Question Two. Whether he who Receives Baptism Knowingly from a Bad Minister Sins Mortally

33. Proceeding thus to the second question [n.7], and the argument is made that he who receives baptism knowingly from a bad minister sins mortally because, according to Ambrose On Initiating the Uneducated [in fact Alger von Luttichs, On the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of the Lord, III ch.13] “What they do and for whom they do it profits nothing, but is for judgment;” he is speaking of bad baptizers and those who receive baptism from them.

34. Again, he who cooperates with someone in committing mortal sin sins mortally, because this is against brotherly charity; but he who receives baptism from someone bad cooperates with him in the act of baptizing, wherein he sins mortally;     therefore etc     .

35. Again, let it be that a minister wants to commit the malice of simony in conferring baptism (that is, he refuses to baptize save for money), someone could not receive baptism from him unless he committed simony, because if the seller is a simonist so is the buyer; therefore at least in this case the one who receives baptism from a bad minister sins mortally

36. To the opposite:

Gratian, Decretum p.3, On Consecration, d.4 ch.23 [in Lombard’s text], “The Roman Pontiff does not give heed to the man who baptizes but to God, even if it is a pagan who is baptizing.”

37. Again, Augustine On John tr.5 n.11 (and Gratian, Decretum p. 2 cause 1 q.1), “Let not the dove shrink from the ministry of evil men; let the Lord have regard to the power. What does a bad minister do to you where the Lord is good? How does a malicious court announcer impede you if the judge is kind? John the Baptist taught this through the dove” [e.g. John 1.32].

I. To the Question

38. Here a distinction is made [Richard of Middleton, Peter of Tarentaise] about a bad minister: either he is in schism from the Church totally or for a time, or he is not in schism but is permitted.

39. But let us see about the members of this distinction in order.

A. About Reception of Baptism from a Minister in Schism from the Church

40. About the first there are two opposite ways of speaking.

1. First Way: about the Obligation to Receive Baptism

41. One way is that one is bound to receive baptism from such a minister if another minister cannot be had, because baptism is a sacrament of necessity.

2. Second Way: about Refusal to Receive Baptism from Such a Minister

42. Another way is that one is bound not to receive from him, and that by receiving one sins mortally.

43. And the clarification of this is that the one needing to be baptized is either an adult or a child.

If an adult, the baptism of desire is sufficient for him when he cannot have the baptism of water; in the matter at hand, he does not have a minister because he is prohibited from communicating with one who is in schism, and especially in sacramental acts; therefore, he will be saved by baptism of desire in not receiving baptism from him, because he is in a situation where he cannot have a minister; and if he were to receive baptism from him he would be communicating with him contrary to the prohibition of the Church in acts that have been prohibited most of all.

44. But if the one to be baptized is a child, he who has the child may baptize him if he cannot get another more suitable who is not in schism [Gratian, Decretum p.2 cause 30 ch.7]; because, as before [n.43], it is not licit for him on behalf of the child to communicate with someone in schism. And if it be posited that he who has the child is infirm and does not have anyone in the region who is not in schism, one should consequently say that in no way must there be communication in such an act with someone in schism, because not even in that case should he offer his child for being baptized to someone in schism.

3. The Second Way is Rejected

45. Against this [nn.42-44]:

The precept of a superior obligates more than the percept of an inferior (from the authority of Augustine, cited before [n.37]). But God commands baptism to be received, the Church forbids communicating with him whom she cuts off; therefore, the precept of God is more to be obeyed in this case than the precept of the Church.

46. Again, someone excommunicated is more bound to avoid others than others are to avoid him, because this precept about avoidance is not imposed on anyone save for his own sake; but someone in schism or excommunicated is not bound in this case to avoid others, indeed he is bound not to avoid them; for if someone thus in schism knew that some non-baptized child was presently going to die, he would necessarily be bound to baptize him, and so bound not to avoid others in a case of baptizing. My proof of this is that if he were to find the child exposed to danger of bodily life because of famine, he would necessarily be bound to feed him to save his bodily life; but he is more bound to love his spiritual life; therefore when a child is exposed to danger of spiritual life, he is bound to confer on him the remedy necessary for spiritual life; therefore much more are others not bound to avoid him as to communicating with him in such act.

47. And hereby appears the answer to the reason for the second way of speaking [n.43], which proceeds from the precept of the Church: for the prohibition is universally understood to be when a greater precept does not oblige to the contrary; but the precept of a law of nature and a Gospel precept is greater than a percept of the Church only. When therefore a precept of the law of nature thus obliges one to save the bodily life of one’s neighbor, and much more to save his spiritual life, and there is a divine precept about conferring and receiving baptism, the precept of the superior is more to be obeyed than is someone to be avoided in these acts because of a precept of the Church shunning him; for no judge or legislator in the Church would understand that her precept needed to be kept in a case where it would go against a precept of the law of nature and of God.

4. An Intermediate Opinion

48. So it is possible, as to this article, to hold an intermediate opinion as concerns an adult, that it is licit for an adult to receive baptism from someone in schism if another minister cannot be had.

