then the question is moot and we rarely think about this aspect of things. However apart from past civil law and social custom is such consent necessary in terms of the Church itself? Perhaps if the Russian church has past precedent of Soviet times to look to (eg especially the Catacomb church or conditions) then perhaps in the Byzantine church you could look to the Crypto-Christians of Asia Minor.

ii) even if the motives of the baptizing parent were questionable/wrong would this make an emergency baptism done with water and in the name of the Trinity a false baptism?

A few points to consider.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

***************
As previously mentioned (by His Poohness, I think) this is essentially a pastoral issue. However, as Fr Raphael pointed out there are underlying theological issues that are emphasized by this extraordinary pastoral situation.

First, to the pastoral situation, my own practice is not to baptize without the consent of the parents (both parents). The only time that this would not be an issue is if the child does not live with the parents - and then it is the consent of the guardian that becomes necessary in my mind. If one parent desires baptism for the child and the other is opposed, this causes grave family problems (or exacerbates problems that are already there). In that case I advise the consenting parent to bring the child to the Church regularly so that when he can express his desire, it will be that he is baptized. If both parents oppose a baptism, then baptism is at best useless, but possibly even detrimental to the spiritual life of the child. Also, while there might be a spiritual reason to baptize a child against the wishes - such an action is extremely harmful to the spiritual life of the parents, exacerbating their alienation from the Church with resentment, anger, and a host of other strong and negative emotions. An emergency situation, of course, will inform and perhaps modify the above concerns, but this is the place to start.


Second, one issue is that of the "air baptism". I honestly have never ever seen any liturgical/patristic argument or justification or historical precedent for such a practice. If there is such and argument in existence, I would be glad to know of it. I think that such a "baptism" must be questioned; imo baptism is "air" is no baptism. I have had the need to baptize a preemie in NICU and even in such an extreme and fragile situation, the baptism was with water (a minimum of water and it was sterile water introduced into the neonate incubator according to medical procedures - but then blessed and used in the baptism which was of necessity what we would call "sprinkling". But still it was a water baptism). Baptism requires water.

Third, baptism is the beginning of the journey - it is not the whole journey and it is not the end of the journey. What then do we make of the scripture concerning the one who has "put their hand to the plow" and then abandoned the task. Do we not endanger the spiritual condition of any person by imposing baptism (or any other sacrament for that matter) without some assurance of follow through?

Fr David Moser

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Father David wrote:


I have had the need to baptize a preemie in NICU and even in such an extreme and fragile situation, the baptism was with water (a minimum of water and it was sterile water introduced into the neonate incubator according to medical procedures - but then blessed and used in the baptism which was of necessity what we would call "sprinkling". But still it was a water baptism). Baptism requires water.


Yes, I also had a situation like this once with a child in danger of dying (but who later recovered). I did exactly what is written in the back of The Order of Baptism that Fr Gregory Williams publishes. Water is blessed with a short prayer, oil is then poured into this water, and the child baptised. Then the child is chrismated.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Mary]

Father, please forgive me for speaking.

I know nothing about such matters in regard to the Church, but from a very human level, I think the grandfather has overstepped his boundaries.

I think it would embitter the parents towards the grandfather and also God. He has no right to interfere, unless the parents are being physically and emotionally abusive towards the child. He can't draw them towards God, when he has so little respect for them. He may also be teaching his grandchild that it's ok to do things behind her parents' back. It will all backfire in some way. I don't know.

Even if what the grandfather is doing is a good thing for the child, I still can't get over the feeling that he's not respecting the parents. And lack of respect for a fellow human being really, really, really rubs me the wrong way. God has given us all free will, He doesn't force Himself on us, even though He knows what's good for us. For a time, parents have to make choices for their children, even if the children disagree. But once the children are grown up, the parents have to be grown up enough to let go.

Is God so weak that He cannot save a child that hasn't been baptized? What of all the children of all the non-Orthodox in the world who haven't been baptised, and won't even have an 'emergency baptism'? Are they doomed?

