muflax65ngodyewp.onion/content_blog/jesus/self-baptism.mkd

title	date	techne	episteme
Self-Baptism	2012-04-23	:done	:broken

Can you baptize yourself, if necessary? The answer is quite clearly yes, at least when no valid other baptizer is available.

The Argument

I don't wanna turn this into a round of Inerrantist "[To the Bible!][Batmobile]". Let's try an actual argument instead.

I will argue that none of the features of baptism need another person present, assuming none is available. A correct (but minimalistic) baptism proceeds as follows:

1. The baptizer intends to do the same as the Church does (i.e. to perform the ritual accurately, even though they might screw it up).
2. The recipient of the baptism desires to be baptised.
3. The recipient is repentant for their sins, denounces Satan and embraces God.
4. Water is poured over the recipient's head (or the recipient is submersed in water).
5. With the water still flowing / while submersed, the words are spoken: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Or some equivalent paraphrase.)
6. 4. and 5) are repeated two more times. (May be skipped if necessary.)
7. The recipient is now correctly baptized.

Steps 2), 3), 6) and 7) are obviously independent from a baptizer and are to be performed by the recipient themselves. I will only need to argue that 1), 4) and 5) can be performed by the recipient themselves, if necessary.

Of those, 4) and 5) do not seem to rely on the baptizer at all. In the case of a necessity (say if the priest is wounded and unable to move), surely anyone may handle the water, even the recipient themselves. As the water can be poured, the recipient also remains able to speak the words during the ritual. None of this necessitates a separate baptizer.

Finally, consider 1). Note right away the importance of the intention, not of credentials. In an emergency, anyone is capable of performing a valid baptism. The Catechism of the Church says so [explicitly][CCC baptism]:

In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

Furthermore, the purpose of baptism is the purification of the recipient, to wash away sin. This is a supernatural transformation caused by the Holy Spirit, not the baptizer. Therefore, even a Non-Christian can perform the baptism. This makes it clear that priests aren't special in some way. They don't possess some inherent unusual skill or gift, they themselves do not transform the recipient. Thus, they ought not to be necessary at all.

As additional support, consider the case of bootstrapping. Say you and a friend are stranded on an island. You're both still not baptized, but had intended to join the Church right after your disastrous journey. You do happen to have the Catechism with you, so your friend baptizes you, intended to "do what the Church does", speaks the right words and so on. Then you do the same to him. You are now both correctly baptized. It seems very implausible that your friend is of any causal relevance in this ritual, therefore this should also work when you are stranded alone.

Finally, consider the case of someone who has never heard of the Church or salvation, say a Chinese intellectual living in 400BCE. Salvation is universal, therefore even this person must be to receive God's grace. They obviously can't be baptized, so what are they supposed to do?

The Catechism says:

For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

This seems straightforward. The recipient's desire for salvation saves them, not the specific procedure. The ritual merely facilitates this process. Therefore, even if the self-baptism were invalid, it would still include a repentance for sins, an acceptance of the Triune God, and the intention to receive salvation and perform a correct baptism. Worst case, they are saved anyway.

The Purpose of the Argument

Alright, so they can perform something as good as normal baptism, so why not do both? When necessary, baptize yourself, then seek out a priest asap?

This [Pascalian][Pascal's Wager] argument fails because baptism is unique. It is inherently an unrepeatable ritual and causes a permanent change. Therefore, you can't baptize someone again. So if your self-baptism was invalid, you could just perform a correct baptism afterwards. But if it wasn't, then the "second" baptism would be an impure ritual, itself unacceptable.

One solution to this is the [conditional baptism][]. Instead of speaking the normal words, the baptizer says: "If you are not yet baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Alright, so you can pull off Pascal's Baptism - simply always use the conditional form. There's one problem with this, though. Using the conditional baptism explicitly states that the baptizer doubts the validity of the formal ritual(s).

This clearly violates step 1). You can't simultaneously intend to perform correctly and doubt you intended to perform correctly. Similarly, if you are baptized by someone else and you later perform a conditional baptism, you are doubting them as well. There are circumstances where this may be justified (if you underwent emergency baptism by a Non-Christian, for example, or a heretic church), but those are unusual.

This is therefore a standard game-theoretical problem. Under normal circumstances, you can only perform a baptism if you intend to do it correctly, but a conditional baptism contradicts this intention.

The Relevance of the Argument

Does this matter? After all, we are not stranded (I hope). We have access to the Church, we can get baptized the normal way just fine. Why care if self-baptism is valid?

Consider two things. First, the Church may not be valid itself. It could have been corrupted by Satan, for example. Deception is clearly possible, just think of the Cartesian Demon. Furthermore, the Church has undergone several major transformation, like the Council of Trent or Second Vatican Council. Any of those could have made the sacraments invalid by leading the intentions of the priesthood away from the Will of God (and the Communion of Saints).

If you do not trust the existent Church, then you can't receive baptism from them (as you can't be baptized "just to be sure").

But second, knowing what I just told you, you can't default to the position of the Chinese philosopher anymore. You are not ignorant any longer, you know about baptism and the Triune God, and you are not hindered from performing the ritual. Mere desire will not save you.

• If you self-baptize, you will explicitly affirm that the Church in its present state is unable to perform the sacraments.
• If you do rely on the Church, you will not be saved in case it truly is corrupt.
• If the Church is corrupt, is it so corrupt that it contradicts the expressed and potentially sincere intention? Does the baptizing priest still refer to the same thing?
• You can't do both baptisms as this contradicts the intentions of at least one of the two.
• You can't do neither or you won't be saved at all.

So what do you do?

(Behold, a moral basilisk. Do not be turned off by the Catholic framing - consider its general form, and the fundamental problem how knowing the right thing to do can force you to solve even harder problems. Also note that a solution [exists][Rigid Designator]. All basilisks can be slain.)