Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.

Update 50 pages 2-3.

Can baptism be refused?

John Hartley, editor
 

Tucked away towards the bottom of the recent “Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships” from the House of Bishops of the Church of England, is a rather annoying little paragraph which misleads the reader on the legalities of infant baptism.

Paragraph 25 says:

“In relation to infant baptism, Canon B 22.4 makes it clear that, while baptism can be delayed for the purposes of instruction (including on marriage and the family), it cannot be refused. The responsibility for taking vows on behalf of the infant rests with the parents and godparents. Provided there is a willingness, following a period of instruction to give those vows, priests cannot refuse to baptise simply because those caring for the infant are not, in their view, living in accordance with the Church's teaching."

Canon B 22.4 actually says:

“No minister shall refuse or, save for the purpose of preparing or instructing the parents or guardians or godparents, delay to baptise any infant within his cure that is brought to the church to be baptised, provided that due notice has been given and the provisions relating to godparents in these Canons are observed."

Canon B 23 sets out who can be a godparent, and it’s quite exacting. Canon B 23.1 says there must be at least two of the same sex as the child and one of the other sex. Canon B 23.2 states that they must be people who will faithfully fulfil their responsibilities both by their care for the children committed to their charge, and the example of their own godly living. And Canon B 23.4 insists that they be baptised and confirmed, although the minister has the power to dispense with the requirement of confirmation.

This basically means that the family have to find at least three people (two of the same sex and one of the other) who have a real involvement in caring for the children (they aren’t just distant acquaintances or nominal ‘uncles’ provided by the church) and are themselves committed Christians (notice it says not just that they believe in their hearts but also that their faith can be seen by the example of their lives). And notice that this requirement isn’t optional: the Canons do say when the minister has the power to dispense with a requirement (namely, in the requirement for confirmation), and it therefore logically follows that the minister has no power to dispense with the godparents fulfilling the other criteria.

In addition to all the above, there's a further point that ought to be made. Colin Buchanan's book "Infant Baptism in the Church of England" (Grove Books 1992) points out that there's a question of what counts as "preparing or instructing the parents or guardians or godparents"? If it just means the vicar has to have told them something, then it would just use the word "instructed". It also means that they have to receive the preparation. In the book (p5) Colin says:

“As the rites of infant baptism require the child to be brought up within the worshipping life of the church ... it is wholly consistent with the Canons to expect the parents ... to be regular worshippers, and preparation should be directed towards that end, and may properly be viewed as incomplete until the parents come to faith and take their place in the life of the church."

Colin had the book checked by "an eminent ecclesiastical lawyer", who said that the paragraph above was a valid understanding of what the Canon meant.

So the blanket principle that infant baptism “cannot be refused” is wrong - it’s not a correct summary of Canon law.

At General Synod I submitted a question asking why the statement said baptism couldn’t be refused whereas actually it could? And sure enough, the Bishop of Norwich replied that the statement’s intention had been to make it clear that the parents’ lifestyle isn’t a grounds for refusal in law. He went on to say:

“A minister can refuse to admit godparents who aren’t living a godly life (in which case suitable alternative godparents must be chosen), but he cannot refuse absolutely to baptise an infant. ... Where ministers believe there is a difficulty over the choice of godparents they should discuss the particular circumstances with their bishop.”

But as for the rest of his answer - isn’t it an admission that if the parents insist on having Uncle Fred, an out-and-out heathen, and they won’t back down, then the vicar not only may refuse, but must refuse?

Go to the index of other articles to do with Baptismal Integrity.
Go to John's Brinkster Home Page.

This web page was last updated on 22nd January 2006.