In Christ,
Mary.

[Fr Michael Monos]

Dear Father David,

Thank you for your comments.


I have had the need to baptize a preemie in NICU and even in such an extreme and fragile situation, the baptism was with water (a minimum of water and it was sterile water introduced into the neonate incubator according to medical procedures - but then blessed and used in the baptism which was of necessity what we would call "sprinkling". But still it was a water baptism). Baptism requires water.


I have had an occasion to baptize a child moments after birth in the surgical birthing room and used water. I can't really understand nor explain why this man did the 'baptism' in the manner that he did.


Do we not endanger the spiritual condition of any person by imposing baptism (or any other sacrament for that matter) without some assurance of follow through?


I believe that we do, though in spite of it, I still am sympathetic to the grandfather's plight, even though I disagree with him.

Fr. Michael

[Antonios]

Dear Father Michael,

I am neither a priest nor a deacon nor a reader nor anything more than a member of the laity (and poorly at that), so please take my words at face value.

If your spiritual father has instructed you not to baptize the infant without the parent's consent (an instruction which would probably echo that of your bishop), I think it unwise to baptize the child.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Olga]

My understanding of the form an "air baptism" takes is this: The baby or child is held up, them moved through the air to trace out the shape of a cross, while the person holding the baby says "I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.". Hope this helps.

[Aidan Kimel]

My understanding of the form an "air baptism" takes is this: The baby or child is held up, them moved through the air to trace out the shape of a cross, while the person holding the baby says "I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.". Hope this helps.

This is very interesting. Are there any Orthodox jurisdictions that would recognize this as a valid baptism?

The Catholic Church, of course, would not recognize it as a valid baptism, because it omits one of the essential elements of the dominical mandate--namely, the pouring of water.

I understand, though, the grandfather's desire to commend his grandchild to God and to invoke God's sanctifying blessing upon him. But he did not perform, in my Catholic opinion, a true baptism; and his intent to baptize the child against the expressed wishes of the parents is problematic. It is akin to the (hopefully now abandoned) practice of Catholic nuns at Catholic hospitals secretly baptizing Protestant newborns. The Church is not instructed by our Lord to baptize individuals against their wills or, in the case of minors, against the will of their parents. We must entrust the salvation of the nonbaptized to God. Surely God loves the nonbaptized infinitely more than we do. We may be bound to the sacraments, but the Father of Jesus is not.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Father David wrote:



baptism is the beginning of the journey - it is not the whole journey and it is not the end of the journey. What then do we make of the scripture concerning the one who has "put their hand to the plow" and then abandoned the task. Do we not endanger the spiritual condition of any person by imposing baptism (or any other sacrament for that matter) without some assurance of follow through?


Pastoral discernment I think needs to focus on whether the journey will be undertaken. But here a degree of hope comes into play. There are those who having been brought to the Church afterwards fall away. This happens more frequently in certain parts of the Church where there is an initial commitment from the parents, but then this is not followed up on.

The priest gradually adopts a 'rule' where he will only baptize a child whose parents begin coming to church. This is good for it shows some level of commitment. But then many of these parents cease coming to church once the child receives the Eucharist for the first few times.


What then are we to do pastorally in this situation where commitment is often tenuous? Such an environment after all is very common in certain parts of the Church. The priest needs to come to some sort of pattern of response.

Certainly we work in response to the commitment of the sponsors & parents. But I also would say that we work in hope of this precisely because each human life represents the possibility of that journey towards the Church even at some point in the future.

Thus in many environments within the Church today the most immediate question that the priest faces on the pastoral level is: if I open this door to someone approaching the Church will it become that good opportunity or will it become an opportunity for abuse and neglect? Since opportunity however is operative throughout a person's life: what is handled with neglect today may be related to in a better way at a future time. So- entry into the Church I believe represents not only the commitment of the time before us right now; it also if we open it for others is a kind of door of possibility to the future.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Olga]

This is very interesting. Are there any Orthodox jurisdictions that would recognize this as a valid baptism?