49. And this seems to be held by Augustine, On Baptism against the Donatists VI ch.5 n.7 (fairly quickly after the beginning): “However someone separated [from the Church] can bestow baptism, just as he can have baptism, but ruinously bestow it; but he to whom he bestows it can receive it in a sound way, if he who receives it is not separated; just as to many it has happened that, with a Catholic mind and heart not alien to the unity of peace, they have, by some necessity of approaching death, come to some heretic and have received the baptism of Christ from him, without his perversity; and, whether deceased or set free, they would never remain with them [sc. heretics] to whom they had never in their heart passed over.”

50. An adult is also able perhaps not to receive [baptism from a heretic], because the baptism of desire would suffice for him if, because of reverence for the Church, he were to avoid such a heretic. However, all things considered, it seems better that he receive from such a person than that he depart from life without baptism.

51. But as to a child, if no one but someone in schism can be had to baptize him, and danger threatens, because it would not be possible to wait to get a suitable minister, he who has the child [n.44] is necessarily bound to offer his child to someone in schism. For it would be too hard to say that he would be bound to permit his child to be perpetually damned although he could have someone to baptize him, and although the child would be saved whoever was the baptizer, even it be a pagan doing the baptizing, according to Gratian, Decretum p.3 [n.36].

B. About Receiving Baptism from a Bad Minister not in Schism from the Church

52. As to the second member of the distinction [n.38], namely about a bad minister not in schism from the Church:

If he is secretly bad, so that his life is not scandalous to the people, it is conceded that someone could receive baptism from such a minister, indeed should do so - provided otherwise he should, because one should not avoid a neighbor in acts that are well known on account of a sin that is not well known.

53. But if the minister is publicly or notoriously bad, as a public fornicator or the like, then either it is incumbent on him by his office to dispense the sacrament of baptism (as that he is a parish priest or curate), or it is not incumbent on him but would fit him by reason of his office, as that he is a priest called to assist a parish curate.

54. If in the first way, he who receives baptism for himself or for his child does not sin, because he who seeks and receives from someone bad what is owed does not sin; and the curate is debtor to his parish in administering the sacraments.

55. If in the second way - if it be possible to get another on whom it is incumbent by his office to baptize, either he gets someone equally bad or someone better. If can get a better, then he sins who receives baptism from the other, on whom it is not incumbent to administer the sacraments to him; also if [the one he gets] is someone equally bad, he ought to receive baptism from his own minister. But if no other curate or priest can be got save someone equally bad as his own minister, but some good layman can be got, it is doubtful who should be preferred to whom in this act, whether a good layman to a publicly bad priest, or a priest thus bad to a good layman. And in brief, because the office of ministering sacraments in the Church does in this way belong to priests, it seems one should say that, as to this act, a bad priest is rather to be chosen.

II. To the Initial Arguments

56. As to the first argument [n.33], the authority from Ambrose needs expounding, the way it was expounded in the other preceding question [n.25], for he means to speak about one who receives [baptism] outside the Church so as to become a disciple of the baptizer.

57. As to the second [n.34] I say that he who seeks baptism from a bad priest is not cooperating with him directly in mortal sin, for he seeks from him a due act; and in this he is not at fault, because no one’s malice excuses him from paying a debt by which he is bound to another. The requested act could also be paid for without sin, if the baptizer were to confess. Hence as to what comes fro the act of the requester, the requester necessitates the priest to do penance rather than to an act of sin. But if the priest do not repent, nothing is to be imputed to the one who requests the act, because he does not request it insofar as it is a sin but insofar as it is due.

58. To the third [n.35] I say that if he in no way wish to baptize unless he receive payment for the act of baptizing, and if thus he were to become a perfect simonist (because selling the sacrament), in no way is baptism to be received from him: not for an adult, because an adult would sin mortally and he is not obliged to receive the sacrament when he cannot receive it without mortal sin; and not for his child, even though it be that there were no one in the province who would want to baptize him.

59. And if you argue that then the adult exposes his child to the danger of damnation, I reply: let him do the baptizing himself if he be able, namely if he is not infirm or mute or hoarse; or if in the baptizing of his child he cannot get anyone save by buying baptism, he must let his child die without baptism, because “evils” are not to be done “so that good may come,” Romans 3.8, and everyone ought to love himself more than his neighbor [cf. Ord. III d.29 nn.5-6], and consequently ought to avoid mortal sin in himself than damnation in another.

60. However this case would with difficulty, or never, so happen that it would be impossible to get baptism without simony being committed on the part of the one to be baptized, or on the part of the one offering the child to be baptized. For if the priest were willing to sell his water and would in no other way permit it, the water can be bought, even supposing it be consecrated water, but without in any way having on eye on buying or selling the consecration, because consecrated water is worth as much as unconsecrated water is. For in this way it is licit to sell a consecrated chalice, because in no way does one have an eye on buying or selling the consecration. Also if the priest insist on selling the act of baptizing, the one offering the child can buy it, not by intending the act insofar as it is sacramental, but the labor of the priest in the act -just as now priests are hired to celebrate masses, not in order that they themselves sell and others buy the act of celebration insofar as it is sacramental (which God forbid); but they themselves sell their labor and others buy it, because everyone has to make a living in some way or other from his labor.a

a.a [Interpolated text] Hence a priest can in this way sell consecrated water but not, because it is consecrated, more dearly. But if he altogether wants to sell it more dearly because consecrated, he is to be committed to the devil, and the child is to be restored [to the parent] and, if no one else suitable is available, he is to be baptized by the father with confident trust.