My understanding, Fr Alvin, is that it would only be considered as a valid baptism in extremis, as others have stated, such as for a baby or child in imminent danger of death, and where water is unavailable. One can imagine such situations (in past and present history) where a baby is born to, say, a refugee fleeing danger, on the road, and with no time or resources to find water.

I agree with the other posters, layman and clergy alike, who find the actions of the grandfather pastorally and canonically problematic. While his actions would be, to him, honourable and proper, it is easy to see that his actions and circumstances bear little resemblance to the genuine in extremis cases, past and present, where an "air baptism" could be considered more acceptable than no baptism at all.

[Father David Moser]

A bit more elaboration on the so called "air baptism". The description of this ritual looks less like a baptism and almost identical to the rite of Churching the infant. The newly baptised child, at the end of the baptism and chrismation is taken to the front of the Church, and the priest raises him/her up in the air before the royal gates and making the cross with the child says, "The infant N. is churched in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." If the child is a boy, he then takes him into the altar through the royal doors and touches him to the "horns" of the altar table (that is to the corners). Then comes back out the doors and places the child on the ambo and the Godparents come and retrieve the child. If it is a girl, she is not taken into the altar but is laid on the ambo for the Godparents to come and take her. In any case, this rite, which is appended to the baptism of an infant, seems to be what this "air baptism" describes, rather than the rite of baptism itself. Perhaps this idea of "air baptism" is in fact derived not from baptism but from the churching and reflects more the intent of "dedicating" a child to the service of the Church.

Fr David Moser

[Matthew Panchisin]

What is the meaning of the scripture from above?

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

I don't really feel able to speak to the specific situation Fr Michael has mentioned beyond what others have already said. However, on the question of baptisms that don't involve water: the Didache has always spelled out the normal practice of the Church, though it has slightly modified over time as Churches began to have their own buildings. That text's provision was: baptism should be made by immersion in 'living water' (that is, running water, as in a stream or river); where living water is not available, then by baptism in regular water; and where it is not physically possible to immerse, water can be poured. This has, as I say, always set the foundation for Orthodox practice -- though baptism in running water became less common as Churches moved inland and had their own buildings and fonts. Baptism by full immersion in water has always been the norm (preserving as it does the iconography of death, burial and resurrection), with baptism by pouring an economia where the norm is not otherwise possible.

However, there are some anecdotal texts from the early Church - mostly emanating from the deserts - where baptism with water was not possible at all. Here we have, for example, stories of baptism with sand (though not, so far as I am aware, ever with air). But as others have already noted, these were for cases of extreme urgency -- where risk of death was immanent and no possibility of baptism in the normal way was possible.

In the modern world, such situations (i.e. of immanent death combined with an inability to baptise in the normal way) are extremely rare, though they do exist. Water is readily available, as are priests, as are transportation (i.e. of a priest to the person) -- at least outside of what is sometimes today called the 'third world'. So the genuine occasions for 'emergency baptism' are rare; and when they do take place, the Church has an established practice of 'completing' them, as others have said, with chrismation, as soon as possible.

What I know (off hand) of no patristic evidence for, however, is the use of 'emergency' baptism to satisfy what is not in fact a danger of immanent death, but a dispute of parental will. An individual (e.g. a grandfather, friend) might whisk a child away from her parents to a priest and exclaim that the priest should baptise her without their consent on grounds that they are non-believers, etc. -- and it would then be upon the priest's charge and conscience as to how he replied to that request. But to pre-empt proper order by an individual performing an 'emergency baptism' on such grounds, and then presenting her to the priest demanding its completion in the Church, seems to me not only to be a matter of flawed theology of baptism, but also of right Church order and the grace of sacramental orders.

INXC, Dcn Matthew